The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-13 00:00:00

' a tax to the same amount. Now it certainly could not be ex-
r pected that there would be a surplus revenue equal to
: a million and a half. And as to the second course,
would not Members opposite be the first to resist the im-
position of a tax before the deficiency was aseertained?---
( A cry of " No, no," from the Opposition.) Well, would
they propose a tax of a million and a half ?—(Loud ironi-
cal cheers from the same quarter, and hear, bear, from the
Ministerial side.) If they told him that no Ministers were
at liberty to propose this reduction, without imposing a
tax; then he would ask them, one and all, whether they
would support a tax as a guarantee? That, be was sure
they, as men of sense, would riot do. The question of
poStponing the subject was a convenient way of saying
to the public, we do not choose to hazard our popularity
by opposing this measure.—( Hear, hear.) His Right
Han. Friend had complained of the manner in which he
had brought the subject forward. Now, what was the
course he had pursued ? Why, he had determined not to
bring the matter before the House until he had put it in
possession of what the real financial state of the country
was. In reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman, he was sub-
ject to great disadvantage, because lie must either answer
by anticipation objects urged from ether quarters, or he
must allude to a former discipline. If the question
was one of mere reduction of duty on letters there
could be no doubt, looking at the petitions that had
been presented, and the feeling that existed on the sub-
ject, that it would be fully justified. Who could doubt the
benefit of the reduction—who could doubt that it would
confer a great bson upon the whole population ?—( Hear,
hear ) In ordinary questions of taxation, to the philoso-
pher the benefit might be apparent, but it would not be
generally felt; but in repealing the tax upon letters, there
was scarcely an individual in the whole of the community
that would not feel the benefit of it. It was not a ques-
tion of reasoning, but it was a question of demonstration.
The party who could not write a letter previously, had the
inducement to do so now. In bringing the question forward,
he had not disguised from Hon. Members that it was
not a question of the reduction of a tax, but that the ques-
tion was making provision for an income they were about
to lose. But he had been charged with having been a
guest of popularity ; if he had been, he might have told
the public that the reduction of the postage would add not
only to their pleasure, but to the revenue, although he
knew that it would do no such thing. He had never said
any thing to discourage the promoters of the measure, but
he had always maintained that it would cause a great
sacrifice of the public revenue ; and that unless the House
of Commons were prepared to guarantee that sacrifice,
Government would not be warranted in proposing its
adoption. It was therefore too bad for the Right Hon.
Genii: man now to tax him with seeking popularity by bring-
ing forward a poptklar measure. He had no doubt that the
proposed measure would entail a considerable loss of in.
come ; and there could be no doubt it was the duty of the
House to guarantee the amount ; but if that guarantee was
a guarantee that would be forborne, then the arguments
of the Right Hon. Gentleman were good for nothing,
because public faith would not then be endangered.
At the same time he must say that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's argument made the danger greater than it was.
Taking the Post-office revenue from 1836 to 1838, he
found it was an invariably increasing revenue. The gross
revenue in 1834 was 2,079,0(0/., while in 1838 it was
2,212,0001. How had it been increased? Precisely in
these branches in which the largest diminution in the
postage had been made.—(Hear, hear.) That he thought
was an argument in favour of the guarantee which he re.
quired, as it showed that instead of sustaining a loss there
was such an elasticity in the revenue that it would make up
the deficiency. He would take the foreign and ship let-
ters, in which a large reduction of postage had been made.
The amount received for ship letters had increased from
88,000!. to 103,0001., being the largest increase that had
taken place in any department of the Post-office, and if he
took the number of le*ters, he found that from 1833 to
1837 the particular class of letters bad increased from
42,0001. to 167,000/., being an augmentation of four times
the number consequent upon a reduction infinitely less
than was comprehended in the present proposition. The
Right Hon. Gentleman said he had conferred with various
persons in the paper trade, who had said that they would be
severely injured by the proposition ; that they locked with
apprehension at the course Parliament was likely to take if
it was intended to use stamped covers, and use paper of a
particular description. He did not think these apprehen•
sions well founded, but he would ask where had these
great interests lived that they bad never heard of the
matter before? What papers had they read—with whom
had they talked ? Had they not heard of the Postage
Committee, and of the proposition that was to be made to
the House? They bad slept almost to the twelfai hour, and
had now roused themselves, and when the Right Hon.
Gentleman proposed to them to wait upon the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, it was said to have been received with
a shout of disdain.—(Mr. Goulburn —" It was the plan
I alluded to.") What were the powers he asked
for ? Not irresponsible and irretrievable powers—
( Hear, hear, hear)—but merely power to deal with the
question between that and the next Session, and leaving
to Parliament the full power of then re. coasidering it. He
had been asked why he had not manfully resisted the pro-
position at once, in the present state of the revenue, as
the Noble Lord ( Spencer), and the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, had done the proposition for
the repeal of the malt tax ? The questions were entirely
different —( Hear, hear.) The repeal of the malt tax
was an absolute loss of revenue, which was not accompa-
nied by any proposition to make good the deficiency. It
was much more sweeping, because certainly much more
prejudicial to the public interests. He did not believe
that the Hhuso of Commons would disregard its resolu-
tion, if it were once acceded to—he did not place so little
reliance upon its honour, as the Right lion. Gentleman
would seem to do, and he was quite confident it would, when
called upon redeem its pleds‘e. The very same pledge
had been given by the honest petitioners who had addressed
the House, and he would merely add, that if they threw
over the pledge, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
would throw over the resolution, and he would take upon
himself all the unpopularity, and he knew it would be very
great, of the rejection of the measure. lie should rather
do than allow any misconception to remain as to the in-
tentions of the Government or the Minister.

Sir R. PEEL said it was extremely inconvenient to be
called on to discuss the question at that late hour of the
night. He denied that the arguments he had used on a
former occasion were in any way ineonsivent with the
amendment of his Right Hon. Friend. His great and in.
superable objection to the proposition was, that there was
a deficiency of nearly one million in the revenue ; that at
that period of the Session its details could not be properly
considered, and that the probable deficiency was not pro-
vided for. He had no objection to the principle of the
measure. He denied that the paper-makers had been in-
attentive to the progress of the Right Hon. Gent.'s plan.
They had found a deficiency in the public revenue, and her
Majesty's Government had voted against the proposition.
Ile found that when the Committee divided on the pro-
position, the numbers were, Ayes 4, Noes 4 ; but among
ti e Noes were two Lords of the Treasury, and the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade. And why should they there-
fore charge the paper-makers with indifference or igno-
rance, if they took it for granted that the Government would
not propose what they had before rejected. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had said ant he had merely asked for
discretionary power to the next Session of Parliament,
and not beyond, but the words of the resolution were, that it
is expedient to reduce the rate of the postage to a uniform
rate of one penny. This was not a resolution conferring
temporary authority on the Treasury, but it was decisive
of the whole plan.—(Loud cheering.) If the Right
Hon. Gentleman only intended to try the experiment,
and to make a temporary arrangement until next Ses-
sion, why not dfer the whole matter until that period,
when be would be enabled to mature a plan to bring it for-
ward on his own responsibility, and then he could ask the
House of Commons not to consent to a temporary expe-
dient, but to come to a permanent decision ?—( Hear, hear. )
It was perfectly true that he felt the course proposed was
so fatal and objectionable cs a precedent that he felt bound
to protest Against it. His great objection to it was as a
precedent to future Governments. For the first time,
with an admitted deficiency in the public revenue of one
million, they were about to place to hazard a revenue of
1 500,0001. They bad had a deficiency in the revenue in
1837 and 1838, and expected an increased" deficiency in 1839,
a .d yet they were going to hazard a revenue of 1,500,0001.
l'he Right Hon. Gentleman said that this was a measure
of grave and extraordinary importance ; might not the re-
peal of any other tax be proposed on the same ground—the
Government to propose the reduction of the tax, and Par-
liament to pledge itself to make good any deficiency that
might occur ? This was the course pursued by the first
Legislative Assemblies of France; they repealed any unpo-
pular tax and placed the public revenue under the safeguard
of the national honour. The same argument might be ap-
plied next year to the window tax or to the soap tax. It
might be argued next year that the soap tax affected the
morality or the cleanliness of the lower orders, and there-
fore the soap tax ti.ust be repealed, and Parliament called
upon to pledge itself to make good the deficiency. This
reasoning would apply as a precedent in every future case.
Hitherto men of all parties had cancurred in the necessity
of maintaining inviolate the obligation of the public faith,
and wLen in 1832 Lord Althorp had been beaten on the
malt tax, he had applied to him:( Sir R. Peel) to ask if
he would support him in moving the rescinding of that
resolution ; he answered he would cordially support him, as
it was not fitting that this first example should be set while
there was a deficiency in the revenue. Why should not
the same principle apply to the Post-office duty as to the
malt tax. He was sorry to see that principle about
to bo departed from. Lord Althorp had stated he
would resign if he could not rescind that resolution,
and he had succeeded in resciading it, and the same
success would have attended the present Government if
they had followed his example. He had heard some sneers
as to what a succeeding Government might do—what
had a preceding one done ? lie had,:altbough the edi e
enee of his own Government was at stake, opoose
repeal of the malt tax, and by the
d es
assistance f Hon.
Gentlemen opposite he lead maintained the public faith
inviolate by a triumphant majority. T
would apply to a repeal of the
post .
intercourse, and
horsy,h e same arguments
or of stage-
coach duties, which facilitate commercial of labour and
be of great advantage in the interchangeav
in this instance, Rahcommoiti ; and if they gave w_
should not next Session a repeal of those duties be pro
posed, trusting to Parliament to makehit the
good
e
the
Noble
deficiency?
The volume before him stated t Lord had
said, that the proposition of the Hon. Mendel. for Lin-
colnshire, to commence the year with a deficit of one
million, was one which no Minister. of a great nation ought
to act upon—no House of tommons to receive. The
propcxW
• •on, adopted, would deprive the country of re •
seeet at home, of reputation abroad, and would soon
have the effect of removing her from that noble situation
she bad hitherto hell amongst the nations of the world.—
( Cheers.) Again, the Noble Lord asked, was "it a
time, when we had a deficiency of one million, to propose
to increase that deficiency by another?" Again, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said, " that according to the
view of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, they had saved
all they could they had saved throe millions, and they de-
sired to save more. However, before he remitted more taxa-
tion the substitute should be provided. "—(Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to remember that doctrine
to-night. He sai I, " If you propose a tax of 1,500,000/.
I'll support yeti." But why not propose it himself?—