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

in the slightest degree create a deficit by his financial ope-
rations. Well, he (the Earl of Derby) could not really see
in what light he saw that subject. The acknowledged deficit
Was £9,400,000, the income for the year being £60,700,000,
and the expenditure£7o,loo,ooo, leaving the deficit to which
he alluded. He should, however, be very m teh surprised if
that statement be accurate, because he believed the right
bon. gentleman had over-estimated his revenue, and did
not take into account what the real expenditure would be.
Take, for instance, the case of China. That was set down
at £500,000, and if that only exceeded the estimate by
£400,000, then the whole of his surplus was gone. By the
proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would
be several large deficits amounting altogether to £12,500,000,
and he proposed to make up for these by reimposing the
war duties on tea and sugar, and by taking into
the service of the present year £1,400,000 of malt and
hops credits, which should have gone into the
calculations of the next year. Now supposing all the cal-
culations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were correct,
instead of having a surplus next year of £470,000 by his re-
mission of the wine, paper, and other duties, there would
be a deficit of £10,000,000. Ho (Lord Derby) would ask
her Majesty's Government whether they had contemplated
any other means for Implying that deficit, except by an in-
creased income tax ? (Hear, hear.) The noble duke op-
posite said the Government project was in accordance with
the principles inaugurated by Sir R. Peel in 1842. He (the
Earl of Derby) did not believe that. The object far which
the present remissions were made remained in great dark-
ness. (Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel reduced taxes, in the
confident expectation that the relief thus afforded would
cause increased consumption, and thus indemnify the ex-
chequer for the remission. But the coarse now pursued
was strangely at variance with that pursued by Sir Robert
Peel. Why, the present Secretary of State for the Homo
Department, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said,
" We cannot take off the duties on French wines—we can-
not take off the paper duty, because these are increasing
duties, and also because we think it a wiser policy to distri-
bute the taxation over a. large number of small articles than

concentrate it upon a few." But the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer was taking the opposite course, for he was

concentrating the whole burden of taxation upon a small
and insignificant number of articles. (Hear.) Let their
lordships look a little further, and ask themselves whether
a House of Commons elected under the auspices of the new
Reform Bill would not be likely to relieve the labouring
classes from a large amount of indirect taxation, and place
the burden on the shoulders of the other classes ? (Hear,
hear.) Why, there would bran almost irresistible temp-
tation on the part of the House of Commons so elected to
increase direct taxation. (Hear, hear.) He foresaw
that this was the first step towards a large and per-
manent increase of the income tax. He saw not only
serious danger to the present system of taxing in
times of peace, by making those unnecessary remissions,
but absolute ruin, by throwing away that which would be a
most powerful instrument for raising an immediate and ex-
traordinary revenue in time of war. (Cheers.) He was
not now going to discuss the budget as a whole, but he would
ask their lordships whether this was the moment for in-
creasing our deficit? (Hear, hear.) If her Majesty's Go-
vernment had come forward with a proposition for such an
amount of income tax as was necessary to support the
honour of the country and maintain its naval and military
arrangements, there would not be a whisper of opposition
against an increased income tax— (hear, hear)—because
they would be able to say that this was the time to put those
establishments on a proper footing. But suppose this treaty
were advaiitageous to England—and he believed the con-
trary—was this the occasion to make so large a sacrifice of
revenue as they were called upon to make by this treaty ?
It might be said that those who objected to the treaty should
oppose the address. Why, so far as fiscal arrangements
were concerned, there was no practical purpose to be
answered, for the loss had already been incurred. They
had thrown away the wine duties, for example. (Hear,
hear.) Then why should they bind themselves for 10 years ?
Why not negotiate about the rag duties ? On what plea of
economy could the Governmenthave entered into an arrange.
ment with France, by which the silk manufactures of France
could be admitted at a very low duty, or free of duty, while we
had to pay a-duty of 30 per cent. on our silk, if France was
disposed to impose it ? Why should not the raw materials
of England be placed on the same footing as those of France?
(Hear, hear.) The fact was, we obtained hardly anything by
this treaty. We had already signed away our part of the
treaty. We havegiven our assent to the stipulations with re-
gard to the duties to be imposed by France so long as they
were not above 30 per cent., and we had reserved to ourselves
io power of altering that arrangement. (Hear, hear.) There
were, it was true, a vast number of articles on which the
duties ranged below 30 per cent., and it appeared that
good care had been taken of the cotton manu-
factures. (Hear.) But what was the case with regard to
linen and silk P Why the duties imposed on those articles
were enormous. The duties on some articles ranged as low
as 5 per cent., it was true, but there was no provision in the
treaty to prevent them from being raised to 30 per cent.
(Hear, hear.) But it appeared that almost all the duties
were to be levied by weight, and the consequence of this
would be that the heavier and coarser articles would be
charged with a duty absolutely prohibitory, while the ad
valorem duties would press with equal severity on the finer
qualities. (Hear.) He did not deny that this treaty would
confer some advantages, nor did he consider that it was the
absolute duty of her Majesty's Government to exact any
pledge from France with respect to the annexation of Savoy
and Nice, before agreeing to the treaty. He could not help
arriving at the conclusion that the completion of this treaty
at the present moment would lead to serious misconcep-
tions. Had the Government not a knowledge at the time
they were making this treaty that England and France
were pursuing a different policy ? Did they not know that
France had declared that in the event of a certain contin-
gency she would annex Savoy and Nice ? And yet with
that knowledge the Government of this country went on
exciting the people of Italy. (Hear.) But they did more,
they abstained for the period of three months from commu-
nicating to the other Powers the danger of Savoy and Nice
being annexed to France, and calling upon them to commu-
nicate with the French Government on the subject. Under
these circumstances, the conduct of Government was most
unfortunate in every point of view. He looked on this treaty
as a sop given to England, or rather to the Government of
England, to enable it to obtain the support of certain par-
ties—(hear, from the Opposition)—and to secure the
Government from having any very serious. opposition
from those parties. (Hear, hear.) That was a painful
position for England to be placed in to have a treaty
entered ,into under such circumstances. He supposed
that in spite of the representations of Government—
in spite of the assurance given elsewhere by the noble lord
(Lord Palmerston) that no step would be taken by France
without consulting the great Powers, France had deter-
mined upon a different course of action; for they had been
told that very day that whatever might be the votes of the
people of Savoy—whatever might be the feeling of the peo-
ple of Savoy, that territory was to be annexed to France
despite the remonstrances of the great Powers. As re-
garded the King of Sardinia, he (Earl Derby) would ask,
was he warranted in rejecting the allegiance of his subjects
and breaking through the treaties of 1814 and 1815? (Hear,
from the Opposition.) And that was the moment which
Government had selected for committing a union and iden-
tity of action with France by means of this commercial.

treaty. (Renewed cries of Hear, hear.) He deplored thebe-
, ginning of the war of last year, though he did riot, under the
circumstances, blame the Emperor of France. But if the
Emperor selected the present moment to annex a small ter-
ritory against treaties, on the pretext of its necessity to pro-
tect the French frontier—a pretext which he could not un-
derstand being put forward by any one—if he persevered
in that resolve on a pretext too palpable and transparent
to deceive any one, he would throw all Europe into a state
of alarm, in the face of the declaration he had made, that
the Empire was peace. If the annexation did take place, it
would Ue more unhappy for tho Emperor than for Europe,
for all confidence would cease in the French Government,
and every country in Europe be preparing against a future
contingency, the nature of which no man could foresee.
(Hear, hear.) He would say a word or two on the fear
which had been expressed against their dividing on the Ad-
dress. Now if the Address would have any effect upon the
treaty, and stop it from being carried out, much as he dis-
liked the treaty he should be sorry to see their lordships
reject the treaty which had been accepted by the House
of Commons. Now it might be wise not to press the
motion to a division, because a small minority
on that side of the boase or not a large majo-
rity Oct the other side, might' produce a misconception
place,t hr o ughh:suht
otuih cfooeunl
it to
hlef ah vis diustiyo nt
es hvoeult
ed ,whiot
hw eh
his
se rn, take
friendcn
Tehare((EarlhLecoa GI
fromry)eCH,thAaenNdocptEopoLssLaitycoiennno content to the motion.
.)t
surprised than to hear the noble
earslaisdayhtehwe
that it was necessary to have an act of Parliaaomsthenneertveaevprepmnrioonvreg-
picnrager
lwoi
afnmac
etenruetla.dt
te
INhe
aoadwn
by,
ebtienasta3 hie,dactid nastitution of England the
it required no assent of
the treaty which provided that it shat there was an article in
s. ouldarnhoattilteankte
uepffeenct
tuhan-t
less the Queen had the authority of p
point. But that referred to certain ongagemu ts which could
not be carried out without the consent of Parliament,e with
reference to the alteration of duties. The noble and learned
lord then referred to the article with reference to the export
of coal, and said that in the event of a war with France, if
coal should be exported for the use of French steamers, the
article could then be declared contraband of war. (Hen.)
The House of Commons had given their assent to the treaty,
and yet their lordships had been advised by the noble earl
to reject the address in its support. He
.(the Lord Chancel-
lor) considered that it would be a very lamentable thing ii
there should be a division between the two houses on the
o were
t ant they
placed, shouldan and
subject. (Hear, hear.)
u Ld
aCni id
Et
hLeM pSoFs iRo np isna dwiht i cwha still me
yi
what would be the consequence of their consetnhtiiengadtdaorjosis.n
the other House of Parliament in agreeing to
For his own part, although he was told that the address had
been prepared with great care, he should not consent to
vote for an address which, as far as their acquiescence was
concerned, was of no effect whatever. If so, he would not
share in the responsibility of an act which had in reality
been settled for their lordships by the other House of Par-
liament. That house had commercially accepted and sanc-
tioned the treaty, and it alone had the power of dealing
with those financial points involved. He must say that he
did not concur in the opinionof his noble and learned friend
on the woolsack, that it was not necessary for Parliament to
&anything to carry out the 11th article ; on the contrary,
he thought it was necessary in ordinary cases to have an act
of Parliament; but this article referred to a different mat-
ter. It referred to the exportation of coal upon which there
was no ditty, but which, might become contraband of war,
and he thought the noble and learned lord had overlooked
the 16th and 17th Vic., by which her Majesty was em-
powered to prevent the exportation of naval and military
stores. That power being conferred by an act of Parliament,
could only be dispensed with by an act of Parliament. They
knew that an address was not equivalent to an act of Par •
liament, to which the Sovereign was a party in her legisla-
tive capacity. He thought, therefore, that with respect to
trnlii:eelailleoletutothfwairtthi ealue
t, iat
awp
ease i
aqivai tcet celfe arp
atrhl
et
ncould not be car-
with any of her
LORD
ParliamentCH A CHANCELLORe
drepeated uhe
ei sn o pd
di n inoent
part h a tt
prerogatives in any shape whatever.
Lord CHELMSFORD cumplamed of the conduct of his
noble and learned friend as being irregular.
The Earl of HARDWICKE said it was clear, from the