The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-16 00:00:00

Gould not see ; but he passed that by. It was said that the
country had long been looking forward to this year for a re-
lief from their taxation, and that Parliament was therefore
bound not to disappoint them. Well, he quite concurred
in the reasonableness of such an expectation on the part of
the public, and it was much to be regretted that it should
not be fulfilled. But how under present circumstances
could it be realised ? If upwards of £2,000,000 was struck
off the annual charge for the public debt, it must be re-
membered that two thirds of the gain had been an-
ticipated by the interest on the loan contracted
during the Russian war. Out or the £2,100,000 that
would be saved we had to pay £1,400,000 by way of interest
on the new loans; and the remaining £700,000 would go but
a little way towards the increased expenditure that had
come upon the country within the last few years. Under
such circumstances, to say that the expected relief from
taxation must still be given was, as he had already said,
not an argument but a mere fancy. Let them suppose the
case of a gentleman who had a good estate burdened with
a heavy life annuity, who had long groaned under the
weight of the charge, and who had promised himself that
when it expired he wouldmake some addition to his estab-
lishment that would contribute to his comfort. No doubt
it would be a great disappointment if he found, when the
annuity at last fell in, that new charges to a still greater
amount had come upon him. But would any man with the
slightest claim to good sense, who happened to be placed in
such a position, think of saying, " I have always promised
myself that when I got rid of that detested annuity I would
indulge my fancy in such and such a way; and though it is
true that my means are not after all increased, but are actu-
ally diminished—though I can afford the expense less than
ever—still, I will not refuse myself the gratification to
which I have looked forward ; and I will provide for it by
some arrangement with regard to my property, which I
have hitherto considered too improvident and too danger-
ous to be entertained ?" Yet that was precisely the way in
which the Government proposed to act. (Cheers.) Succes-
sive Chancellors of the Exchequer (and amongst them the
distinguished gentleman who filled the office at the present
moment) had declared that the duties now proposed to be
taken off ought not to be given up—not because they were
not objectionable, for, indeed, he (Lord Grey) had never
yet known a tax that was unobjectionable—but because
they maid not be spared. Nevertheless the right hon. gen-
tleman now said that these very taxes must be repealed,
because the people had been led to expect a diminution of
the indirect taxation when the Long Annuities fell in.
(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him (the noble earl) that to
argue in that manner was to treat the people like children,
and not like sensible men who could take a sound
view of their position. (Cheers.) In considering the effect
of the Government's scheme, the house must forgive him if
he did not confine his view to the financial year which was
about to open. (Hear, hear.) It was quite true that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a small balance of
ways and means over the estimated expenditure ; but if they
looked in the most cursory manner at the way in which the
expenditure had bt.n computed, their lordships would see
that it had been calculated in a very sanguine temper, to
say the least of it. For instance, the expense of the Chinese
expedition was set down at the small sum of £500,000, in
addition to a trifling increase in the army and navy esti-
mates. He was told that alreadythe vote of credit had proved
insufficient, and that the £500,000 had grown to £850,000.
Bat did anybody believe that its growth would stop there ?
When he locked at the expenditure that was going on, when
he saw that in the North of England ships were taken up
to carry coals to China at freights varying from 4 guineas to
90s. per ton, so that the cost of the coal by the time it
reached China could not be less, reckoning the waste, than
£5 per ton; when he remembered that we had no fewer than
90 pennons in the China seas, and reflected how vastly the
expense of considerable hostile operations at a distance al-
ways exceeded the estimate—he thought they would be for-
tunate if the £500,000 proved to be more than a tithe of the
actual outlay. For his own part he should say that if the
cost of the war stopped at £5,000,000, the house would have
much reason to be congratulated on the result. (Hear.)
Then, again, he observed that but a small sum was charged
for fortifieations, whereas it was reported that the commis-
sioners who had been appointed to considerthis subject had
not only recommended a very large outlay, but had recom-
mended that it should be incurred at once. Was it possible
that there could be truth in another report which had
gained ground, namely, that the expense was to be provided
by a loan ? Was it possible that this improvident mode of
providing in time of peace for such an expenditure
was to be recommended by the same Chancellor of the Ex •
chequer as had pressed upon Parliament with so much
earnestness and eloquence the duty of providing by the
taxation of each year the greater part of the sum required
even for the purposes of a European war? (Hear, hear.)
But, laying aside all such questions, and assuming that
there would really be a surplus, how was that surplus
arrived at ? It was arrived at, in the first place, by re-im-
posing the income-tax at a high rate of 10d. in the pound ;
in the next place, by re •imposing what were called the war
duties on tea and sugar, and lastly, by calling in credits on
malt and hop duties to the extent of £1,400,000. (Hear,
hear.) He (the noble lord) contended that this last would
be as much an absorption of capital for the purpose of in-
come as if they were to contract a loan to the same amount.
(Cheers.) The income tax and the tea and sugar duties were
only to be re-imposed for a year, and therefore the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would have to meet the House of
Commons in 1861 with a deficit of no less than £10,000,000
or £11,000,000.
A NOBLE Lonn—£ll,ooo,ooo.
Earl GREY had no doubt that that would be the real
sum ; and he submitted that the prospect was a very serious
one. They were deliberately preparing to start the year after
next with a deficiency of X 12,000,000 ; and in providing that '
sum they would have to put indirect taxation pretty nearly
out of the question. The bargain they had entered into
with France embraced so many things that it would prevent
the re-imposition of the duties they were about to repeal
(cheers), and the staple articles of the customs revenue were
already as highly taxed as would be convenient. With re-
gard to excise, they were to abolish that duty which of all
others interfered least with manufacturing industry, a duty
which yielded a growing revenue, and the objections to
which might have been easily removed. They would
have no alternative but to re-impose the income-tax at
the rate of a shilling in the pound. (Hear, hear.)
Was it desirable that an income tax of such an amount
should be perpetuated ? For his awn part, he looked for-
ward to the prospect before thew with great alarm, for they
had been deliberately informed that the question of fit*,
taxation should be left to the new House of Commons,
which would in all probability be elected by a larger pro-
portion of those who did not pay the income tax, or, indeed,
direct taxes at all. Cheers)( But was it for the peace of
the country, or for the continuance of a good feeling be-
tween the different classes of society—was it wise or pru-
dent to allow a question of this description to arise at the
very first moment after the assembling of the new Parlia-
ment (Hear, hear.) The budget was defended by a
reference to the policy of 1842. Was it part of that polioy
to create an enormous deficiency without showing how that
deficiency was to be provided for ? On the contrary, before
one stop was taken towards reducing the most objectionable
of the then existing taxes, the income tax was imposed for
three years, the period during which it was calculated (and
experience had shown that it was truly calculated) the
stimulus given to production and consumption would re-
pair the loss to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) Invariably
the repeal of indirect taxes was preceded by the imposi-
tion of direct taxes which were calculated to fill the void
that would otherwise exist. The plan pursued in this in-
stance was exactly the reverse. No man believed that
the void now created would be filled up in time. In the
first place, tho paper duty would be taken off altogether.
And then with regard to the wine duty, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in his more prudent days, in 1853, when
it was said that the duty was a bad one, told the House of
Commons fairly that the reduction of it would be an un-
wise measure, because it would be some years before the
loss caused by the reduction would be made up. He had
now stated the objections that he felt to this treaty, or
rather he had stated a part of them. He might go much
further, for he felt that if he were to go into details, he ,
could make the case a great deal stronger, but he would not
do so. He had promised to avoid details, and he was con-
fident there were those who were able to supply the void.
But he asked their lordships if he had not said sufficient be
show that this budget was a dangerous measure, and that
the treaty which rendered it dangerous was not entitled on
financial grounds to their approval. He would now pro-
ceed to consider certain other objections to the treaty, and
here he was inclined to say that there was a great deal in
the able speech of the noble lord who moved the address in
which he entirely concurred. When he described so forcibly
the great advantages that would arise from increased inter.
course between this country and France, and the good feel-
ing that would be created, and the interests that would
spring up—in all that he said on these topics he entirely
concurred. No man was more anxious than himself to ex-
tend and improve that intercourse. But the fallacy was this,
that the noble lord confounded the advantages of an in-
creased intercourse between the two nations with the ad-
vantages of the treaty. (Hear.) His noble friend omitted.
altogether that part of the argument which showed that
this treaty was the beet mode of promoting that increased
intercourse. He (Lord Grey) would not abuse the groat in-
dulgence which their lordships had shown to him by going
over again the same ground, but he might be permitted to
say that his noble friend had said nothing to prove that this
treaty was the best means of promoting the intercourse of
the two countries. Let hini remind them that the obstacles
to increased intercourse were almost entirely on the side of
France, and that what really protective duties we had
might have been removed without incurring the financial
difficulties involved in this scheme, and without any treaty
at all. If we had opened the doors as widely as possible to
French produce without any treaty at all, without creating
any difficulty in a financial point of view, no ono would
have approved more heartily of such a policy than himself.
But he said that this treaty was calculated to increase the
apprehensions of the French people that a change was
to be made in the system of protection, which it was
their object to maintain. Because, he must remind them,
France had made a very small advancei towards a more
liberal system ; she had only advanced as far as Mr. Him-
kisson' is first propositions, which were to remove prohibi-
tion and substitute a duty of 30 per cent. ; because, he said,
when they went beyond that amount the smuggler stepped
in and took the benefit. He believed that this treaty was
calculated to increase the apprehensions of the French pro-
ducers ; and he was much struck with an observation of the
noble lord who seconded the address, who pointed how sin-
cere and how strong was the apprehension entertained by a
numerous portion of our own countrymen at the abolition of
protection in this country, and how firmly they believed that
ruin would come upon them. No doubt they did, but he
asked whether they thought the intensity of the opposition
made to those changes would not have been greatly increased
if it had been represented in this country at the time that
the changes wore to be made not for our oavnbenefit but for
the benefit of some foreign nation and to serve a political ob-
ject P If Mr. Chowler could have been able to state that
the corn laws were to be repealed in order to promote cer-
tain political objects with America and France, he wished to
speeches at market dinners would not
know whether hie
have had a much more powerful effect ? He believed that
the apprehension that French industry was to be sacrificed
to British objects would increase the opposition to any re-
form in the French tariff, and that this treaty, instead of
being wasp to the unreserved intercourse which his noble
friend anxious to establish, would on the contrary be a
difficulty in the way of establishing it. But a.s theraw
,avneore-
ther subject that must not be lost sight of. Suppose He
right to have a treaty at all, was this treaty a propero r
bargains,ch n
had a strong qpirdon that there should becrnot
but if they were to have a. treaty thereaaui_awh
preach to reciprocity, and he asked if h
regard to this treaty ? Let him point outt wh an stst tuol the
eet
resenoasmteyewdlitPi.
In England no ditty whateverewo large, and fte_
aaksteo
abeviemryposed on French
manufactures. We agreed
.t
the present momenta veryinacnodnvberanniednyt:
and sacrifice rtfir ceer rsecg.
nue upon the articles of wino
possibly d
same fpooowtiernrotp
a as our own
ping was to be admitted on the
omWthe
scoul,l not
a g ain rya': s-o-
-both in home and foreurigsnelpvcierstfrs.
more. We debarred o
incs the duty on wine or brandy._ Peas.t. no one Stiiicle of Eng-
ree into prance. The most
HI produce was to be admitted sr
important articles were
to to be subject to so high a duty
as to offer tempgofer. Our shipping was
tations the sun
to remain subject to existing restrictions; and the only arti-
considerable concession was made were
which France had. occasion for for her own manufac-
clos in which any
those
tuna. A 11.4 cliging the neiotiatiMme ngyer appear tO)+4l'o

oven asked for a reaaoval of the prohibition to export raw
material from France. The exportation of raw silk and rags
was still to be prohibited. A fow days ago we were told that
the prohibition to export rags was removed, but it now ap-
peared that a duty was to be imposed which would practi-
cally operate as a prohibition. Was it just to our paper ma-
nufacturers that they should not have the same facility as
the French manufacturers of obtaining the raw material,
and at the same time be compelled to enter into unrestricted
competition with them? But thenwe were told that the ex-
portation of rage and raw silk was a matter we could not
deal with in a treaty, and the negotiations for an equivalent
would have led to no result, and her Majesty's Government
were fully aware that to enter into negotiations of this kind,
on the principle of bargaining, was to throw the greatest
obstacle that could be thrown in the way of the treaty.
These were arguments that he himself had used in order to
show that it was inexpedient to make the admission of pro•
duce a matter of bargain. It was better for each country to
settle for itself what it would do. But if this were the opi-
nion of her Majesty's Government, why had they a treaty
at all? Really her Majesty's Government ought to take their
choice between one or other of two opposing doctrines. A
bargain was either a good thing or a bad thing; it might be
either politic or impolitic. lie thought it was impolitic. He
was not for negotiating at all, but was for each country
acing according to what it conceived to be for
its own interest. If Government said it was a
good thing, and that they ought to make a bar-
gain, then they were bound to see that the bargain was a
fair one, and when they were told it was a bad bargain they
were not to turn round and say that was not the way in
which to look at it. But if that were so, let us not fetter
ourselves by suck a treaty, let us keep the power, if we
wanted to replenish our exchequer, to re-establish the wine
duty. Let us not have the disadvantage of being bound
and the disadvantage of being free at the same time. Before
he concluded there was one other point to *hich he would
allude. It was one to which he alluded with great pain
and with great regret, as it was a matter of great delicacy.
He meant the question of Savoy. If he thought this treaty
less objectionable in other respects he should think that
her Majesty's Government were greatly to blame for hav-
ing signed that treaty without having obtained from the
Government of France some formal disavowal of the inten •
tion to add Savoy and Nice to the French empire. They
now knew, what was not admitted at first, that before this
treaty was signed her Majesty's Government were well
aware that this scheme was in agitation. (Hear, hear.)
They bad distinct warning that in the event of certain ar-
rangements taking place in Italy, which were certain to
take place, France would think herself entitled to take pos-
session of Savoy. Knowing this important fact, her
Majesty's Government incurred a perilous responsibility in
consenting to sign this treaty without obtaining from
France a disavowal of her intention to annex Savoy and
Nice. He believed, with every one of their lordships, that
the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France was a misfor-
tune not only to England but to the whole of Europe.
(Hear.) He believed that it was pregnant with mischief,
and while that design wee on foot we ought not to have
given to .r ranee so signal a proof of our confidence and sup-
port as was conveyed by our agreeing to this treaty. But
further than that, it was impossible under these circunn-
' stances, and with the knowledge of what was intended, to
sign this treaty without inflietinga stain upon the honour of
England. For how was thisraatter regarded by foreign nations
and by France P He was informed yesterday by a gentle-
man on whose judgment he placed the most implicit reli-
ance, and who had just returned from France, that the
manner in which this subject was viewed there was this—
they believed, as foreign nations had long believed, that our
whole policy was directed to the one object of selling our
produce ; that political considerations were as nothing in
comparison, and they believed that this commercial treaty
had been conceded as a sop—(hear)--to induce us to sub-
mit with patience to the annexation of Savoy. They believed
that our resistance to it was a sham. He knew that they
were wrong. He did not do her Majesty's Government the
injustice to believe that they were capable of such baseness
as that of writing high-sounding despatches merely for the
purpose of laying them before Parliament, while they really
did not wish to oppose the arrangement which had been
carried into effect. lie did not impute such baseness to them,
but this was the feeling which gained ground in the minds
of the people of France, and ho feared not only in France
but in Europe. Such a feeling was calculated to lower
the position of England, and to degrade us in the eyes of
Europe. lie was fortified in this conviction, because in the
elaborate report of the treaty by the French Minister by
whom it was negotiated, which was published not many
I days ago, there was a statement that it was entered into
with a view to encourage industry and commerce. There
was an old proverb, " qui s'excuse s'accuse," and he be-
lieved that this statement of the motives cf the treaty by
the French Minister was an illustration of that proverb.
They well know that the whole previous course of Front
had been one of aggrandisement, which made her such
curse to Europe and herself. That old spirit of the first
Empire was not yet extinct. While that state of things
continued it was impossible for this country, with a due
regard to its ewn safety, to diminish its army or navy—
(hear, hear)—and, consequently, this projected annexation
of Savoy imposed upon us enormous burdens. And when
they were threatened with a change of that kind they had
a right to say to the French Government, "we hesitate
to throw away more than £1,000,000, while you impose
upon us these increased burdens." He had now only to
thank their lordships for their great indulgence in listening
to him—(hear)—and he would only ask whether he had not
shown good reasons why that house, without attempting to
interfere with the treaty, would yet decline to share with her
Majesty's Government the responsibility of such an objec-
tionable measure. (gear.)
Lord WODEHOUSE said his noble friend commenced
by saying that this treaty was a part of the budget and the
general financial measures of the Government, but he should
recollect that he himself had been most forward in calling
upon the Government to afford that house an opportunity to
discuss this treaty. He quite agreed with his noble friend
that it was necessary to show that the measures adopted by
Government wore good in themselves inde, eadently of the
treaty. His noble friend said the budget of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was a dangerous and ambitious one. He
thought his noble friend somewhat overlooked the fact that
the policy of 1812, which he so mach cerunonded, was upon
many points open to the same objections. In 1842 Sir R.
Peel, finding there was a deficit of over £2,500,000, proposed
a large remission of duties, the result of which was that he
changed the deficit into a surplus ; and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in 1853 took porecisely the same course as
the noble earl now blamed. Whatever might be the opinion
of political parties in this country—whatever might be the
opinion of the country with regard to Savoy—no perscn wha
read the despatches in the blue-book would believe that this
treaty was not made on commercial grounds alone, and for the
commercial advantages which it conferred. The noble earl
said they ought not to conclude the treaty at such a period.
They did not in the present time speak as they did in 1787
of the " natural hostility" between this country anel
France, but some of the acrimony and jealousy of that
period seemed to be imported into their discussions. Mrs
Pitt was not deterred by the language of his opponents
from entering into a treaty of commerce in 1787, only four
years after the peace of 1783, which was considered one of
the most disastrous that this country had ever made, and
to which France very much contributed. The edifice which
was begun by Mr. Pitt was left for 40 years in ruins. The
time had now come when they should endeavour to re-con-
struct it, and if moderate, reasonable, and patriotic men
on both sides of the Channel would afford time for the com-
pletion and consolidation of the work, he believed that not
only would the friendship of the two countries be connected,
but that the peace of Europe and of the world would rest
on a surer basis than it had ever been the case before.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said he was anxious in as
few words as possible to state why he supported the views
of the noble earl (Grey), and could not concur in this ad-
dress to tho Crown. The noble baron who had just spoken
was not happy in his allusion to the two great men whom
he quoted. He said that the conduct of Sir R. Peel in 1842
was precisely the same as that of the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer, because he created a deficit. But there
was this great difference between the two cases, that. Sir R.
Peel created a deficit from a surplus, whereas the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer added a considerable deficit to
one already existing. The noble baron also said that Mr.
Pitt made his treaty of commerce with a view of insuring
peace and amity with France. If such was Mr. Pitt's view
in making that treaty he must have been grievously disap-
pointed, for before three years elapsed war broke out be-
tween this country and France. Nay mare, the Govern-
ment of which he had the honour to be a member seven
years ago, did enter into negotiations with France, with a
view to conclude, if possible, a treaty with that country.
But not being pedantic to those particular principles of free
trade which were advocated there and elsewhere—that no
bargain should be made—ho was sorry to confess that they
did not think the terms proposed by the French Govern-
ment sufficiently satisfactory to induce them to proceed
further in the matter. Their wish was to come
to some arrangement by which the commerce of
the two countries could be extended. was idle to
say that this treaty was not a bargain. (Helat
r, hear.) It
was an agreement, convention, or covenant between two
parties, one of whom said, "I will do this if you will do
that." This treaty was not only a bargain, but it was a bad
bargain ; and it was because it was a bad bargain that he
oould not go through the farce of complimenting her Ma-
jesty on such an arrangement. The Chamber of Commerce
of Leeds and the French papers admitted that the duty
levied on English goods under this treaty would amount to
a prohibition, or at all events be a great protection to
French manufactures. He should like to know why e
Government were in such an extreme hurry in making
treaty in the present year. Why did they not wait till next
this
th
year, when the hands of the Emperor of the French would
be free, and when he could proceed pan passu with them
in removing duties. The French newspapers said that
tho
boon was given not to England, but to the Government of
af
Lord Palmerston, which stood in need of the supitrerefore
certain body in the House of Commons•
tlerieslo'rdbualt
beverages.
not a treaty between the people of thLdesivttboewconasuneb
between the Emperor of the
the head of the Government herres.aocPtibtihs
of France were to be admitted inest
ending advantages from
not Government insist on the cao ecnoautnurryl,
incwubent on them to press and to
try ? It was the more
us the malt from which these beve-
rages France with regard to then trurralPbeverages of this coun-
try
insist upon this,
made 11°71d:111y taxed. The Chancellor of the
E that the loss to the revenue would be
might or might not be the case, but he
prophecies, especially as the right
Two 0
nfill
dl up pr
produce,
v, a
theyu nne inw the
hon. gentleman
in
_853.
had not been very successful in the pro-
phecies he male 1
' preferredoe7oloeur were
arguments rcTg mca utelwnattase t o
revenue
drink twice as much wine in this country
have to whichthis treaty
as they did now, and half as much beer. (Laughter.)
On the commercial part of the treaty he would say 11G
more. But the noble baron astonished him when he said
that this was no political treaty, and thli it was entered
into on commercial grounds only. se
January, the noble lord the See7.etary
, or the 17th of
wrote of this treaty, that " was significant at the present
feT.' Foreign Affairs
moment, when the cond“:,on of
was so critical, to re-
of Europe.'' sern.tralpayctans of the
.00ntinent
_assure tbn public mind in various parts
(11pr near.)
he did not
_ that was not a political view of the treaty
know the meaning of the English language.
Was it Italy about which it was to be sig-
',cant, or was it Savoy ? (Hear, hear.) What did the
Journal des Debats of the 10th of that month say ? That
journal was once remarkable for the harmony of its princi-
ples and its periods, but it appeared that the mighty were
fallen, and that a once important and influential organyaas
now playing second fiddle in the French preesfs.molrfe
t
was so, the extract he was about to read
ce France was
iisr-
of which was that by the treaty of comras3
pertance. [The noble earl here read the ewxatsract, the point
Thre noble lord the
sustaining the English Government.]
who made those re-
commendationswas to be annexed, and yet he it was
of Sardinia,h
which
Foreign Secretary must have known long ago that Savoy
in favour of the extension
noble lord did not peak out for so
was no wonder that the no
he must be well aware would lead t.a hat annaexatior. It