The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

ships should be taking a course that must alienate from
them the support and the sympathy of the country. (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY, to whom Lord Teynham gave way,
then rose and said,—However important, my lords, may
be the subject under discussion, it is, I am afraid, one
to which it is difficult to impart an amount of interest at all
proportionate to its intrinsic magnitude. I feel also that I
labour under considerable disadvantage in rising to address
your lordships at this hour of the night (a quarter to 12),
and at the close of a lengthened debate, more especially as
my observations must be mainly directed to dry financial
details, which are in themselves of a character not very
inviting. I may, however, be permitted, before passing to
those details, to say a few words with respect to the consti-
tutional question involved in this discussion which, not-
withstanding what has just fallen from the noble duke, or
from the noble and learned lord opposite, who formerly
occupied a seat on the woolsack, or from a member of your
lordships' house who came forward as a friendly crit;c, but
not in the capacity of a voter hostile to the Government on
the present occasion, I should be perfectly satisfied to allow
to rest on the footing on which it has been placed by my
learned friend behind me, and by my noble, learned, and
venerable friend who spoke early in the debate, and who
has signalised the close this day of the 88th. year of his
honoured life—(cheers)—by a speech combining the ut-
most clearness and power of statement, with a knowledge
the most complete of the details of constitutional law and
practice. (Hear.) Now, the noble duke opposite did not, I
must say, in dealing with this point of constitutional usage,
successfully establish the position which he laid down upon
the subject. He said that there was no instance in which
your lordships' house had rejected a supply bill, and ho
quoted the ordinary language of a bill of that nature. I,
however, hold in my hand the bill to which my noble and
learned friend near me has already alluded, viz , an act
granting her Majesty certain duties to be levied on wash
and other liquors used in the distillation of spirits, and
which was absolutely rejected, notwithstanding the state-
ment of the noble duke to the effect that there was no in-
stance in which such a course had been taken in reference
to a measure of supply. But this is not all. The argument
drawn by the noble duke from this source completely fails
in the present instance, inasmuch as the bill under our no-
tice is, as it happens, not a supply bill at all, but a bill for
the repeal of a tax. (Hear.) The noble duke, however,
seemed to carry his argument on the constitutional part of
the question still better, observing that almost all money
bills have a political as well as a financial side, so that on
his assumption that we cannot amend or reject a money
bill, but simply content ourselves with expressing our opi-
nion with regard to it, we should be debarred from dealing
not only with matters of finance, but also with matters of
political importance, and prevented from rejecting a raea-.
sure vt ith which such considerations happened to be mixed
up, notwithstanding its political consequences might be
likely to be of a most dangerous character. (Hear.) Surely,
the noble duke can hardly seriously contend for what, with
all respect to him, I must characterise so absurd a limita-
tion of the power of your lordships' house as this argument
involves. But the noble duke says that we who sup-
port the amendment in the present case are the advocates
not simply of a technical, but of a practical violation of the
privileges of the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as
that house sent up for our assent a bill increasing the in-
come tax by a penny in the pound, which they would not
have done had they not relied on our passing the measure
under our notice. But it is quite clear, my lords, that if
when the bill raising the income tax to 10d. in the pound
came up to us from the other house we had no power of
making any amendment in its provisions, we must either
have rejected it altogether, or given our assent to it as it
stood. The course which we took under the circumstances
was to say that, however much we objected to the proposed
tax, or to certain other portions of the financial scheme of
the Government, or to the treaty, we should not interfere
with the progress of the Income-tax Bill, because by.doing
so we might greatly embarrass the finances of the country
and the general arrangements of the Government. I my-
self took occasion to draw a broad distinction between a
measure of that nature and another bill, observing that
when that other bill came before us I should feel myself at

liberty to take a course with respect to it which, while it
would net tend to embarrass the finances of the country,
would place a considerable sum at the disposal of the Go-
vernment. Leaving the constitutional part of the question
where it was left by my noble and learned friend, and by
the noble duke who spoke last, whose advocacy does not
seem to have very much improved his case—(a laugh)—l
proceed now to the main point, the abolition of the paper
duty, and the grounds on which we object to that abolition.
The noble earl who opened this discussion occupied a con-
siderable part of his speech by doing me the honour to
refer in great detail to an address which I delivered to a de-
putation a day or two ago. He called it an unfortunate
speech, but, however much it may deserve the term in most
respects, it certainly is a fortunate one in this, that it fur-
nished my noble friend with matter for almost the whole of
his speech. (Laughter.) He commented on the statement
I made,,that I thought it was a fortunate thing that this
amendment was brought forward without any concert with
me by the noble baron opposite, who is generally a supporter
of the Government; and he says it is a question of such
importance that I ought not to have waited for its being
taken up by an independent member, but that it ought to
have been taken up on the ground of policy and principle
by a great party like that which sits opposite to him.
Earl GRANVILLE—What I said was that the question
was of such importance that the nolale earl ought to have '
made up his mind about it, without waiting until the notice
of this amendment had been given by my noble friend.
The Earl of DERBY.—I don't know that I have said
anything to lead the noble earl to suppose that I had not
made up my mind. On the contrary, I had made up my
mind completely and absolutely (hear, hear), and what I
said then, and what I repeat now is that I was very glad
it had been taken up by the noble baron, who is generally
a supporter of the Government, because I thought if it had
been brought forward by me there would have been fair
room—there would have been ground laid for objecting on
the other side that it was brought forward merely as a
political question, and not as a financial question and a
question of the greatest possible interest to the country.
(Hear, hear.) I was glad that the initiation of this amend-
ment should lie with the noble baron, who could not be
suspected of being actuated by any feelings of hostility to
the Government. But I will go further, and I will say
that in supporting this amendment with the full convic-
tion that I am performing a sacred and solemn duty I can
assure noble lords opposite, sincerely and distinctly, I do
so with no desire whatever to embarrass, still less to over-
throw, Her Majesty's Government. I can assure them
I have no desire to relieve them from the responsibility
which they have incurred. Still less do I desire that any
friend of mine should be so unfortunate as to have to re-

place them. (Laughter.) I don't hesitate to go further, and
to say that in the present state of affairs--in the threatening
state of affairs abroad, in the alarming condition of our
financial prospects at home, I think it would be a national
misfortune if to these causes of anxiety were added the
complications and difficulties which might arise from the
noble lord at the head of the Government being compelled
to retire from his present position. I can assure you with all
sincerity that it is with no spirit of hostility to the noble lord
at the head of the Government that I am taking this course.
I come forward because I believe that your lordships' inter-
ference is necessary to save the country from great present
and much greater future financial difficulties. (Cheers.)
The noble earl was right in conjecturing that it was not my
intention to rest my argument upon the intrinsic merits or
demerits of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) I shall follow the
example set me by the noble lord, and abstain altogether
from discussing the objections to the duty on the ono hand,
or the advantages which it may offer on the other. I may
be permitfred, however, to correct one misapprehension of
the noble earl in reference to what he imagines me to have
said the other day—still in that unfortunate speech—as to
the course pursued by the Government in 1858. Your lord-
ships are aware that that Government was one not very
strong in Parliamentary support. We had brought forward
a budget which had given general satisfaction. We did
not find ourselves in possession of a large available sur-
plus. The noble duke stated that whereas the revenue was
estimated at £61,000,000, it actually was £63,000,000, but
he omitted to mention that the estimated expenditure was
£67,001,000, consequently there was a deficiency to make
up of £4,000,000. What I said the other day in reference
to this paper duty was this—" Resolutions were brought
forward in the other House of Parliament, that the paper
duty was not a fit source for a permanent revenue ; and,
next, that it was desirable so to frame the financial arrange-
ments as to enable Parliament to dispense with it. My
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
that in the abstract he agreed with the resolution—as Ido
—that if the country could afford the loss the paper duty
was not a desirable source of permanent revenue ; but he
objected to the further resolution. That he said was
not the fitting time to take it off. We had proposed a
budget which remitted a certain amount of income -tax in
conformity with the provisigns of the existing law—next
year we shall have to deal with the tea and sugar duties,
upon which there will be another fall, we shall have to pro-
vide for the gradual extinction of the war duties and for
the entire lapse of the income, and we cannot give the in-
come-tax the preference over these two great objects."
(Cheers.) That was the argument used then, and that is the
argument I use now. Ido not defend the paper duty if the
exchequer were full, if the finances were flourishing, if the
prospects abroad were more certain, and if your income-tax
were at a less exorbitant rate than that at which your neces-
sities have compelled you now to place it—if you had re-
lieved the taxation which presses on the labouring classes
by the remission of the tea and sugar duties, if circum-
stances, in fact, were altogether different, it might Le de-
sirable to repeal the paper duty. But while they remain as
they are, you are only adding to the financial embarrass-
ments of the country by this improvident and reckless pro-
posal. (Cheers.) Proceeding now to the financial part of
the question, I am obliged to say the noble lord need not
have reminded me of my own inadequacy to deal with this
financial question, and of the reluctance with which the
house will listen to figures, even at the period of the even-
ing at which he spoke, much more now. Though Ido not
pretend to the character of a prophet—in financial matters
more especially—l assume all the figures and all the facts
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for all the objec-
tions which I shall offer to the present system of finance I
shalLbe able to appeal to the authority of that eame right