The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

more satisfactorily allayed than had hitherto been the case,
it would be an act of imprudence in the house 10 part at
such a moment with so large a portion of ne revenue.

Cheers.)

Mr. ELLICE—I wish to explain to the house in a few
words why I shall feel obliged to vote aga *nst the third
reading of this bill. (Rear.) Ido not co ne to that deter-
mination on any of the narrow grounds I have heard stated
since I came into the house, but upon the general view I
take of the resources and revenue of the country, which I
think are placed in considerable jeopardy by my right hon.
friend's budget. (Opposition cheers.) In the few remarks
I made at the beginning of these discussions I described
the budget as being in my opinion an ambitious budget, and
the experience I have acquired of it since only confirms that
opinion. (Hear.) I have sat in this house the most part of
half a century, during which time I have paid some atten-
tion to the financial condition of the country, and this is the
first instance within my recollection when a Chancellor of
the Exchequer has come down asking us to repeal certain
taxes connected with the permanent revenue of the country,
at same time admitting that he leaves a deficiency to be
supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year, of somewhere
about £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Cheers.) I do not know
that any gentleman in this house can furnish a similar pre-
cedent. It is a course fall of danger—(hear, hear)—and it
is full of inconvenience ; for at the beginning of the next
session we shall be launched into exactly the same discus-
sions which now prevent us from proceeding with the ordi-
nary business of the nation. (Hoar.) If it should turn
out that some of the great measures of this session do not
succeed or are not carried we must recommence our discus-
sions upon them in the beginnic g of another session, and at

the same time we have to provide the means, which will

be then very much more disputed than now, of supplying
the deficiency of £10,000,010 or £12,000,000. (Hear.) Again,
we have no security that the sums asked from us on account
of the estimates constitute the whole expenditure which we
shall be called upon to provide for the service of the year.
(Hear.) I have the greatest misgivings with respect to the
vote for the China expedition. (Hear, hear.) As to that
item, we must be guided not only by the actual estimates
before us, but by what our own judgthent suggests as to the
probable expenditure we may be called on to face. (Hear,
hear.) With respect to the tax which we are now discus-
sing, I have not a word to say in its defence. It is about
as odious a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a
tax which interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an impor-
tant branch of manufacture—being almost the only tax of
that descriptien now left in our fiscal system—but it also
impedes the circulation of information and of knowledge.
Upon all grounds no man is more disposed to repeal
this taxwhenever we can.do so without robbing the exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) But when we are ealled on to repeal it at the
risk of leaving a deficit, or when we are called on to impose
other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we should
wait until some more favourable time presents itself. (Hear,
hear.) It is upon these, and upon no mere narrow grounds,
that I object to the repeal of this tax. Another reason why
we should suspend our judgment is this :—My right hon.
friend proposes other taxes which have not yet passed the
house. Some of them are objected to by various classes of
persons who will be affected by them. For instance, the
mercantile classes object to the petty taxes which are to be
imposed upon trade. It is true we remit duties on consump-
tion, but we impose petty, vexatious, shackles on trade,
such as 2d. or 3d. on removing packages, which are not im-
posed on the commerce of Hambitrg, Belgium, Holland,
America, or of any other country in the world. (Hear.)
It is the first time in the history of the country that such
vexatious taxes were imposed. I feel strongly the objections
to such imposts, and it is therefore not quite clear to my
mind that others may not object, too, and that my right
hon. friend may not experience some difficulty in-carrying
them. At all events, I think it will be better toiwait until
they are carried before we proceed to remit other duties.
(Hear.) Though greatly indisposed, therefore, to do any-
thing in the least opposed to the measures of the Govern-
ment, I feel obliged in my conscience to vote against the
third reading of this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. HOPE said, that had he voted on the second reading
of the bill he should have supported it on the grounds
urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that it
would relieve a great manufacture from great restrictions,
increase tho purposes to which the manufacture could be
applied, and reduce the price at which the article could be
sold. Having, however, watched the discussions carried
on since that time, he had came to the conclusion that no
such results would follow; that, looking to what had
passed abroad and at home, it was a delusion to expect
them ; and he should, therefore, feel compelled to vote'
against the third reading. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—imust
frankly admit that my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) does
found his opposition to the third reading of this bill upon
.no narrow grounds. I might, indeed, question the correct-
ness of some portion of those grounds. He complains of
the Government because they are proposing the imposition
of a number of new taxes upon trade which havenot yet re-
ceived the sanction of this house, which may, therefore, be
uncertain as to their effect, and with respect to which it is
desirable that we should know whether they are to be adopted
before we surrender revenue. My eight hon. friend says he
has attended the debates of this house fur nearly half a
century, and it is perhaps no wonder therefore that he has
become so weary of hearing them, that the taxes of which
he speaks have been debated by the house, and, with an in-
significant exception, have received its deliberate approval
without his knowledge. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, as re-
gards that part of my right hon. friend's statement, if it has
materially affected his judgment, I can only regret that a
voice so authoritative should have been guided or misguided,
as the case may be, by considerations so entirely erro-
neous. (A laugh.) As to my right hon. friend's criticisms
on the general policy of the Government scheme of finance,
I must point out to him that he has spoken somewhat late.
His statement, which sums up, in fact, the most prominent
objections urged against the financial plans of the Govern-
ment as a whole, would have been extremely important it
it had proceeded from his mouth, with his authority, some
two or three months ago, and would then have, at least,
been in place and in time. At present, I hardly know what
purpose it can answer beyond that of eliciting warm ex-
pressions cf approval from that portion of the house which
finds a large amount of sympathy in a quarter where sym-
pathy with them was not previously known to exist. (A
laugh.) But I must submit to my right hon. friend that it
is too late to discuss these matters now. (" No, no.") With
great respect I must decline to follow my right hon. friend
into the mere enunciation of counter-statemeAts which it
would be Perfectly easy for us 'to make, or into that very
minute examination, and, as I think, that not very difficult
refutation, of his opinions, which would, in point of fact,
involve the repetition of our principal debates for the last
three months. (Hear, and a laugh.) I beg to state to the
house what I conceive not to be the question now at issue.
We are not debating the general principles of the financial
plans of the Government, and I venture to tell my right
hon. friend that if he really has entertained these sinister
and dismal apprehensions, it might have been better either
to have uttered them in their full force at the time when
they might have operated on the decision of Parliament, or
possibly to have kept them to himself. (" Oh, oh.") The
time has passed by when the decision of Parliament can be
governed by these prophecies, because in the main, as I
shall endeavour to show to the house, the principal ques-
tions raised by them are already decided. Ido not ask
your assent to that proposition now, but I will attempt pre-
sently to show that it is a sound and correct proposition.
We are not discussing the question whether it would have
been wiser on the part of the Government to have refrained
from proposing a repeal of the paper duty, which was
to be made up by an additional penny of income-tax, be-
cause that additional penny has already become law, and
at this moment been levied from many of her Majesty's
subjects--(hear, hear)—and a large party in this house
opposed to the policy of the Government has, by its deliberate
vote, in its own self-chosen language, sent forth to the cam-
try that the proposition of a tenth of the income-tax and the
repeal of the paper duty were correlatives one to another, and
inseparably united. (Hear, hear.) That has been declared
by the Motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir
W. Miles), and supported generally by the party opposite.
Neither are we discussing the question whether the Govern-
ment would have done better to have proposed the reduction
of the duties on tea and sugar rather than of that on paper,
because we have seen that while it has been argued that at
any rate it would have been a preferable change, yet there
has been no serious intention of recommending a change of
that sort, or it would have been submitted to the house in
the shape of a formal motion. Neither are we discussing
the question whether a protective duty of a penny per lb. is
to be maintained upon foreign paper in consideration of the
legislation. of foreign countries. I think I may assure my
noble friend who lately addressed the house that, as far as
argument at least, the two questions of the duty to be ina.
posed upon the impertation of paper from abroad and the
question of the retention of the Excise duty on paper at
home are entirely distinct. He may say if he pleases, and
he has a right to do so, that the same inclination which led

a majority of the house to vote for the one may lead them
to vote for the other; but, in truth, the two things are quite
distinct. Neither at this stage do I propose to re-argue the
general question of the repeal of the duty on paper. My
right hon. friend has not gone further than to say that a
more odious tax than that for the retention of which he
argued could not be conceived. And this most odious tax
he desires to retain after the house has given to the Ex-
chequer the equivalent which was stipulated for when the
repeal of the duty was proposed. (Hear, hear.) Ido not
re-argue the general grounds against the tax. I merely re-
cite them. Among them were, of course, the general ob-
jections to Excise duties upon what is called a legitimate
and unexceptionable manufacture. l'rominently among
them are the uncertainty and inequality of the present law,
which have led the responsible department to report that
"it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we are levying
a duty upon A. while we allow B to send out goods pre-
cisely similar in nature without any interference from the
revenue officers." So that, according to the opinions of
those who are most competent to speak upon the subject it
is not possible to go on longer as we are, and if the duty is
not repealed there remains for Parliament the doubly odious
task of new, vexatious,.and restrictive legislation. Another
and a less weighty &found is the resolution of this house,
and I hope that hon. gentlemen who voted for that resolu-
tiQn, Lue44ing, apparently) u9thing 17 it, will dcrin AVM