The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-11 00:00:00

Ting SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY

which merely implied that the House agreed to the
income. tax this year in its present form, reserving to
itself to determine whether it should be continued in the
same or some other fouls, or whether somo ot'eer tax
should be subs'i:utcd for it. No human being could
pretend that the present budget of Ministers was a com-
prehensive scheme of finance. It provided for an as-
certained deficit of three millions and upwards, and con-
sequently could only be regarded as a temporary expe-
. dient till Ministers or Parliament were able to determine
what ought to be done. It ought to be treated as a
make-shift for the present; therefore the motion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose proposed to adjourn the
consideration of the budget, granting the necessary
'supplies in the `meantime, till the present Ministers, or
their successors, were prepared with a statesmanlike
scheme of finance, founded upon a revision of taxation
and expenditure, with the view of equalising the one and
diminishing the other.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. MILES said that the question before the
House appeared to him to be whether the state and si-
tuation of the country vas such as to justify the propo-
sition of the Government; and upon this he came to a
different conclusion from the Hun. Baronet who had
just spoken; for he thought that the Government were
right in asking what was necessary to meet the exigen-
cies of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that
the increase which had taken place in their establish-
runts would add to the stability of their situation, and
.contribute to the maintenance of peace. He thought
that in revising their taxation they should look for the
Ordinary revenue from duties upon imports; but at the
same time, seeing that the system of free trade had not
had a fair trial as yet, he did not think it would be
Proper to draw any ieference as to whether the policy
pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamvvorth was right or not. He (Mr. Miles) had not
altered his opinions with respect to that policy; and he
merely affirmed that it had not bad a fair trial. The Hon
Member for Westbury had said that their exports to
America had greatly increased in consequence of that
policy. The corn which they imported from the United
States cost 11,600,0001.; but he should like to know how
much was paid fur in manufactured goods, and how much
Irma paid in gold. He believed that a large portion of
it had been paid for in gold. There was a decrease in
the exports of cotton and cotton twists to the amount of
4,300,000/. ; so that the hopes entertained of the advan-
tages from free trade has not as yet been realised. He
had voted for ale income-tax in 1842, and, as the cir
cumstances which induced him to do so then were of
still greater force in the present year, he felt bound to
support the proposition of the Government. He saw no
single article on which there would be a prospect of
obtaining the requisite amount ; and, as ho saw no
possibility of the income equalling the expenditure
4ariag the next year or the year after, he could not
hesitate in gieing his support to her Majesty's Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON would not enter into a discus-
sion of the merits of different taxes; but he was con-
educed that the income-tax was unequal, and might be
Made more just than it was at present.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the question whether they would grant
the tax for a year or three years, the excellent speech
of the Hon. Member for Westbury had such an effect
upon his mind, that he came to the conclusion of voting
With the Government. He was convinced that, impose
the income- tax. as they would, its pressure would fall en
the industrious classes.—(Hear, hear.) He was, there-
fore, in favour of a reduction of expenditure. Ho did
hot think that the Government would be induced to in-
crease their expenditure by voting the tax for
three years, because the country was determined
that there should be a reduction in that respect. There
had been a culpable neglect both in the country and
in that House respecting the expenditure of late years.
Since 1837 there were 13 divisions in Committee of
Supply. On 15 of these he had voted iu the minority
fur a reduction of the army, navy, and ordnance esti-
mates. Upon an average the minority during those
years did not amount to 16 out of 658 Members.—(Hear,
hear.) It had been said that the best way to ensure
Peace was to be prepared for war; but he found that,
since 1815, they had paid 600,000,0001. as a policy of
insurance for peace. Since 1828 the army, navy, and
ordnance estimates had cost the country 350,000,000/.
He thought that there was here great room for retrench-
ment, and that, by reducing their establishments, other
nations would be induced to do the same. He believed
there was no occasion for large standing armies, and if
the nations on the continent kept them on foot, it was
because they were afraid of their own subjects, and not
for the purpose of invading other nations. It was now
blear that public opinion was stronger than armies.—
(Hear, hear.) He would therefore always vote for a rigid
economy.
Mr. CARDWELL wished very briefly to explain the
reasons which induced him to support the proposition of
the Government upon this occasion. Those reasons
Were based on two considerations: one, the duty he owed
to the great mercantile community he had the honour
to represent ; the other arising from a sense of what
was due to the credit and security of this great coun-
try. He knew how much the pressure of the income-tax,
Which was imposed in a period of prosperity, was ag-
gravated by its imposition in this period of unprecedented
depression ; but, looking to the financial condition of
the country, and to the exigencies of the imperial
exchequer, and considering how much the revival of
trade depended on the state of the treasury, he found
it impossible to withhold his support from the
Government.--(Hear, hear.) He would reject the
Past year altogether from consideration, and consider
the financial position in which they stood at present.
If he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
statement, he would not have on hand, on the sth of
April next, a larger sum than between 6,000,0001, and
7,000,0001., whereas, to carry him through the quarter, he
ought to have about 9,000,0001., and he must therefore
depend on the Bank for assistance to the amount of
between two and three millions. They had before them
also the estimates for the coming year, and they had no
reason to expect that the deficiency would be less than
two millions. Therefore, by the sth of April, 1849,
between four and five millions of money would be
Wanted. With regard to the expenditure, he thought
that a great deal might be done for the depressed ener-
gies of the country by a reduction in that respect.—
(Hear, hear.) Could any person suppose, however, that
this expenditure could bo reduced in an instant, so that
it could have effect before the sth of April, 1849? Part
of the expenditure had been already incurred, and they
Were left no option in the matter. With regard to the
great works of fortification and the works in their naval
arsenals, a great retrenchment might be expected when
they were completed. But taking the most favourable
'view, and hoping the best for a revival of trade and a
good harvest, the most sanguine could not but feel that by
the sth of April, 1849, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer must ask for the assistance-of the Bank to the
amount of between four and five millions. Was that a
state of things which ought to be continued?—(hear.)
In justice to the commercial interests of the country,
Which always sympathised with the state of its finances,
Was it right that such a state of things should be allowed
to endure?—(Hear.) But it was said that they should
raise the income-tax in a more equal manner. The Hon.
Member for Westbury, in his powerful speech, made a
mistake in saying that no deduction was allowed for de-
preciation of machinery. He was as anxious as the
.Hon. Member for Coekermouth (Hr. Horsma,n) to avoid

all inequality, and obviate all injustice in the tax. But
the present law had this advantage, as was truly said by
the Noble Lord, that it did nut put in force that minute
system of inquisition which would be necessary if the
system of income-tax proposed by the Hon. Member
for Cockermouth were put in practice. That system
Was not free from objection, on the ground of ine•
quality. Take, for instance, the case of a person re-
ceiving an annuity of 1601. a year terminable with
life, such a person would have to pay Bd. in the
pound, whilst a gentleman receiving an enormous income
in Westminster Hall would have to pay only 4d. in
• the pound. A more monstrous injustice could not be
introtluced, and it was ono which was foreign to the law
as it stood at present. —(llear, hoar.) As far as his
experience enabled him to form an opinion, nothing was
80 much complained of as the inquisitorial nature of the
tax.—(Hear, hear.) But that would be greatly aggro-
- 'witted under the plan proposed by the lion. Member for
Cockermouth. Under the present law a person who
turned a capital of 100,0001. a year had but to make a
single return under schedule B. Part of this might be
borrowed money, fur which ho had give❑ security, but
the tax-gatherer asked him no questions, he took the 7d.
in the pound, and left him to deduct the corresponding
amount from his creditor. But under the plan of thee
Hon. Member for Cockermouth a single return would
not satisfy the tax gatherer. He must be shown all
the elements from which the capital wa4 drawn,
and the precise amount of income derived from
each portion. This would be an amount of in-
quisition to which he would venture to say the

.Commercial interests of this country would not long
submit.—(llear, hear.) He would vote for giving the
tax for three years instead of for one year, because there

Was no probability that the deficiency in the revenue
, would be made up in any of the two following years.
And if they voted it only for a single year, what was to
become of trade in the mean time?—(Hear, hear.)
they did not make due provision for the replenishment
of the treasury what would become of the confidence of
commerce? That commerce was built up on the confi-

dente which was reposed in their financial management,
and it was for this reason, amongst others, that this
Country formed a pillar for the whole commerce of the
earth. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn had said
that he would re-impose the duties:on those articles from
which they had been removed. Ho differed from the
Noble Lord in that policy, and the Hon. Member for
Somersetshire said, with a candour that did him honour,
that free trade had not had a fair trial. That was a reason
amongst others to induce him to vote for the tax for
three years. He knew this was not agreeable, but he
believed that the necessities of the country required it.

"Gratiora posse vobis dicere satis scio: vera pro gratis
loqui ii meum non moverit ingenium necessitas cogit."
• --(Cheers.) lie could not take upon himself the re-
sponsibility of voting for a motion that would seriously
affect the commercial interests of the country. And in
voting for the proposition of the Government he believed
• he would best discharge his duty to the country, and he
should at all events in cl, ing so have the approbation of
his own conscience.—(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI s.id that the Hon. Gentleman who
had just spoken had left out of consideration the last
Year—he best knew why—when the commercial and
trading interests of the country had been suffering from
a depression which had been unknown in former years.
The lion. Member for Westbury, in his very able
speech, made one or two observations which surprised
him- lie declared that the country had Leen enriched
twenty-fold by the remission of the duties which had
been eff,cted by the Right lion. Baronet the Member
for Taniwcrth. The return from the property and in-
come-tax up to the sth of April, 1846, was 5,600,0001.
The estimate of the return for 1848 is calculated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as 5,200,000/.; showing a
deficiency of 400,000/. Now if he multiplied that by 34,
as he bad a right to do, it represented a falling off in the

national income of 13,702,0001. He made that calcula-
tion according to the strictest rate of accounts, end
yet the Honoureble G: ritleman said the weel:li of
the country had increased treaty-fold.—(Hear, hear.)
The Member for Westbury had also called attention to
an increasing commerce with France. It' ho (Mr. Dis-
raeli) were a politico-econe mist, he certainly should not
cite our trade with France as a very favourable example
of a free trade system. Contrast our trade with France
with our colonial trade, and how inferior would it not
be found? Then the Honourable Gentleman had referred
to the national debt, which he declared to have been re-
duced twenty millions since the income-tax was enforced.
But the Honourable Member forgot that the income-tax
since 1842 had brought to the revenue nearly 33,003,000/,
and the China money amounting to 6,000,00e1. (Hear,
hear.) No wonder, indeed, that the national debt was
reduced.—(Loud cheers.) But, said the Honourable
Member, our trade is nothing so bad as the trade in
France. What said the French King at the opening of
the late Chambers? Certainly his Msjesty's speech any-
thing but bore out the II enourable Member's view. But
then the Honourable Member started a proposition that
all the taxes did and ought to come out of the industry
of the country. That was a position which he (Mr.
Disraeli) was prepared to deny. Taxation ought to
come from the productions of the foreigner, not from the
industry of our own people.—(Cheers.) Again, the
Hon. Member went on to say that the principles carried
out by the Ministers in 1845 were the principles that
Ministers advocated in 1842. On that point he (Mr.
Disraeli) was again at issue with the Member for West-
bury. Although the income-tax was brought forward on
principles which were not clearly defined, the tariff was
certainly propounded upon a principle that was particu-
larly, clearly, and expiicitly set forth. The destruction
of prohibition, and the reductioa of excessive duties,
were measures accompanied with a notification to the
House that the Government were in correspondence with
foreign Courts, and with great traders in foreign countries,
in order to secure some sort of reciprocity. But, in 1845,
nothing of this sort occurred. The policy of the present
Government was mimetic; the policy of the Government
of that day was not mimetic, it was Cobden's.—(Hear,
and cheers.) What were the circumstances? In the in-
terval between 1842 and 1845 a great confederation had
arisen; a confederation very powerfully organized, con-
ducted by very able men—men who concentrated all
their energies and knowledge on the work. That con-
federation propagated principles in commerce totally
different from the opinions of Sir R. Peel in 1842. Their
opinions were not the opinions of Mr. Pitt, or of Lord
Shelburne, upon the adoption of which Sir R. Peel had
prided himself in 1842. They were not the opinions of
free trade, which was a principle he (Mr. Disraeli) was
always prepared to support.—(Oh, oh, and a laugh.)
Yes: he was a free-trader, but he was not a free-boater.
—(Loud cheers.) The gentlemen opposite were free-
booters.—(Renewed cheers) They laid down as their
principle to " buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest
market." He denied that that was the principle of free
trade. The principle of free trade was barter.—
(Cheers.) Another of their principles was," Take care
of the imports and the exports will take care of them-
selves." That was another principle equally opposed, as
he (Mr. Disraeli) conceived, to free-trade principles.
But those were the principles the Right Hon. Baronet
adopted in 1845. (Loud cheers.) In the interval, the
Government, of which he was the head, had not pro-
duced a single treaty with a foreign power, as they had
promised to do in 1842.—(Renewed cheering.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—We failed in forming them.
Mr. DISRAELI received that acknowledgment.—
(Great cheering.) He believed it to be the fact.—(Re-
newed cheering.) It was in 1846, after the mischief
under the tariffs was clone, that the Right Hon. Baronet
consummated his policy. He then repealed the corn
law, thereby reducing the revenue seven millions more;
and immediately after doing so he quitted his office.—
(Great laughter and cheering.) In so retiring the
Right Honourable Baronet addressed his constituents in
extenuation of' his policy. He defended it by reference
to the state of the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli)
believed that a great fallacy pervaded that position.
Ho believed that the state of the revenue was no test of
the soundness of commercial policy.—(f-fear, hear.) He
believed the test of commercial policy was nothing else
than commercial prosperity.—(Great cheering.) He
remembered once asking the Member for Tainworth
if he was prepared to fight hostile tariffs by free im-
ports ; and to that question he had never received
a satisfactory reply. He begged to lay down
the proposition that the commerce of a country
having free ports with countries which opposed to it
hostile tariffs, would be diminished to the exact extent
of the hostile tariffs ; so that year after year the former
would have to give more and more of its labour in ex-
change for the goods of the latter, and, as a second con-
segue:rice, would, year after year, have to give more and
more of its labour for the same quantity of the precious
metals, until, unhimately, it got none at atl, and would
find its foreign commerce well nigh at a standstill. Even
in 1845 the Right Hon. Baronet told the House that he
had hepss of friendly treaties; that Prussia was shaken,
and that the United States were giving way. What
was the fact ? That the legislation of the Zollverein
had become more hostile to us than over, and that the
last message of the President of the United States
comforted the manufacturers of the States with the
assurance that their protection, though changed, was
only more efficient in their favour than before, for that
they now had an average eel valorem protection of not
less than 28 per cent. Then as to France, the Right
Hon. Baronet had told the House that the only obstacle
to a friendly treaty of trade with France was her com-
mercial and agricultural aristocracy •, that aristocracy
was now quelled. What prospect had we of a friendly
treaty at the bands of Louis Blanc, and the sovereign
people who now reigned at Paris ? The commercial
distress, and the financial embarrassment which pressed
so heavily upon;Eogland, were, in his opinion, to be
entirely ascribed to the noes system, and he was perfectly
convinced that if this system were not distinctly
abandoned, that embarrassment and distress would
become fatal. Look at the scene of the noble industry
which produced the staple manufacture of the country.
What was the condition of its population—what the
state of its trade ? The condition of its population
was such, that the business of a meeting of delegates at
Manchester the other day, resolved itself into the forma-
tion of a committee to consider the best means of emi-
gration for the surplus hands to the United States.—
(Hear, hear.) Another most significant document had
been put into his hand—an account of the number of
persons relieved in Manchester as paupers in the year
before last and the last year. In the :year ending
February, 1847, the number of persons so relieved was
48,000, the poor rates levied in Manchester amounting
to 19,2431.; in the year ending February, 1848, the
number of persons relieved was 149,504, and the
amount of poor rate, 45,0001.—(Hear, hear.) When he
spoke of the decrease in our exports, Hon. Gentlemen
opposite might say, as they said to the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth, that exports were no criterion
of prosperity ; but, at all events, the fact was that our
exports to the countries of the Old World had fallen off
—fallen off most considerably— fallen oft' to the extent of
not less than two and a half millions sterling.—(Hear,
hear.) True, there had been an increase of exports to
the United States, amounting in value to two millions;
but he was informed, on very geod authority, that as far
as the Lancashire exporters—and he believed the case
nearly general —were concerned, they had not received,
up to the present moment, more than 67 per cent. of
their outlay.—(Hear, hear.) Among other experiments,
the Right Hon. Baronet had tried his " prentiee hand "
at the sugar duties. With what effect to our trading
industry? In the eighteen months preceeding the
change in these duties (from Feb. 1845 to Aug. 1846),
we exported of the produce of our manufacturing
industry, to tho West Indies, Mauritius, Bombay,
Madras, and Calcutta, 5,797,000 L, leaving, after allow-
ing for the price of the cotton material, nearly
four millions sterling for wages and profits.
In the eighteen months following the change,
the exports to these places amounted only to
4,650,0001., leaving, for wages and profits, only
2,600,0001.—(Hear, hear.) What was the counteracting
advantage that had been held out to the manufacturing
classes of Lancashire? What had been the grand result
of the promised increase of exports to the sugar-growing
states? Why this: to Brazil, Porto ltico, and Cuba
there were exported in the first eighteen months
2,400,0001., leaving for wages and profits 1,700,000/. In
the latter 18 months the experts thither had attained the
tremendous increase of 2,800,0001., leaving for profits and
wages, at the higher price of cotton, 1,860,000/.—
(Hear, hear.) Comparing the advantages which had
been derived by the operatives of all classes from the re-
duction of the sugar duties with the absolute losses
which had been sustained by them, it would be foetid
that, supposing every hand employed consumed 23A-lbs.
of sugar, the amount gained by the reduction of the
sugar duties was 68,542/., whilst the loss incurred in
wages was 1,161,6951., so that in effect the operatives of
Lancashire had been robbed of upwards of 1,100,0001.
by the advantage of being able to consume cheap sugar.
—([fear.) In that excellent annual publication, en-
titled " Burn's Commercial Glance," it was stated
that during the last year the diminution in
the exportation of printed and plain cali-
coes to the sugar colonies of Great Britain amounted to
70,390,586 yards. And these were the results of the
commercial scheme of sugar duties acting upon the
British colonies. It had been asserted that the reason
why the export of manufactured roods was smaller
during the last years wae, that the supply of cotton was
very scant. He denied that there had been any very
serious falling off in the supply of raw cotton, nor did
the returns show any such result. He could not forget
that the crop of cetten was greater by 440,000 bags in
1847 than it was in 1840 and 1841. He would tell the
House what was the cause of the falling off in the export
of manufactured goods. That cause was to be found in
the fact that the recent alteration in sugar duties had
operated fatally against the cotton manufacturers, and
had,diminished the demand for their productions. In a
letter from New Orleans he found it stated that the re-
duction of the duties on foreign slave sugar had given
such a stimulus to the production of sugar, that slave-
labour was transferred from the cultivation of cotton to
that of sugar, and hence the futuro supply of
raw cotton would necessarily be greatly dimin-
ished.—(Hear, hear.) He had been asked if he
was prepared to re-impose the duty on the import
of raw cotton. To this he would reply, that if it
could be shown to biro that no English manufacturer
had derived any advantage from the abolition of the duty
he would be satisfied, and not seek to restore the duty;
but it was certain that no such result could be shown.
The prices of raw cotton might be quoted to bear out
the view which he took of the question; for whilst that
article was quoted at 4d. 4 16ths per lb., in the year
1845, before the duty was taken off, it was sold at 4d.
8-16tha per lb. on an average, after the tariff had been
altered by the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear. hear.) The
facts which he had cited bad induced him to draw a
conclusion that the free-traders were by no means un-
conscious of—namely, that during the whole time that
they were talking of free trade they were establishing a
monopoly. The talk was of free trade, bat the real

question between the cotton grower and the manucrte.•
turer, was who could hold out the longest. The protec- I
au:lists had always been taunted with the as astion that i
they had not proved their case ; but ho thought that he
had succeeded in effecting the obj fct.—(llear, and a
laugh.) lie had shown how the result of the Right
Hon. Baronet's commertial policy had been to occa-
sion the whole loss of the duties which he took off,
and the additional toes to the country of the income
tax.—(Cries of "hear, hear.") He had ;shoe n how in
respect to the sugar duties, the operatives had gain, d
68.0001., while they lost in wages 1,100,0001. He might
be told by the opposite side that the principles of free
trade had not had a fair trial. But ho asserted that the
doctrines of the !lon. Member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire had received every trial to which they were
entitled, and they had also received ample re:utation.
The view which he and his party took of the matter, was
that free trade had ruined commerce, and that the boon
of cheap auger had cost the manufacturing classes more
than ten times what they had gained by it. Was the
country to seek for its consolation under the present
financial proposition of the Government in the great
sugar measure of 1847, which the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had so reluctantly supported. He
would not go into the details of the tariff us the Right
Hon. Baronet had done. He thought he had sufficiently
shown the causes of the present disorder and distress
that prevailed at Manchester to have originated in the
new commercial scheme. Ho would not visit
on the Minister the consequences of the adverse cir-
cumstances of which they had been the victims—
(Loud laughter)—nor was he disposed to as-
cribe to the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) the moral consequences of the fatal error he had
committed.—(Continued laughter.) There they sat
(pointing to the opposite benches) who were responsible
for the present state of the commerce and manufacture
of the country.—(Laughter and cheers.) But, as it was
impossible to forsee what that party would do if it were
not checked in its career, he could only say that the Pr-
otectionists ought to be wide awake. The finances
showed a deficit of 8.000,0001., which was the exact
amount that the Right Hon. Baronet had deprived the
revenue of by his commercial policy. The great Minister
had talked of lightening the springs of industry—
(Cheers)—but the springs were broken, the machine
would no longer move.—(Hoar, hear.) The country
had been told that the distress arose from overtrading,
but if so, how was it that the Right Hon. Baronet had
recommended his commercial system, upou the ground
that it would give a renewed impetus to commerce, at
the same time that he accuses the manufacturers and
othets of overtrading.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Disraeli) did not consider that there had been any over-
trading. If there had been, who was the cause of it
but the great Minister who had lightened the springs
of industry?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Where was
that commerce which the free-traders had complained
was " cabined, crib'd, confined," and which the Right
Hon. Baronet had released? Where was it? Wander-
ing far away, and absent from its former haunts! The
whole of the mischief had been occasioned by a work
which he had no hesitation in saying was the greatest
effort of imagination that had ever been witnessed in
this country. He meant the evidence reported by the
Import Committee.—(Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), or the Noble Lord (J. Russell),
or the Manchester free-traders, would now at the present
moment come forward and frankly admit that they had
been wrong in their commercial policy, then he would
agree to the income-tax; but, persisting as they all three
did in being right, he could only say that, taking them
on their own representations, thiere was no necessity
whatever for granting any additional taxation. He took
the evidence reported by the Import Committee for his
guide, as the Right Hon. Baronet had declared that
report to be the basis of legislation. He had been told
that he had misrepresented the Hon. Member for Glas-
gow in having stated that his evidence before the Import
Committee was, that 100,000,000/. would be gained by the
abolition of the corn-laws. lie had since copied from the
report what the Hon. Member had stated in evidence,
and he would, with the permission of the House, read
the extract he had made. The Hon. Member then read
the extract, which was to the effect that Mr. Macgre-
gor's evidence expressed his conviction that the taxation
imposed upon the corn and provisions, and the prubibi
tions upon the import of food, was far greater—was, in
fact, more than double the whole amount of taxation
paid into the treasury.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member (Mr. Macgregor) had observed on a former
evening, solo voce, that he (Mr. Disraeli) had
misrepresented his evidence, by overstating the
amount at which he had estimated the duties
on corn and provisions ; but the extract which he
had just read would justify his former observation.
But the Hon. Member was not contented with being
examined f 'r five days, he treated the Committee with
a tariff of his own.—(Hear, hear.) In this tariff, which
was to save the country 100,000,000/. per annum, he
never touched the duties on tea or sugar, and on to-
bacco he raised the duty sixpence per pound. The
reason that he (Mr. Disraeli) singled out the Hon. Gen-
tleman was that he looked upon him as one of the prime
proposers of these measures, and as one of the most
voluminous statistical writers of the nineteenth cen-
tury.—(Laughter.) At a meeting which took place
during the lion. Member's canvass of the city of Glas-
gow one Mr. Adam Low relieved the tedium of the
proceedings by asking Mr. Macgregor whether he had
not prepared Sir Robert Peel's tariff ?—(Laughter.)
The abruptness and novelty of the question took the
meeting by surprise, and the Hon. Gentleman's an-
swer was as follows :—" If the Hon. Baronet had been
still in office, and I had still been Secretary of the
Board of Trade, no consideration on earth would have
induced me to answer the question—(Continued laughter)
--but as the Right Hon. Baronet Is not in power, and
as I come before this constituency as an independent
candidate, and have resigned my connexion with the
Board of Trado—(The Hon. Member was here inter-
rupted by " tremendous applause which lasted for several
minutes, and prevented the completion of the sen-
tence.") When silence was restored, the Hon. Member
said, " Sir Robert Peel being out of office, I hare no
hesitation in saying that I ha the honour of preparing
the whole of that tariff, schedules and all."—(Loud
laughter.) The Honourable Gentleman added, that in
this labour he had no assistant but his private secre-
tary, Mr. Lack.—(Continued laughter.) He (Mr. Dis-
raeli) must say that in the opposition he had given to
the Right Hon. Baronet's tariff he had not been aware
of how much of it was due to the labours of Mr. Lack.—
(Loud laughter.) He should apply to that gentleman
for a portion of the hundred millions to make up the
present deficiency.—(Hear, hear.) But he must alsc
remind the House of a name which had occurred fre
quently during the tariff debates, namely, that of the
late Mr. Deacon Hume. The Right Hon. Member for
Tamworth had frequently supported his tariff by quoting
the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume. Bat that gentleman
was more moderate than the lion. Member for Glasgow.
When he was asked, " Have you made a calculation of
how much the community loses by the prohibitive duties
and the monopoly of the landed proprietors," his answer
was, " Thirty-six millions per annum."—(Laughter.)
And this was the evidence on which they had passed
laws which had tuined Lancashire.—(Hear.) There
was another gentleman who had been examined, and
whose name he must not omit—one who had lately said
that the only remedy loft was to nurse our resources
and get down our expenses—he meant Mr. J. B
Smith. What was that gentleman's evidence? He said
at once that the burden of the corn-laws was greater
than the whole of the taxes of the country.—(Hear.
hear.) But the evidence of Mr. Macgregor was the
only evidence that satisfied the Committee. Any gen-
tleman who staid that the burden of the corn-laws was
only fifty millions disappointed them. The Honourable
Member for Stirling, not having satisfied them, was
asked to explain, and he was at length forced to say
that the loss might be sixty, and perhaps ninety mil-
lions.—(Cheers.) The House might laugh, but it was
no laughing matter in the face of a deficit; and besides,
they had ruled the Legislature of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) He said in the presence of the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, whom he was glad to see
in his place, but he was not surprised to hoar he had
been newel', seeing that he had to rule the country on
the report of that Committee. Why, it was like
smoking a cigar while sitting on a barrel of gun-
powder.—(Haar, hear, and laughter.) This was the
evidence which had given the first impulse to
the Manchester school, of which the Honour-
able Members for Manchester and the West Riding
were apostles—champions of the two great prin-
cieles—peace and plenty.—(Cheers, and laughter.)
Peace and plenty, in the midst of a starving people, and
with a world in arms.—(Hear, hear.) lie must call the
attention of these Hon. Gentlemen to such matters now,
because, after having criticised all their measures which
had blown up, noticed all their delusions which had
evaporated, and pointed the attention of the House to all
the natural disasters and misery they had occasioned, he
found that those Hoe. Gentlemen, not contented with
what they had done, were already threatening the
country with another confederation and another assault.
There was, it seemed, to be a league for fiscal reform,
the objects of which had already been almost proclaimed
in that House. From the more detailed programme, as
it had appeared in a highly talented and trustworthy
Liberal paper, he saw that they did not mean to limit
themselves to fiscal reform, but talked of throwing the
burden of taxation on the landed and other realised
property of the country. He should like to know what
the " statesmen " of the north of England, and the co-
partners of Lincolnshire, many of whose interests did not
exceed 101. or 201. a year, would say to this.—
(Hear, hear.) Or if he turned to the other branch of
realised property, he found that at the last
payment of the dividends, out of 300,000 warrants
issued, one-third did not exceed 5/. per annum; 45,000
or 50,000 warrants did not exceed 101., and oven of the
few large payments of which so much advantage had
been taken the great majority consisted of the invest-
ments of banking and insurance companies, the capital,
in fact, of the commercial world. Therefore he could
imagaine nothing more false or more unworthy of the
talents of the Member fur the West Riding titan to un•
furl his banner against what he called the realised
property of the oountry.—(Hear.) What did all this
mean? Had they not hoard it stated by no less a per-
son than the Hon. Member for Manchester that the pre-
sent was a middle-class Government, and that the
middle classes looked to them for legislation to their
advantage. A few years ago it had been held to be
the greatest opprobrium in the world that the aristo-
cratic byold class legislation.—(Hear,
hear.) interesti in free-trade halls, and
iadthsevyas not upheld
been t
in former temples of the muses, that class legislation
was the ruin of the country ? Now, however, that they
had obtained their ends, the commercial system was
workiug its results. Having established their political
and parliamentary power,they said that the Govern-
ment was a middle class Government, and must work
for the middle classes.—(Hear, hear.) But would gen-
tlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House sub-
mit without a struggle to such views?—(Hear, hear.)
No, if; they allowed the triumph of these commercial
doctrines to be complete, it would be but poor consols-

lion for them to discover that the only retern they had '
for a diminished revenue and the decline of commerce I
was the arrogant pretc.‘nsions of a claw which had 0.)
tamed power hy false pretences, and now sought to turn ,
it to their own advantage.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE wished ho eoull in any way eels- I
tarn the lively interest which had been created by Ihe
remarkable speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat i
down. But not bring elle to do so he should esn'iee I
himself to the nr.:tter iinmediate'y beforo the Howe, b"- I
cause he felt that in the present position of the c ,untry
and of the world there was no time for personal disen;-
sions respec:iug Ministers who had retired from office.
—(Hear, hear.) Ho must, however, allele in a few 1
words to what the lion. Gentleman had said of the
policy of the late Government. The House must eb-
serve that the policy now assailed was not only the
policy of 1846; it comprehended every step which had
been taken in changing the restrictive system of this
country.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said
the principles laid down by his Right Hon. Friend (Sir
R. Peel) in 1549 were reasonable, and he supported them,
but in 1845 those principles were essentially changed;
he then adopted the doctrines of the Manchester
school, and he opposed them. The Hon. Gentleman at-
tempted to draw a broad distinction between the princi-
ples of 1842 and 1845. But in 1842 his Right Hon.
Friend said "We have reserved many articles from
reduction of duty, in the hope that ere long we may
obtain increased facilities for commerce from other
countries, but it is our interest to buy cheap, whatever
others may do."—(Hear, hear.) With regard to ex-
tending our trade by negotiations with foreign countries,
the experiment was tried by the late Government, but it
failed, in consequence of the exaggerated views which
those countries took.--(Hear, hear.) But the charge
made against his Right Hon. Friend was, that having
started in 1842 on moderate and fixed principles, he in
1845 turned round and adopted those of the Manchester
school; whereas, by a reference to the speeches of his ,
Right Hon. Friend in 1842, it would be seen that the
principles ho then proceeded upon were the same as those
upon which his measure of 1845 was founded. But they
were now called upon to give a vote on the great subject
ef commercial credit, which lay at the foundation of the
whole commercial system, and involved not only the
profits ,of capital, but the employment of labour
old the subsistence of the people.—(Bear, hear.) ,
At a time like this, when revolution was
spreading through the nations of the continent, tied
ho strongest throne perhaps in Europe had been over-
turned, we were more especially called upon to provide
'or the safety of our own country. He called upon
:hem, therefore, in the present discussion, to throw
over every question that did not affect the real merits
of the subjecte—allear.) Three Atm beatt been proposed
for their adoption. First, there was the plan of the
Noble Lord (Bentinek) to renew the income-tax for one
year only, in order that the present system of taxation
might be revised, with a view to the re-imposition of
those Customs duties which had been taken off by the
late Government. Then there was the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who also
proposed to renew the income-tax for one year, his
object being to compel such a reduction of the establish-
ments of the country as should by the end of that time
bring the public expenditure within the income.—(Hear.)
And lastly, there was the plan of the Government, to
renew the tax for three years. The Noble Lord
(Bentinek) contended, in opposition to this proposition,
that the system of freedom of trade, which was
adopted with such promises of ultimate success, had
ended in failure and disaster.— (Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Gladstone), on the contrary, was prepared to show
that whether they looked to revenue, income, trade, or
mployment of labour, it had succeeded, if not to the
extent of the most sanguine expectations, as far as any
reasonable person could have anticipated.—(Hear.)
o one could expect freedom of trade to give an equal
end uniform prosperity at all times and in all cireum-
;lances. The commerce of this country would always
have its periods of ebb and flow, and it was enough to
prove the success of freedom of trade, if he showed that
it added to prosperity and mitigated affliction. This
had been the result 'of their legislation since 1842.
,[tear, hear.) He would take the articles timber and
.ilk, two articles which had been the subject of much
eontroversy—he would pass over brandy and many otaers
which had been effectually dealt with by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Westbury (Mr. Wilmon)—and show that the re
suit of the reduction in the duty ha I been an increase of
import and a gain to the revenue. In 1841 there were
131,000 loads of foreign timber imported, and the re-
senue arising from it was 411,0001., after deducting
10,000/. allowed as drawback. He would compare this
with the unfortunate year 1847, which was scarcely
i fair test; but he would take it nevertheless. The
duty in the meantime had been reduced from 565. 6d.
to 21s. With this reduced duty the quantity im-
ported had increased to 437,000 loads, and the
revenue to 451,0001—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
seemed to suppose that because the foreigner obtained
some advantage in the increase of price that we suffered
.1 corresponding loss, as though commerce was a sort of
war in which all the foreigner gained we must neces-
sarily lose.—(llear, hear.) Tho price, the Noble Lord
said, had increased by 103. 10d. a load, the whole of
which went into the foreigner's pocket. But the re-
"notion of duty had been 355, 61.—(Hear.) Three-
fourths of that duty nearly, therefore, had been saved
to the consumer, notwithstanding the rise in price. But
there was another point for consideration, increase
1 of demand, which always occasions increase of price, and
increase of price increase of production, without which
Ahere would not be that extended trade and augmented
means of employment which were amongst the benefits
hey contemplated from freedom of trade.—(Hear.)
Again, it must be reatemared that, eve* to the extent
,if the increase of pace, was not the foreigner only
who derived the • advantage. To a great extent it
was British capital that was employed in the trade
in timber ; and, in some instances, the woods were
the property of linglishmen.—(Hear, hear.) The great
demand for the railways should not be forgotten as
an element in increasing the price, and but for the alte-
ration in the duty he believed that demand would have
caused the price of timber to rise much higher than it
had done. So much with regard to timber: now as to
silk. The Noble Lord had referred to the falling off in
the number of looms working in Spitalfields from the
year 1836 to 1845, appearing to forget that until 1845
this trade had not been, as he said, dabbled with. He
admitted that in a question of this kind its bearing on
the employment of the people was important; but how
,lid it really stand in this respect? Take the average of
the two years 1846 and 1847, the only two years of the
1843, as shown in the returns
reit with the average of the
imports of raw silk on the aver-
-3,742,0001W.; the two )ears,
. ta)eegeicifleouyorc,
eefe
adtt
rhhsdee duty, and
mu)s,
eelaB:years
stc4hoe mt
waso compare
a
4,265,0001b5.: increase 523,0001b5. In thrown silk the
increase was 106,0001b5. Of silk goods imported on the
average of the ten years the amount was 209,0001b5.: on
that on the two years, 408,0001b5. The exports in
value, 751,000/. on the average of the ten years, and
907,0001. on the average of the two. True, we had im-
ported 200.000 more of foreign
goods; but we had also
imported 523,000 more of raw materials.—(Hear, hear.)
arow, from 1842 to 1844, 2,0000001. of Customs' duties
were repealed; and in 1844, as compared with 1841, the
whole amount of these duties, and 76,000/. to boot, had
been recovered; so that in 1844 we had actually, by the
:evival of trade, and by its action upon the revenue in
all its branches, recovered the whole of the income-tax.
—(Hear, hear.) The revenue of 1846, one year after
the reductions of 1845, without the income-tax, only
tell short of the revenue of 1841, by the small sum of
363,0001. Therefore, when the Hon. Member (Mr.
Disraeli) talked of these reductions cutting off 7,000,000/.
from the income of the country, he would be nearer the
'nark if he said they had added that amount.—(Hear,
hear.) But, comparing the Customs and the Excise, even
if the disastrous year of 1847, with what they were in
1841, before those changes took place, he found that out
of the 7,600,0001. of repealed taxation, 5,500,0001. had
been replaced, or somewhat more than the whole amount
of the income-tax.—(flear, hear.) And yet that took
alace in the year of the double famine of' corn and cot-
ton, with which the Honourable Gentleman made out
Ills argument, one affecting the first article of the people's
n
eot tear the expression now, our Customs and Excise
sthuabstiys teeanrc, e
w,
iatzdththees op theirrinegr s t hof i n
(ei
u st r y mployment.broken,
in
d
paid 5,500,0001. more than in 1841, before these changes
hoard of. The
ivreorne. made 1
eotfir
at
nh
,ess ea
argument
uf,ut
il seen
t principle"resp ee tisng
cotton was fal-
lacious, for if he removed cotton yarn there had been an
increase upon 1847 as compared with 1846 of no less
than 1,695,0001. The Honourable Gentleman's reasons,
vhen connected with the vote he. intended to give,
Amounted simply to this, " give up rive trade, and I will
give you the income-tax—adhere to free trade and I will
refuse it." Such an opinien upon a vital national ques
tion was unworthy of an eminent legislator, for it led to
Hear
the very opposite conclusion to which the Honourable
Gentleman intended it should. If free trade had broken
the springs of industry, and impoverished the Lancashire
weaver, and cut off 8,000,0001. from the revenue, surely
it was all the more necessary to vote for an income-tax
supporttwohen the
Hon.th the
Gentleman public
redit—
nextwould do so upon reasons which did not lead to
diametrically the opposite conclusion. Then, as to the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose, which
was in direct collision with that of the Government. He
c', hear.) He hoped
explained his vote, he
said he would vote for the income-tax for one year, and
in the coursdof that year devise a reduction so exten- 1
sive as at the end of it to enable the Government to do
without that tax. But, in order to fulfil his promise, he
should effect reductions within the next ten months of
from eight to ten millions. He (Mr. Gladstone) felt
convinced that a great country like this ought periodi-
cally to have a thorough and searching revision of its
taxation.—(Cheers.) It was now more than fifteen
years since there had been such a revision, and seeing
that the tide had again set in against the public, and
that there had been so formidable an increase upon
the army, navy, and ordnance, as of nearly 7,000,0001.
since 1835, of 4,500,000/. since 1844, and of 1,638,0001.
since 11146, he did think that a prima facie case
was established for a searching
inquiry, and that
by a full examination of the details a considerable
economy might be effected. lie confessed himself dis-
appointed with a part of the Chancellor of the Exche-
qtter's speech. He did not appear to him to be sanguine
enough as to what might be expected from investigating
rariuir brances of the public expenditure, and could not
go the length of saying with him that the consolidated
fund charges, the half.pay list, or the charges for col-
lecting the public revenue, might not be revised with
advantage. They had nearly 4,000,0001. deficiency to
provide for in 1849, and he was greatly afraid they might
have a new Kafir war, and also that that mysterious vote
called " navy excess" might re-
five millions of deficiency apncar. To this four or
the lion. Member for Mon-
trose proposed to .add live trillions more, by repealing
the income tax.—(Hear, hear.) Was it consistent with
ordinary prudence to take such a course, in the face
of unforeseen contingencies ? Nothing could compen-
sate for a proceeding which touched the public
credit ; and though the Honourable Gentlemen sup-