The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-24 00:00:00

poses of increased consumption ; not for the benefit of the
people of this country ; but in deference to the French
people and the Emperor of the French, and nothing else.
(Hear.) The wine merchants themselves had held a meet-

ing, and had declared that the plan of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was impracticable. To apply the alcoholic test
would require an analytical chemist ; and whether they
had regard to the character of the duty, the habits of the
people, or the opinion of all writers who had written on
the subject of taxation, all the facts and arguments would
be found opposed to a reduction on the existing duty on
wines. Again, according to the treaty French paper was
to be admitted duty free into this country;- but in the
very same document, the export from France of the raw
material which made the paper was prohibited. (Hear,
hear.) Could there be anything more absurd than that—
call it reciprocity ? (Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more
one-sided. (Hear, hear.) He should enter into no lengthened
debate on the subject of the income tax. He forgave the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for
the mistakes he had made in his calculations in regard to the
tax, but what he could not understand, and what he would
never submit to, was to hear a gentleman of his attainments
inform them of character of the income tax, and then
call upon them to adopt it. He believed that if the right hon.
gentleman held now the independent position which he for-
merly held in that house when he used the remarks which

he was about to refer to, and on which occasion the right
hon. gentleman represented much of the wisdom, learning,
and piety of the country, he would return to the policy
which he then enunciated. He then said—" No doubt the

income tax has many recommendations as part of a perma-
nent revenue of the country, but there are also great objec-
tions to it— one of those is a moral objection. I believe that
it does more to corrupt and demoralise the people than any
other—not from the fault of those who levy it, but from the
very nature of the tax itself." (Hear, hear.) Yet here, from
no necessity of the present position, the right hon. gentle-
man, who said that this tax demoralised and corrupted the
people, having established that this demoralising tax
changed the manly 'virtues of the Englishman into the op-
posite vices, and made a scheming chicane hypocritical and
lying characinr—(oh, oh, and cheers)—sometimes exhibiting
repentance and remorse, and making restoration—(hear)—
now told them that the tax was to be doubled. They were to
double the immorality, and to double the corruption. Now,
believing the view heretofore taken of this tax by the right
hon. gentleman was the right one—that it was most immoral

and most mischievous—he-would not consent to double that

vicious tax. (Hear.) How the right hon. gentleman
could now recommend the house to double the tax passed
his comprehension. Being thus opposed to the continu-
ance of this tax, ho believed that the -wine duties ought not
then to be remitted. He believed that the paper duties
ought not now to be remitted, though he agreed with the
right hpn. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that
they might very properly be remitted at another time. He
also agreed with the hon. member for Carlisle, that when

there was a deficiency we ought not to draw bills on futu-
rity and leave to another year all the confusion in finance
which the policy of the Government had created in the pre-
sent year. He was of opinion that this treaty required to
be reconsidered in its most important provisions, and that
the budget of the right hon. gentleman was in many im-
portant points unwise and inexpedient. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. CARDWELL said that the lateness of the hour
warned him against indulging in fine speeches er ding in
nothing, and he should therefore confine himself to the
legitimate subject before the house. Nothing could be
fairer than the manner in which that question was stated.
It demurred to no provision of the treaty, and cavilled with
no detail of the budget, but it distinctly laid down a broad
and intelligible policy. It said, " You must reject this
treaty with France, and you must consent to none of the
provisions of the budget." If they did not agree to those
propositions, the hon. gentleman did not invite them to
vote for his motion. Now the country was called upon
this year to provide the largest military estimates that pro-
bably any country had ever provided in times of peace.
(Hear.) This year was also remarkable for another circum-
stance—the remission of public burdens from the falling in
of the Long Annuities so long looked forward to. (Hear)
What was the policy for such a year ? The hon. member for
Ilasex said, "The policy is this—apply the £2,000,000 you
gain by the Long Annuities to a remission of the income tax."
Bnt the right hon. and learned gentleman said, " Deal with
large estimates by a temporary sacrifice, but reserve the two
millions you gain by the falling in of burdens of long
standing, to apply it to the carrying out of the great and
beneficent policy from which you have seen in former
years such great and invaluable results." (Cheers.) He
thought that, considering the services conferred upon the
Conservative party in former sessions by the hon. member
for Birmingham (Mr. Bi ight), he had not been treated
with gratitude by the right hon. and learned gentleman by
the remarks which he had made in the lucid oration they
had just heard from him. He thought great credit was due
to the late Government for having proposed to increase the
estimates and place the supremacy of this country beyond
dispute. (Cheers.) And this he would say, that all parties
in the house were most desirous that, above every other
consideration, the safety of the country should be cared for.
(Hear, hear.) The burdens of the people had of late years
been reduced, yet the receipts from the reduced taxes had
been vastly increased. The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Portsmouth had repeated those portions of the his-
tory of the income tax which suited the purpose of his
argument. The ordinary sources of revenue had been
diminished since 1848 by various successive stages more
than one-third, and yet they produced more than ever.
That had been done by the aid of progressive augmentations
of the income tax. But hon. members said they (the Go-
vernment) were not pursuing the same course, inasmuch as
Sir R. Peel reduced taxes in order to make them productive,
but this was a proposal to remit them altogether. But Sir
R. Peel had wholly remitted the duty on glass, cotton,
wool, bricks, soap, and on a hundred other articles. (Hear,
hear.) Was it the doctrine that those remissions and the
proposed remissions on paper afforded no increase to the
revenue because they did not do so directly ? If they
set free a great manufacture, added to the wages of
those employed, stimulated consumption, and increased
the comforts of the people, there was no real distinction be-
tween the addition they would thus make to the revenue
and that which was made directly from the increased pro-
ceeds of a tax which had been reduced. The right hon.
gentleman quoted in support of his views a passage from
Adam Smith, who advocated, 100 years ago, the policy we
had been pursuing for the last 15 years. He did not think
this was an inconvenient time to re-impose the income tax,
seeing that the object was to ameliorate the burdens of the
people. We had lately trebled our foreign trade, added to
the wealth of every class in the community, wonderfully in-
creased the deposits in the savings banks, and diminished
pauperism and crime. (Cheers.) Wo had greatly increased
our trade with the United States, and it was this increase
in our commerce that prevented the possibility of any out -
break taking place between this country and the United
states. (Hear, hear.) Now, if this was true as regarded our
relations with America, what would be the effect of a simi-
lar course of policy being adopted between this country and
France ? Why was it that we had no trade with France ?
David Hume had stated the reason 100 years ago. It was
our hatred and jealousy of that country by which we lost
our foreign trade in wool in that market, and which obliged
us to deal in the dear wines of Spain and Portugal rather
than in the cheap wines of France. Hon. gentlemen oppo-
site were now friends of free trade, but they objected to it
because it was carried out by means of a treaty with France.
Hon. gentlemen should remember that they had had con-
siderable difficulty in converting the Freneh nation to the
doctrines of free trade, and probably not 20 years will have
expired before those who now oppose the treaty with France
will, be among the foremost in admitting the benefits and the
blessings to be such as accompanied the downfall of protec-
tion in this country. The right hon. gentleman (Sir F.
Baring) had told them that he looked with dismay to the
future, as regarded the amount of expenditure in this coun-
try. The present question turned upon this—how were the
two millions falling in from the Long Annuities to be made
most useful? The Government said that was best to be
done by increasing the comforts of the people, and by pur-
suing a course which would enable the Government to reduce
duties in such a manner as would lead to the extension and
the improvement of trade and commerce. (Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE then moved the adjournment of
the debate, which was agreed to.
The house then proceeded to the orders of the day.
VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
The several clauses were agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.
The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill, as amended, was con-
sidered and agreed to.
The Charitable Uses Bill was read a third time.
On the motion for considering the Elections
on
sr Petitions Act
(1848) Amendment Bill, adjourned debate
the bill to a select committee (Feb. 22),
Mr. EDWIN JAMES withdrew the bill.
DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES
The
eshboilusl
passedadjourned
ec o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

CARLISLE.

Yesterday the committee appointed to try the
merits of a petition presented by John Park Arthur
and John Graham, electors, against the return of
Sir James Graham and Mr. Lawson, for the borough
of Carlisle, assembled for the first time. Mr. Cob-
bett presided.
The petition contained the usual allegation of
bribery, treating, and offers of employment in ex-
change for votes so corruptly obtained, and it
prayed that the last return for the borough of Car-
lisle should be set aside as null and void.
Mr. Slade and Mr. Rodwell appeared in support
of the petition. Mr. Welsby for the sitting mem-
bers.

Mr. Slade opened the case for the petitioners, and
after setting forth the grounds of the petition, said
he proposed to prove that the sitting members had
retained their election by means of bribery, treat-
ing, and other corrupt practices. He mentioned in
support of his case that a Mr. Graham, who had been
in the habit of voting for Mr. Hodgson, was visited
by the agent of Mr. Lawson, this voter being a beer-
shopkeeper, and that, underlthe promise of obtain-
ing for him a spirit licence, he gave his vote for Mr.
Lawson. He was told that influence would be used
through the instrumentality of Mr. Howe, the
ex-mayor, who remained ex-officio a li-
censing magistrate, and that he would ap-
pear on the bench and obtain for this
voter a spirit license to his house. He voted for
Graham and Lawson ; but in consequence of a peti-
tion having been prevented against the return, the
license for the beer-shop was not applied fcr to the
bench of licensing magistrates, although all the
necessary forms had been gone through, and the
regular notices given for that purpose. Another
ease was that of Joseph Porter, who was solicited
for his vote by the agents of Sir James Graham and
Mr. Lawson, and he said he had not made up his
mind. He afterwards saw Mr. Lawson, who asked
him if he wanted a situation, and he said that be
did. He mentioned the Silloth Railway, upon which
Mr. Lawson said he could do nothing for him, but
advised him to go to the deputy-chairman of that
railway company so that there could be no rea.on
to suppose that this voter went to the polt with
clean hands. Another case was in respect to a m m
named Irving, who in consideration of his voting
for Sir J. Graham and Mr, Lawson, was the means
of a man named Braham being turned out of his