The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

laud that was ever brought forward. lie-eouldnot see that

difference. He believed that what was commercially good
for England must be commercially good for Ireland. % ith
regard to the paper duty, he thought the right honourable
gentleman the member for Buekinghamshire made a great
mistake in opposing this budget. He ought to have
accepted its principle and then he might have opposed
its details in committee. (Hear, hear.) Against some
of those details he (Mr. Osborne) was not prepared to say
cht not have joined the right honourable
thatgent
ehnoi .11.1
an.l He was not prepared to say that taking off the
paper tax at this time was quite prudent, nor because lie
liked the budget so muph Was he ready to swallow also the
paper duty. With regard ti the income tax hp felt very
much in theststo of other hon. gentlemen; he did not like
to pay that tax. But it was a little unfair of the roprgbeT for
Portsmouth to twit the Chancellor of the g*checser with
what he said in 1853. The right hon. gentleman made no
promises in 1853, he only indulged in anticipations that if
things went right they might be able to take off the income
tax in MO. Thu member for Buckinghamshire Said we
were paying the 04tra qd, ineeme tax to cuable him to give
his imperial pupil a lesson in free trade. But that was not
the case, They must remember that since 1853 an addition
of 48,000,000 had boon added to the army and navy expen-
diture. He agreed it was necessary to make a large outlay
on these services, but he did not anticipate that it would be
required of them to keep up that outlay every year, and he
felt sure that if they agreed to this treaty they would be
securing a capital policy of insurance for the preservation
of peaoe. (Hear.) He was of opinion that if the income-
tax was to fast for ever it would be right and just, for all
these things righted themselves at last; but if it was to be
shifted from year to year it would turn out a weapon of de-
struction. (Hear.) He himself liked the budget sufficiently
well to take it even at its high price. Hon. gentlemen op-
posite said they disliked this budget because it was a Man-
chester budget ; but when Mr. Pitt brought in his budget
it was called a French budget. (Hear.) Gentlemen oppo-
site, if they had any political creed, ought to be free-
traders. (Hear.) There was not one member on the Trea-
sury bench who started in life as a free trader. (Hear.)
He supported the budget because it was a Manchester bud-
get derived from the greatest man in finance who ever lived
—he meant Mr, Pitt—(hear)—and therefore hon. gentlemen
opposite ought to give this budget their most ardent sup-

poi t.
Mr. BARING was surprised to hear that this treaty
was no bargain. Trade was reciprocity, and reciprocity
begot commerce. When the hon. gentleman said that the
treaty was no bargain, he could not understand him. If
it was not a bargain, why did the Government have re-
course to the treaty? (Hear.) He was anxious to have a
free intercourse between countries; and if they could ob-
tain it in no other way they should ebtain it by treaty. He
hoped it would have the effect of soothing the asperity
that was growing up between the two countries, and it
would have that effect if it was mutually beneficial. It was
said that if they altered the treaty they would offend France.
But they had not yet lost the right of free discussion,which
was the privilege of Englishmen. There were persons in
France who said they did not want coal. Then, if not, why
was that article introduced at all ? They had a right to
discuss commercial treaties upon English grounds and Eng-
lish considerations. But he said that to make a treaty it
ought to be well tined—it ought to be carried into imme-
diate effect. (Hear, hear.) But France was not to act
upon it for 12 or 18 months. Was that perfect reciprocity.]
Then, again, he did not think that the correspondence laid
before the house showed that the interests of this country
had been well guarded. No written paper was laid before
them till the 17th January, and on the 23rd of January the
treaty was signed. (Hear, hear.) There ought to have
been some document to show that the Board of Trade had
been consulted. That did not appear to have been the case.
Then the differential duties on shipping were never con-
sidered. He was told it was only a treaty of commerce and
amity, and not of shipping. But why was not the shipping
' considered ? Why, that was one of the great grievances of
which they had to complain in their commercial relations
with France. (Hear.) They had had a negotiator in the
person of Mr. Cobden, without any positive in-
structions. What was Mr. Cobden's principle with
regard to trade ? That it was for the interests of this
eountry to abolish all indirect taxation. A meeting was
held at Liverpool, at which the hon. member for Roch-
dale was not present, but he wrote a letter of apology
in which he expressed a hope that the day might conic
when no indirect taxation whatever would exist.
If, when he was appointed one of the negotiators for the
treaty, they approved of that principle, they should also
have told Parliament, if they did not, they ought to have
told Mr. Cobden. The 'opinions of that hon. gentleman upon
indirect taxation were, that the sooner they did away with
Customs duties the sooner they obtained the salvation of
their country. But was that the feeling of noble lords and
right hon. gentlemen opposite who composed the Cabinet?
The treaty appeared to him to be very carelessly and very
loosely drawn up. As for the reduction of the duties on
French wines, he believed the only effect it would have
would be the introduction of low Spanish and Portuguese
wines. But the whole treaty was a mere speculation, and
he believed no one could tell exactly hew it would turn out.
His own opinion was, that as soon as markets were open in
France for English goods, they would flock there as they
did to Australia and other places. He believed, in the first
instance, that their exports would be very large—that the
foreign markets would be glutted..that much money would
be lost in endeavouring to establish a market, but at last
the French merchants will get disgusted, and things will
again return to their normal state. The French people
were very prudent and very frugal; they did not spend
much money in trade, and he therefore believed those mar-
kets in France for English goods will tarn out as he had
anticipated. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he should
have been quite willing to reduce the duties, es-
pecially on small articles consumed by the poor, if
he could so, or see his way clearly. Let the house
look at the condition of their finances, and they would see
they had not the means to reduce their taxation. There
was no surplus, and if there were, other claims de-
manded a previous attention. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman the member for Birmingham brought forward
an embryo budget in his speech at Liverpool some time
since, when he stated that all former budgets were all for
the benefit of the rich, and not of the poor. He was a
great advocate for a tax on property, and promised the
poor a complete remission of taxes. Well, then, he ap-
proved of the present budget, and could say to a poor man
" Drown all the cares of your labour in cups of cheap claret.
(A. laugh.) Your wives can wear an abundance of cheap
ilk dresses and ribbons , and he could tell the peasant that
ho might have plenty of cheap gloves wherewith to till his
field. (A laugh.) But what could he say of a war tax being
kept on tea and sugar, which was one of the poor man's
necessaries? The hon. gentleman said he had an attachment
for the treaty, because, as he supposed, it was his own off-
spring. But what did he say to the duty of 30 per cm*, or
to the case of railway iron, where a duty of 50 per cent. was
charged ? He, for one, as he already said, would be glad to
see the wine duties repealed, if there was a surplus, and
when the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer talks of this being a great financial epoch, and al-
ludes to the great advantage of tho terminable annuities
falling in,. he ought to remember there was no such thing,
for they were already spent. (Hear; hear.) It was the wish
of the people that great armaments should be prepared, and
more than the terminable annuities disappeared in that pro-
ject. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary
for Ireland said last night they could utilise these two mil-
lions. But how could that be done when they were already
expended—and expended long before they were received?
But to make up for the deficiency the right hon. gentleman
puts his hand into the pockets of the poor income tax payer
and makes him pay. It was not his intention to allude to
the prediction of the right hon. gentleman, and how it turned
out. Circumstances do change, and opinions change also ;
but he would say that, though he abandoned the idea of
putting an end to that tax, he had no right to raise it.
In his opinion it would have been much better to keep on a
small indirect taxation and a moderate income tax, and
the burden now complained of would not be so grievous
or so oppressive. (Hear, hear.) Besides, if they depend
entirely on the income ax they subject the Government
and the credit of the country to any changes that may
suddenly arise, and which may have disastrous conse-
quences. He believed the income tax interfered most in-
juriously with the wages of labour, because, if the revenue
of a gentleman were reduced by being compelled to pay a
considerable amount of income tax, he must of necessity
employ fewer persons. He agreed with the hon. gentleman
the member for Leeds, that many other circumstances con-
spired of late years to make this country prosperous in ad-
dition to commercial reforms, such as the discovery of gold
and other advantages. He also believed that the great
railway system had its effects, because it brought labour to
wherever it was required, and reduced the cost of trans-
porting goods from one county to another. He agreed
with hon. gentlemen opposite that an extension of their fo-
reign trade was a great benefit ; but they were wrong in
saying that it was all owing to free trade. Was it not true
that the 10d. income tax would tell .on the labour of the
country, for those who had to pay that tax, and were stinted
in their means, must of necessity diminish labour. That
was the opinion of Lord Brougham in 1842, and it was quite
clear they could not tax the rich man without injuring the
poor man. It was also a dangerous tax to rely on in time
of peace, and if he wanted a proof that it would not be per-
manent, he need only refer to the time of Lord Liverpool,
when the country rose en masse and swept it from the
statute book. That time may come again. They may
have popular budget after populer budget, because the peo-
ple will imagine so when taxes are remitted, but the income
tax was not necessary. There was no necessity for taking
oft the paper duty. They did not want a supplemental
tariff regulation which diminished their indirect taxation.
Had they acted gn. a principle like that they might have
concluded the treaty with France, supposing it to be ne-
cessary, or have paid off the Exchequer Bonds coming
due, or else have reduced the income tax to Bd. He be-
lieved that that system of taxation was improvident and
dangerous—unsafe even in time of peace, but doubly un-
safe in time of war. Supposing war to come, what tax
would they impose ? Would they increase the income tax
to 25., 35., or 4s. ? They would tell him, perhaps, that,
that was their only resource. They hon. member for Bir-
mingham taunted his opponents with supporthree Sir it.
Peel and a 7d. income tax, and asked why they did not now
snpport the right hon. gentleman and a 10d. income tax.
(Hear, hear.) But that was quite another matter—for the
advantages were not so obvious or so apparent. At this
time the hems° was called upon to perpetuate the income
tax at a high rate, and because they (the Conservatives)
opposed it, they were taunted with acting in a spirit of
party. The question of taxation ought never to be made a
party question, nor was it now, and he for one should not
look upon the coming division as evidence of a party con-
flict. For himself, he could truly say that he should unite
with the greatest reluctance in a vote that would have the
effect of displacing the Ministry. He should certainly vete
against the budget as it then was, but in so supporting the
amendment of his hon. friend the member for Essex, he
desired_to mark his sense of the displeasure which existed
abroad at relying on the system which was now adopted of
voting away the public money when there was a deficiency
in the Exchequer, and trusting to chance for its rest ora•
tion. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. M. GIBSON heard with regret that a gentleman of
such high authority in the commercial world as the 1;1
speaker should have entirely condemned the policy of the
budget, and should have invited the house altogether to set
aside the financial arrangements proposed by her Majesty's
Government. He recollected that the hon. gentleman
had been the uniform, the persevering, and the consistent
opponent of the commercial reforms which had taken place
within the last few years ; and he should have preferred to
see the lion. gentleman take his old ground rather than rest
his objection to the budget on the penny or twopence of
additional income tax which it might involve. (Hear.) For
the hon. gentleman did not propose to get rid of the tax
altogether. It was a mere question of a penny, or at the
most twopence ; and to use the figure of the hon. member for
Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), they would purchase a penny
reduction of the income tax at a very clear rate if they paid
for it by the sacrifice of the French treaty of commerce and
, the remissions of duties which had been proposed by her

Majesty's Government. He regretted to find that the hon.
member for Essex was supported by the leaders of the Op-
position ; for he had been in hopes that the motion was put
upon the paper merely for the purpose of enabling a certain
:section of the Conservative party to place on record their
hostility to free trade principles, The leader of the Oppo-
sition bad stated that free trade principles were good ones;
but he believed it could be shown thatvoting for the reso-
lution would be understood as announcing that they were
bad principles. The hon. member for Norfolk was at direct.
issue with his leader, the right hon. member for P-ack
He said openly that free trade was bad, and he -
b
fore right in voting for the motion of the as -there.
on. mwembez for:
Essex; but he (Mr. Gibson) could n.e:
understood how the
right hon. gentleman whe.pr".-4:essed to think that the prin-
ciple of free trade was :'';Let could hesitate to carry that prin-
ciple further, (Yeear, 'hear) The house was asked to take
a strong course, Ti was invited to refuse the Queen the
means deeming into effect the treaty which had been con-
eluded with France. "Undoubtedly the house approached
the consideration of the question perfectly free and unfet-
tered. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members were at liberty to take
that course which their sense of what was demanded of
them by the public interest might make them feel it was
duty. to adopt. But before the house deliberately refused
to give the legislative power necessary to enable the Queen
to carry into effect the treaty which had been concluded, it
ought to be satisfied that there were good and sufficient
grounds for taking so strong a step. Now, without talking
of Mr. Pitt's treaty of 1786, there had been repeated at-
tempts made within very recent periods, and by different
administrations of both parties, to conclude a commercial
treaty with France. In the years 1839-40, a joint commis-
sion, composed of representatives of both countries was en-
gaged in trying to frame a commercial convention very simi-
lar in principle to that which has lately been concluded. The
whole of the commissioners agreed to such a project, but from
one cause or another the attempt failed. He believed that
another attempt was made by the administration of Sir
Robert Peel ; but at all events he remembered Sir Robert
.Peel saying, when he introduced his reform of the tariff in
1842, that he reserved the question of the wine duties because
he had hopes of effecting a commercial treaty with France.
(Hear, hear.) The administration of Lord Derby, in 1852,
also attempted a treaty. (Cheers.) He found the fact stated be-
fore a committee of that house by a witness who was called to
give evidence relating to some difficulties connected with
local and differential dues on shipping. That gentleman, who
was the registrar of the Board of Trade, said that " Under
Lord Derby's administration it was proposed again to have
renewed the proposal for a commercial treaty with France."
(Hear, hear.) Then the witness went on to add, " I think
that what took place in Lord Derby's time had more special
reference to a commercial treaty as distinguished from the
navigation question. The proposal was for a commercial
treaty, but the French insisted on combining it with the
navigation question." (Cheers.) According to this gentle-
man' s evidence, whichhe (Mr. Gibson) believed to be strictly
true, Lord Derby was engaged in 1852 in negdtiating a treaty
resembling very much in its principles that which had now
been concluded. (Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury, too, had
occupied himself very earnestly in endeavouring to further
the import of coals into France. (Hear.) Repeated com-
plaints had been made that the coal trade was injured bythe
difficulty experienced in getting an extended import into
France, and Lord Malmesbury, very properly alive to the
best interests of this country, did what in him lay to induce
the French Government to remove duties for the purpose of
increasing the import of coal into France. Well, the French
Government asked the noble lord what he would give them
in return? Theyasked him if he should have any objection
to reduce the duties on French brandy ? And what was
Lord Malmesbury's answer? He said it would betoolimited
an operaton for a commercial treaty to confine it to coals and
brandy, and he proposed that they should have a treaty for a
revision of the customs duties on both sides. (Loud cheers.)
If that were so, what was the reason of this extreme objection
on the part of the followers of Lord Derby and Lord Mal-
mesbury to a commercial treaty which had been ratified and
which was founded on precisely the same principles ? And
now, when the most enlightened statesmen, -both Conser-
vative and Liberal, had been trying for years to bring about
what they all stated to be so desirable a result, 'VIZ., some-
thing to increase the commercial communications between
the two countries ; and when a treaty had at last been actu-
ally ratified, objections were urged against empowering the
Crown to carry out the arrangement. That was the position
in which the house was place. The member for Essex had
very fairly said that he objected to a commercial treaty, be-
cause he was a Protectionist, therefore he most consistently
opposed the budget • but he (Mr. Gibson) repeated, that he
could not understand how gentlemen opposite, who had
adopted, and he believed sincerely adopted. the principles
of free trade, could be acting on this occasion with the hon.
member. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for
Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) made a statement which, if
correct, would be a very serious objection. He said Govern-
ment had bound themselves in savour of France to reverse
the Methuen treaty with Spain. He thought the hon. ba-
ronet had fallen into an error, for ho imagine I that because
he saw a certain scale of duties depending on a certain
amount of proof spirit that they were bound to that amount
and bound by the treaty to give a supposed protection to
France as against Portuguese wines. The effect of the
treaty would be nothing of the kind. If the hon. baronet
would look at the 6th article of the treaty he would find
that her Majesty recommended to Parliament that the duty
upon wine of a certain number of degrees of proof spirit
should not exceed Is. per gallon, and so that up to 36 deg.
it should not exceed ls. 6d. per gallon ; but that was the
maximum. If they pleased, they might reduce the duties to
as low an amount as they thought fit, or abolish them alto-
gether. Government had not in any way bound themselves
to establish a differential duty in favour of French as against
Portuguese wines. France would no doubt be glad to see
that all duties were abolished. This was a matter intro-
duced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to
our own internal and domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F.
Baring did not object to a treaty with France, but would
rather not have entered into it, except they had entered in-
to one with Spain and other countries. That reminded him
of the old doctrine of 1842, when it was said " Do not make
a commercial treaty with one country until with all." He
fMr. Gibson) Said this commercial treaty with France was
to be taken on its own merits, and he believed it would con-
fer great and important commercial and political advan-
tages upon this country ; and glad as he should be to con-
clude a commercial treaty with other countries, ho would
not be deterred from making one with Franco because we
had not been able at the same time to make one with Spain
and Portugal. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet also
stated that the right articles for I eduction had not been se-
lected—that instead of selecting spirits and wine, the Go-
vernment should have taken tea and sugar, because expe-
rience had proved that by the reduction of duty on tea and
sugar they might hope to have an increased consumption,
which would make up the loss in revenue, but they could
tot hope for such results from a reduction of duties on
spirits and wine. It should he observed that when Sir R.
Peel reduced the duty on brandy from 22s 6d per gallon to
-15 s, what was the immediate consequence. Why, an ex •
tension of consumption of about 60 per cent., and during the
next three years a complete recovery of the revenue. And
the reason why the experiment had not been successful
with wine was, in his opinion, that they had never gone low
enough. They had never reduced the wine duties to a point
at which it could be introduced into a new field for consump-
tion. It did not go beyond the wealthy classes, who were as
ready to give one sum as another. But by an adequate
reduction it was to be hoped that they would find con-
sumers of wine among classes of people who had hitherto
net been able to enjoy it. But then, said the hon. member
for Essex (Mr. Du Cane), " you will interfere with the
consumption of the national beverage." As a Protectionist.
the hon. gentleman considered ' that beer should be pro-
tected as against wine. But when the plan of the Govern-
ment was adopted—as he believed it would be—it would be
found to give a very sufficient protection against wine. A
gentleman of his acquaintance had lately made a small pur-
chase of that wine of which it had been said it would injure
the consumption of the national beverage. He bought a
cask of wine in France containing 40 gallons for 64f, which
which was about 538, and the present duty was 11 guineas;
and under the new scale of duties, at is per gall, the 40 gal-
lons, at a cost of 535, would have to pay a duty of 40s. Now
upon 53s worth of beer, according to a careful calculation
which he had made of the duty on malt, he would pay a
duty of 13s. He had taken the maximum. It therefore ap-
peared that the national beverage would have an ample
protection. Then, as to the 3d article of the treaty, there
had been some misapprehension as to the differential duties
en shipping. It was supposed by many that this article had
given some sanction, or some fresh vitality, to a system of
restrictions in France which would be injurious to British
shipping. He would call the attention of the house to an-
other view of the question, viz., that this article merely re-
lated to the two preceding articles, and it meant merely
this—that those duties were not to be interfered with by
the rates of duties therein mentioned. (Hear, hear.) And
the whole had simply relation to the trade which might
grow up between England and France from the effect of
the mutual reduction of duties. It only referred to the
direct trade between the two countries. (Hear.) There were
no differential duties on English ships between England
and France. English ships went into French ports from
England carrying English produce and manufactures pre-
cisely on the same footing as French ships; but if a Dutch
or. American ship should go to France from England with
British goods, it would be subject to differential duties, to
which British ships would not be liable. The opponents of
the treaty ought to like these duties, because they really
were a protection upon British and French in the trade be-
tween the two countries. He (Mr. Gibson) did not like them,
and he wished they were abolished. But what would be the
effect of their abolition as regarded the direct trade ? When
British manufactures were sent to France, they would be
carried by ships of all nations on the same footing as they
could now be carried in British and French ships only.
(Heat, hear.) He approved of that principle. The two
contracting parties did not wish that there should be any
future misunderstanding, and therefore .they had inserted
the' 3d article. The navigation laws were loft as they were
before the conclusion of the treaty. They would, it was
hoped,be dealt with by a future arrangement—he trusted he
should see a liberal navigation treaty, as well as a liberal
commercial treaty. The hon. member for Liverpool (Mr.
Horsfall) was mistaken in supposing that the differential
duties had reference to anything but that to which he had
adverted. But the hon. gentleman would be gratified to
hear that the differential duties paid by British ships going
from America with cotton to Havre—though not to be
abolished, were likely to be reduced. This formed no part
of the treaty ; but the announcement to which he referred
was in the Moniteur of the 20th February, 1860, and it was
stated that the duty on cotton would in future be per lb.,
instead of per lb. ; and it was an error to suppose that the
third article related to the differential duties relating to the
diredt trade wir h France.
Mr. HORSFALL explained that he had made no refer-
ence to the 3d article, beyond rrmarking that a considerable
difference.of opinion existed as to its operation.
Mr. GIBSON said he had merely encLavourecl to explain_
what would be the operation of the article, and he believed
his " view was the correct one. .He would appeal to the
gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest. The
budget was called a commercial budget, and was a conces-
sion made to a section of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.)
It was said that it overlooked the interests of those con-
nected with land. He believed it to be an agricultural bud-
get. "(Laughter and cheers.) He knew what the British far-
mer had always felt in reference to free trade. It was this
if the consuming classes were to go to foreign countries for
their food, let the farmer and agricultural classes buy their
manufactures and their articles in the cheapest market.
(Hear, hear.) It was the obvious case of doing justice to
the farmer now that they had exposed hire to free importation
of corn and flour in this country. (Hear, hear.) There was
no reason why ho should have the price of those articles
raised by the operation of protective duties. (Hear, hear.)
Ho found that the British farmer had a very strong ease in
favour of this French treaty. According to the returns of
wheat imported into this country, itamounted t0X8,718,532
worth of wheat in 1859, and 28 per cent,. or £2,420,324
worth came from France. There was imported from
Franco 66 per cent. of wheat and flour into F,ngland in
1850: The latter imports amounted to, from all the world
£2,392,295; and out of that Franoe sent £1,954,247; mak-
ing a total of wheat and flour from France, in 1859, of
£1;347,471. Might not the British farmer say with justice
that, if people had their wheat and flour from France
ought to be allowed to have his brandy and silk itm
r?
country—(hear, hear, and lauc,hter)—op, f%° • "t' • 'm
• , • •

and if they would call
t meeting in any county and
put the question to the farmers, a resolution to that effect
would be carried. (Hear., hear.) He believed the advan-
tages to the agricultural classes would not be inconsiderable.
There were a variety of articles in the treaty which they
were in the habit ei consuming. He had been in correspon-
dence with persons engaged in Essex in raising coriander
and cereeeray seeds, and being alive to their own interests
theey said if these seeds were admitted duty free they would
be injured, and therefore they disapproved of the whole
scheme of the Government. (Laughter.) No doubt that
was the cause which urged the hon. member for Essex to
object to the budget altogether. (Laughter.) Now, what
were the agricultural interests more concerned in than in
obtaining a diminution of the poor-rate? Land and houses
were, as it was well known, heavily taxed to pay local rates
for the support of the destitute poor of the country. (Hear,
hear.) Now, what could be more adapted to lessen the
poor-rates than an increase of employment for the poorer
classes of the country, and what had been the effect of the
commercial policy since 1812 ? Why, if the poor• rates had
gone on increasing in proportion to the population from
1842 to 1860, they would now be upwards of a million more
than they were at this moment ; so that though the income-
tax had been complained of, he contended that the agricul-
tural classes had saved it in indirect taxation by a diminu-
tion of the poor-rates. (Hear, hear.) Now, let them take
the reduction of the wine duties. Would anything give
more . employment to the people ? It was stated before a
committee of the house that there was no article of com-
merce the increase of which would give so much employment
to labour as an increased importation of wine. (Hear, hear.)
It was a bulky article, and, being brought in casks, would
require a great number of them. Then it required a great
deal of labour to land it, to place it in the cellars of the
wine merchants, to fine it and bottle it, and, when bottled,
to convey it to thel houses of the respective consumers. It
would cause a great increase in the manufacture of bottles.
(Laughter.) This was all true. It might appear trivial—.
(ironical cheers)—but it was most important for the agri-
cultural interest. (Oh, oh.) He lived in a parish where
the resident population had not increased for a great num-
ber of years. He supposed nevertheless there had been a
natural increase. But where had it gone to ? Why, to
other districts to find employment ; and if it had not found
employment they would have had an excess of labour in that
particular locality, and no doubt the result would have been
an increase of the poor-rates. He said there was no class
in this country that had so direct an interest in everything
that would extend the field of employment as the owners of
land and houses had, and tbat it was their best policy to en-
courage every measure of commercial freedom—every mea-
sure that would unite the springs of industry—if from no
other motive than from their own interest. Well, now,
there was a great feeling against the income tax. They
called it a war tax. And why was it a war tax? Because
it was imposed when they had a large expenditure for mili-
tary and naval armaments. Well, they had got a large ex-
penditure for those purposes now. When they had an ex-
penditure of 30 millions for military and naval purposes it
was obviously necessary that they should have an income
tax. The total expenditure was 70 millions, and ho asked
if a temporary income tax was too large a proportion of di-
rect taxation towards such an amount ? Hon. gentlemen
opposite said 10d. was too much, but that 9d. would be just
the thing. The hon. member for Stamford desired aseven-
penny income tax. He thought the hon. member was a
great deal too sanguine, but he would not have his seven-
penny income tax at the price of rejecting the French
alliance. (Cheers.) What was the per centage on a tem-
porary income tax on the expenditure for naval and mili-
tary purposes ? That expenditure, excluding the cost of the
packet service, was £29,200,000, and the tenpenny income
tax was no more than three per cent, on that, and yet the
great ConserVative party opposed the income tax which was
necessary to maintain their establishments. He hoped
that hon. members would consider they had before them
not a mere question of a penny in the pound, but a question
of a broad and enlightened policy. It was frequently argued
in.that house that no consideration actuated a Government
but the simple one of how they were to get money. He said
there was somtehing more to be considered than the mere
question of the amount to be raised. There was the broad
question of a fiscal policy, which, with a growing population
like that of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
bound to have in view just as much as the raising of a par-
ticular sum. He should not say a word on the question
of the paper duty, because hon. members were well aware
of his opinion on the subject. The motion of the • hon.
member for Essex said they must not diminish their ordi-
nary revenue. Now, the house had solemnly voted that
the paper duty was no longer to be a part of the ordinary
revenue. By ordinary revenue he meant a permanent
source of income, and that house had deliberately said that
the paper duty should not form a source of permanent in-
come. Hon. members might talk of a definite resolution
meaning nothing. If they meant nothing when the resolu-
tion passed, he meant something. (Cheers.) He felt that
the great body of the members of that house would never
consent to the doctrine that a deliberate resolution of Par-
liament was to be treated as waste paper. If the Govern-
ment had taken no heed of the resolution, the right hon.
member for Bucks, who voted for it and had uniformly sup-
ported the repeal of the paper duty, might fairly have com-
plained.
Mr. WALPOLE said Ile would not trespass on the at-
tention of the house long, though the magnitude of the sub-
jects which had been brought before them would justify
him in so doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would
pardon him for saying that they were placed in considerable
embarrassment in having brought before them at one time
and in one debate upon a financial scheme, so many ques-
tions, that it was hardly possible to have a distinct and de-
finite issue upon any of them. His right hon. friend had
broken through an old custom twice, in 1853 and again in
1860. In 1853, instead of simply meeting the engagements
of the year, he based his arrangements upon future expec-
tations which no human foresight could fully anticipate,
and no human wisdom could provide for. In 1860 he pur-
sued a similar course, and had mixed up with the financial
question the treaty with France, instead of bringing for.
ward these questions at distinct times and upon distinct
considerations. He thought his hon. friend the memlAr
for Essex deserved the thanks of the house for bringing
this matter to a definite issue. But that did not seem t.,
be the opinion of many gentlemen who had spoken in this
debate. The hon. member for Birmingham said that mo-
tion meant increased expenditure ; but he should have re-
membered that it only related to the expenditure of a
single year, and even he did not Venture to say that this
year we could have any reduction. The right hon. Secre-
tary for Ireland treated the motion as a stationary policy
in finance ' • but it only meant that, so far as that when you
had a great deficit lying before you, it was better to re-
main stationary than to lay the foundation of a greater
deficit hereafter. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. mem-
ber for Liverpool said that if the motion bore simply
on the reimposition of the income tax he should have
voted for it, but he objected to it simply on the ground
that it was intended to defeat the budget. When he
(Mr. Walpole) was asked his opinion as to the budget his
answer was that he believed the main provisions to be right
—(cheers)—that to part of them exception might be taken,
as also to the mode in which they were to be carried out.
Since then he had listened to the debate, and now he be-
lieved the main provisions to be right, and he should be
sorry to see them defeated ; but still he thought that excep
tion might be taken to the time and to the mode in which it
was proposed to bring them into speration. The right hon.
gentleman who had just sat down treated his hon. friend's
motion as an attack on the French treaty. Were that its ob-
ject he (Mr. Walpole) would not vote for it. (Loud cheers )
It might then be asked why he was going to support the
motion. (Hear, hear.) He asked the house to follow him for
a few moments, and, if they treated him as candidly as he
had been treating them, he thought they could not resist
supporting—in their heart, at least,• however their votes
might go—(a laugh)—the motion of his hon. friend. The
motion recognised, as every one must recognise, the fact
that the expenditure of the year must be taken at S 10,000,000,
and it went on to ask whether, with an enormous deficiency
staring you in the face, it was wise to ixcrease that defi-
ciency by trenching on the ordinary revenue of the country,
and to meet it by reimposing the income tax in the very
year you had proposed to take it off, and also in a time of
profound peace. Part of the revenue about to be yielded up
would come from the customs duties affected by the treaty,
part from duties independent of the treaty, and part from
the remission of the excise duty on paper. These were the
three sources of revenue which the French treaty would
affect. Now, with regard to the duties affected by the treaty,
he believed they must remit them ; but to it he thought
that an exception might be taken in point of time, because
in point of fact a more deliberate negotiation of the treaty
would haye led to better provisions in some of its articles,
whilst he thought it would have been better to have made
it more concurrent in point of time and more liberal with
regard to reciprocity as between the two contracting par-
ties. But a stronger reason he had for objecting to the
treaty was that he could not understand the jealous policy t
of two great nations like France and England keepingic each
l
other at arm's length, when the advantages h
exclusively possessed might be made so mutuiadllwyoptsreonfitvahbalet
by afrank and liberalexchange. (Hear.) He d
regard to this particular
ing down this barrier; but with
was to prevent statesmen on any side of the house from break-
object—namely, the third and the 1 1_ which, in
treaty, there were two articles in whichlth both
ethsaosfv much to
ihmispooriitniniotno,
trienquupirtehdereccrnonwsnidferrnamtiotnr.eatHineg thought gahs taitmost
muni-
tion of war, and also to deprive ourselves of the reciprocity
clauses. We had seen the mistake, when repealing the na-
vigation laws, of not allowing the first offer to come from
without. The Americans said if we gave all they would
give all ; but we had given all, and -they had held back ;
and the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had himself said that
this was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He ob-
jected to the second million of customs remitted when he
remembered the little obstruction to trade and industry
which its collection caused, and he thought it was the last
thing they should have done to abolish duties which
had caused the slightest possible obstruction to trade and
th the increase Yuu
kknew
industry. But he now came to an objection which he
principle could ou
thought was unanswerable. On what
tliionng oir.dnusttyb whene
007.
atleapetnntyheinoynthlye
(Hear, hear.) The Chancell Exch.,
orTohfe.trhige
h'
one.
tle
him almost smile when he came to talk of
ht
igge
nf fui vneenecr n uhonpaf
dtraaemxmmi
the remission of the excise duty on paper. gentleman, forgetting all he had said in 1853, said, with the
two millions of long annuities falling in, he would with one
million effect the commercial treaty with France, and with
the other great ly relieve many b
source out of which ha had ranches of trade and indus-
try. The right hon'gentleman
forgot that that was i the
in-
paper t?axH.
elhVandaten promised to rid them of the n-
easons for this remissio on
vuemreertahteedrfour—the pledge given ybathe
house, the obstruction to skill and invention arising out of
of its un
the present system, the t
the inequality enable character
of the tax, and
pressure as between the rich and the
poor man's literature. He would venture to say that every
one of these reasons might be adduced with tenfold force
against the income tax. (Opposition cheers.) First, as
to the pledge. The President of the Board of Trade had
theto hie right hon. friend Mr. Disraeli to support
his part of the budget on the ground of that pledge. But
the pledge as to the paper duiy was sireply general and
conditional upon the state of the exchequer, but the pledge
as to the income tax was specific. Nor was that all. The
pledge in reference to the excise on paper was contained in
a resolution of that house whereas the pledge as to the re-
duction and ultimate abolition of the income tax was em-
bodied in an Act of Parliament, to which not only that
Imam but the House of Lords and the Queen were parties.
(Hear, hear.) Again, the pledge in regard to the paper
duty was accompanied by no other obligation of any Dort or
kind ; but the pledge as to the revision and progressive
abolition of the income tax was accompanied
by circumetanees which enabled the Government to impose
other taxes on tho people, and he held that they were not
Justified—at least he could not as being a party to that pledge
—he could not feel justined in laying one penny more of
income tax in 1860, or any year afterwards, eq3ecially 'hen
the object of doing so was merely to get rid of a pact of the
ordinary revenue, which might very well stand over until
we were in a better position to deal with it. The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had dwelt upon the obstacles
to skill and industry in the trade of teap,er-making which the
Paper duty occasioned, and the difficulty of collection, as
reasons for the removal Ogle tax. Now, he bad in his hands;

extracts from the report of the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue, but did they speak of any such obstacles or diffi-
culties of collection ? Quite the reverse. They said, " So far,
indeed. have our regulations been modified to meet the
wishes of the paper-makers, that the duty as now charged
is collected without any appreciable restrictions on the trade,
and their complaints, which at one time were frequent, have
entirely ceased." (Cheers.) Mr. Philips, of the laboratory
department, confirmed this statement, and in stronger
guage. In another report the commissioners said, "If the
objections :that can truly, be urged against the paper duty
were such as we are accustomed to hear most insisted upon
in the case of excise duties generally—their restriction and
oppression, incidences in the tax on paper—the advocates
for the abolition might find it not very difficult to make out
their case; but the fact is there is scarcely any trade in which
interference is so little felt, or in which we are continually
adapting our regulations to the wants and wishes of the
manufacturers.' But what said the Income Tax Commis-
sioners as to the oppressive character of that impost ? They
said, in 1858, "It would be almost impossible to convey to
any person unacquainted with the practical working of the
income tax a notion of the labour that it entails upon this
office, of the great variety and complexity of the questions
brought beforo us, and the painful appeals constantly made
to our compassion and forbearance. For persons are not
aware of the numerous and troublesome inquiries necessary
in each case of application for remission or repayment. And
mark this—the fact that upwards of 250,000 such claims are
annually disposed of, these will convey a formidable impres-
sion of the difficulty experienced by the commissioners."
(Hear, hear.) Talk of oppressive taxes—of taxes that in-
terfere with the skill, and enterprise, and hard industry of
the people—where had they anything so alarming as this ?
Again, was the pressure in this case greatest upon the
rich ? If hon. gentlemen would refer to the returns
they would find specified the number of persons of the diffe-
rent classes who contributed to the tax. He would take
schedule D. By the last return it appeared that the num-
ber assessed under that schedule was 258,000, and of that
number upwards of 200,000 were assessed upon incomes of
under £3OO a-year. These were the people upon whom the
tax was weighing heavily. It was not your great landed
proprietor, your rich manufacturer, or your potential and
powerful merchants, but your hard-worn tradesman and
needy prefessional man. (Hear.) And yet he was to be
told that this was a tax to be retained in preference to the
paper duty. (Cheers.) The third point taken by the right
hon. gentleman was, that the paper duty was becoming
more and more untenable. Well, what was the best of its
untenability ? That it was falling off. (Cheers.) He would
make another comparison upon this point. The amount of
-paper manufactured had increased from 66,000,0001 b. in
1842, to 187,0000,0001 b. in 1858 ; and the amount of duty
paid had risen from £634,000 to £1,281,000. Now, take the
income-tax. In 1843 the total amount levied was 5,356,000
—in 1853 the total amount levied was £5,598,000, the in-
crease during 10 years of prcsperity being only about
£200,000. The amount upon which the tax was assessed in
1813 was under schedule D, £52,279,000, and in 1853 it had
fallen off, but he had. not the precise figures. In 1857 it
was £69,110,000, and in 1858 it had risen to £73,106,000. but
this included the augmentation consequent upon bringing
in all incomes down to V.OO a-year, the total of which
charged in that year being £11,880,000. In 1858 the
amount chargeable for incomes under £l5O was £12,843,000.
lithe Chancellor would take the amount now charged, de-
ducting these incomes, he would find that there was actually
a falling off in 1858 as compared with 1843, of nearly
£2,000,000, But what, during the same time, were our ex-
ports and imports ? Oar exports had increased threefold;
manufacturing prosperity had gone on progressing ; but
the incomes chargeable to the tax had not risen. It would
well become the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether
he had not better take off a portion of that tax instead of the
paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman re-
ferred to the inequality and pressure of the
.paper duty—be-
tween the rich and the poor—but the inequality of the
income-tax was 10 times, aye 20 times, greater as regarded
incomes of £lOO and £l5O. (Hear, hear.) That alone
would strongly induce him to vote for the motion of his
hon. friend ; but if he wanted another reason, he would
put it in the fact stated by the hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Stamford, that by forfeiting the ordinary source
of revenue arising from the paper • duty the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would have as great if not a greater
deficiency in the next year and that he was only postponing
his obligations for another 12 months, leaving either to
himself or successor the difficult task of determining whe-
ther any, and if any, how much, of the property and income
tax should continue a permanent part of our system of taxa-
tion. If in another year they were to deal with the defi-
ciency which yawned before them, they must do so either
by reducing expenditure or by imposing the income tax at a
still higher rate. A. reduction of expenditure it would be
difficult to accomplish. Though he hoped, much would be
done in that direction he did not wish our armaments to be
less efficient than they were now ; but he was convinced
that we did not get our money's worth for what we ex-
pended. (Hear, hear.) Only gamblers would meet the defi-
ciency by reduction of expenditure, because to do so would
only increase their embarrassment in the future. If, then,
they were not able to reduce the expenditure to any great
amount, as sure as he then spoke the identically same ques-
tion would come before them next year unsettled. (Hear.)
They were taunted by members on the other side of the
house wall making this a party question; but he denied
that they had done so, and he assured her Majesty's Go-
vernment that he had no intention, in voting for the mo-
tion, to disturb them in their seats. (Hear, hear.) They
were now placed in circumstances of far too grave a charac-
ter to have Administrations changed year by year by meant
of party votes, and if the Government were just and mode.
rate, and by listening attentively to the unreasonable ob-
jections urged on either side of the house, endeavoured to
establish our financial arrangements on a better footing than
they were at present, they need not fear any party opposi•
tion. (Hear, hear.) Party had nothing to do with the ques-
tion—at least so far as the great bulk of those around them
were concerned. (Hear, hear.) They were living in times
when the hands of the Executive required to be strengthened
rather than weakened, and he for one was thoroughly con-
vinced that it was for the good of the country that any Ad-
ministration sitting opposite should, as long as it did not
provoke hostility, be fairly and firmly supported in conduct-
ing the Government of this great kingdom. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Having
listened with attention, like the rest of the house, to the
speech of my right hon. friend, I am free to confess that I
find it perfectly easy to understand his premises apart front
his conclusion, not less easy to understand his conclusion—
that is, the vote he means to give—apart from his premisses.
But what the process is by which my right hon. friend has
combined such premisses with such a conclusion, I must
say would have been received by me as a riddle more hope-
less than that of the Sphinx, if it had been proposed to me
before the debate to-night. (Laughter.) My right hon.
friend is favourable to the main features of the budget in
their substance. He is favourable to the treaty with
France, and wishes to see it well carried through. He it;
favourable to the Government—a most insignificant conic
deration in comparison with that I named before, but still •
statement which, coming from him, I and every man re.
oeive with the most implicit credit. He is favourable to the
maintenance of the Government ; and, being favourable to
the treaty, to the main features of the financial scheme and
to the Government, he is about to vote for the motion of the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Du Cane). (Cheers, and counter-
cheers.) That is a process which may be perfectly intern
gible to some hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) But
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) will, I take it, have
a share in this debate ; he, I have no doubt, means to sup'
port the motion ; yet I will venture to lay what are termed
very long odds that he does not found his support of the
motion upon the propositions of my right hon. friend, but
upon propositions which are in direct contradiction to thetas
(Cheers and laughter.) I won't attempt to follow my right
hon. friend through the details of his speech. He says
that we are subject—and I admit the charge—to great dd•
ficultv, in consequence of the number of questions we have
think, is to separate them one from the other, and discuss
to discuss. The best way of coping with that difficulty, 1
them in their order ; and, as we shall have separate and
distinct opportunities of examining the treaty with Frances
of discussing the paper duty, and of considering the in"
come-tax, I cannot enter into the smallest detail on any
one of those three questions. (Some laughter.) I am
obliged to say one word, however, on what has fallen from
ph eirs duties
speech and
used theian ingcouni gee
my right hon. friend with regard to the relation of the
pa
-tax,
which Hwoeuipodsilteiadvelyusinthoneunder-
stand p
of
that the alternative before the Government when they
came to their conclusion was whether they should retails
the paper duty and dispense with the income-tax. (Nov
no.) I beg pardon. I distinctly assert, in opposition to the
gentleman who says " No"—and, at any rate, I May be al'
lowed to state my recollection—that in one part of hie
speech my right hon. friend seemed to imply that the el'
ternative with us was, whether we should keep the paper
duties and get rid of the income-tax or whetfier we should
keep the income- tax and part with the paper duties. (N 6/
no.) My right hon. friend was very eloquent upon the dial'
culties which attend the collection of the paper duty, and
made light of those difficulties. On another occasion I will
endeavour to show what those difficulties are, that my right
hon. friend has not at all taken them into his view, ana
that the report of inland revenue quoted by him, which
refers to a prior date, and does not express the present stag
of the question or the present views of the Board of Inland
Revenue, is perfectly compatible with the proposition that
those difficulties are of the most serious kind. (Hear.) l
sets forth also the great difficulties which attend the ler,"
ing of the income-tax ; but when we see before us this 0011'
elusion, that the difficulties of the paper duties are groat"
and that the difficulties of the income-tax are great, I 60
that it is wiser, if we can, to get one of the two as we pro'
pose, than
.to keep both, as my right hon. friend propose!'
(No, no.) It is, then, no question between the paper dittY:
and the income-tax that we shall have to discuss. It is s:
the outside only a question between the paper duty 01'1
one tenth portion of the income-tax. (Hear.) But I post
from that subject, because I think we have an issue before w'
in a far broader form, and I shall endeavour to come as soon
as I can to that issue. I will not, therefore, follow the right
hon. and learned gentleman who spoke on a former night
into the discussion on the alcoholic test on wines, or to;
hon. member for Buckingham into the question of song
notes and dock warrants. The contract note stamp is 1d
and that moves his indignation, because it is so small, $7,,
he says, " Will you obstruct trade by this • paltry tee
„it
But the dock warrant is 3d., and that moves his indignation
because it is so great, and he says, " Will you oversvil'he
trade by this great duty ?" (Hear, and laughter.)
hon. member has the direst views for the future in c°ll—/
o
quence of these painful measures, and when I see a ra—,
the ability of.my hon. friend the member for Huntingdon
in a state of feverish apprehension, and fore-telling the
direst direst results from the measures proposed, I naturally .7,
for consolation under circumstances so discouraging, sild.th
I find that those gentlemen viewed on former occasions wica
the same and even more painful anxiety public measures
which afterwards were adopted, approved, and vindicated
to the satisfaction of the whole country, then I confess
I live in hopes that that which has happened before r.
happen again, and that, their gloomy views of the t
turning out incorrect, I may count on their admoitum_f_
hereafter the merits:of the measures they now den
(Cheers.) The hon. member for Buckingham has
tru
y
not had the same opportunities as the hon. member Ttr,e
tingdon has had, but on great occasions we have
foula
alld
km, member for Huntingdon. among the most resolute