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

'' E gtrN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1860.

were applied in 1842, in 1845, and in 18.53? (Cheers.) There
is another view of the case, to which no allusion has been
made by gentlemen who have spoken on the other side
of the house, but which I must confess impresses itself very
forcibly upon my mind, and it is this :—I heard with pain
the speech of my right hon. friend the member for Ports-
mouth, which gave the weight of his authority, not so far,
as I could understand, in support of the motion, but, at any
rate, in disapproval of the financial proposals of the Govern-
ment. My right hon. friend referred, and my hon. friend
the member for Stamford referred, to a political reason for
the recommendation of schemes different from those of the
Government. My hon. friend the member for Stamford
gave us a glimpse of finance to which he would gladly have
been a party, and he said that, instead of an income-tax of
10d. in the pound, we ought to have an income-tax of 7d.
in the pound. My first objection to that agreeable sugges-
tion is, that he proposed entirely to abolish the very small
and modest surplus which I asked the house to provide,
and that entire abolition of sulpha is not, as I understand,
a condition or characteristic of safe Or prudent finance.
(Hear.) My hon. friend proposed to restore to the revenue
what we took away. He proposed to take away 3-10ths of
the income-tax, or about £3,550,000, and the difference be-
tween those sums swallowed up the modest surplia which I
have asked. "Aye, but," says my hen. friend, "you have.
always an increase from indirect taxes." It happens that we
have reckoned that increase already at as high an amount
as the opinion of official persons warrants us taking it, and
I need not tell my hon. friend we cannot eat the cake and
have it too— (laughter)—we cannot reckon a sum twice on
theisame side of the account. But then my hon. friend said
he would provide a surplus by new taxes. But what new
taxes ? (Hear.) By taxes on the trade and industry of the
country. Depend upon it if ever you adopt a stationary fi-
nance—stationary in fact, but retrogressive in spirit—you
will not simply stand still; you will lose those continual
supplies welling forth year by year from sources which
prudent legislation has opened, and you will be obliged to
make provision by new taxes, to which my hon.
friend so very mildly glanced. (Cheers.) My hon.
friend said, we do not make proper provi-
sion for 1861. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Supposing
hon. gentlemen opposite had attained a Spartan heroism,
and were as rigid financiers as they are Puritanical Free-
traders when it suits them—(laughter)—and they had said,
"It is intolerable that this £1,400,000 should be applied to
the purposes you propose ; take £1,000,000 of it and apply
it to the payment of Exchequer-bonds ;" I am not sure
they would have had the hop-growers to assist them ; but
they would have acted on those high principles of finance
which I must say have for many years too t the peculiarcha-
racteristic of the party which they claim to represent.
(Cheers.) But it is not so. They ask you to give the utmost
possible relief to the class which chiefly returns members to
Parliament—nothing to any other class—and to apply the
malt and hop credits as an expedient to meet expenditure in
seAdead season, fin accordance with a policy which provides
from hand to mouth, looks not to the future, and contains
within it no germ of possible improvement. (Cheers.) My
hon. friend said, "Take care what you are doing," and he
was echoed by my right hen. friend. What are we doing ?
We leave to April, 1861, to make provision fir 1861, as we
are making provision for 1860—(cheers from the Opposi-
tion)—and the reason of that proceeding is not concealed.

It ii a very tame reason—that we do not recognise this ex-
penditure as fixed and immutable. We with it to be watched
by the people of England, to be controlled by Parliament,
and therefore it is well that the Government should be de-
pendent on Parliament for a portion of the revenue, instead
of its being absolutely fixed, in order that Parliament shall
have control over the taxes. (Cheers.) Here I think lam
entitled to make a strong appeal to my right hon. friend.
He did not speak of great expenditure as desirable, or to
be looked on with indifference. He, I thought, from the
tone of his speech, looked with anxiety, which in my
idea every prudent statesman must feel, to see the expen-
diture increased. I have no article of faith more cardinal
than that large expenditure is not only an evil
in itself, but constitutes a social and political danger to the
country. (Cheers.) But my right hon. friend said, " You
will never get down the expenditure until you refuse some
of the taxes," and yet he objects to us when the course
which we take is to leave in the Parliament of next year the
power of employing that lever, if it thinks fit, for the pur-
pose of acting on the expenditure of the country.
.(Cheers.)
I must say we are acting on the principle of my right hon.
friend, and I shall be very sorry if we have not his aid to
give it effect. But here he and my hon. friend came in and
intimated that there is a peculiar danger in leaving to the
Parliament of next year to make provision for the exigen-
cies of next year, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par-
liament ; and so, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par-
liament, you are to tie up its hands, as a man who holds an
estate in fee simple, and has got a disreputable son, entails
and hampers it in every way he can, for fear his son will
abuse his power. (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in
which we are to act towards the reformed Parliament.
We are to go and say to an additional portion of the people,
"We hold you worfky to be associated with your fellow-
citizens in the great and noble office of choosing your re-
presentatives in Parliament, but when those representa-
tives come and take their seats in the old British House
of Commons they shall find the house denuded, as far as
we can effect it, of some of its powers. They shall find
that we have done for them something we thought dan-
gerous to allow them to do for themselves." (Cheers. If
there is to be reform of Parliament—if masses of our fellow-
countrymen now excluded, be they great or small, are to be
admitted to the franchise,—let those who are returned to
the new house, when they assemble, be heirs to every
power, to-every privilege, and to all the liberty of the old ;
and do not let us presume to lay the foundations of jealousy
perhaps of disloyalty and disorder—by promulgating the
doctrine that in proportion to the larger number responsi-
ble for the election and conduct of Parliament the powers
of that Parliament to be limited. (Loud cheers.) That
is one way of guarding against the dangers of a re-
formed Parliament, and it is a way which, under pretence
of guarding against them, in fact aggravates their dangers.
(Hear, hear.) There is another method of proceeding which
I hope this house will pursue. We are at present returned
by undoubtedly a most intelligent portion of the population,
but a portion more limited in its numbers than we think
desirable. (Hear.) We aro about to admit new classes to the
exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) I have got the specific of
my right hon. friend for making the now Parliament in-
nocuous, and I am not able to adopt it. I will give him
mine, and leave the house to judge between us. It is a very
simple one. When the new class sends to Parliament repre-
sentatives who will be more peculiarly its own, when these
newly-elected stewards enter upon the discharge of their
functions, when they come to review the actions of their
predecessors, let them find that, though we represented but
a part of the people, we held fairly the scales of justice be-
tween all classes and interests alike. And now I make my
second appeal to the House of Commons. I ask you which of
the two plans before you best corresponds to the description
I have given ? You know well that the interests of different
classes are materially affected by different kinds of taxation.
Hear my hon. friend the member for Buckingham—how
eloquent he is on the sufferings of the long annuitants. I
sin very glad that the long annuitants should have a repre-
sentative in this house ; but there are classes which are not
represented, and I want to know what sort of justice it is
proposed to do them by the plan of the Government and the
plan of the party opposite resmtively ? (Cheers.) Here,
again, I must resort for a few minutes to figures to prove my
case, and they shall be my last. I apprehend it is an ad-
mitted proposition that in a certain relative manner, but
with much of substantial truth, we may say that indirect
taxes upon commodities are paid in a large proportion on a
number of articles of consumption by the unrepresented
classes, whereas the income-tax is paid almost entirely by
the represented classes, and in a great degree by the wealthy
classes. These are the terms in which I would state the
incidence of the two kinds of taxation, and bearing these
terms in mind, I beg the house to observe what has hap-
pened. Six years ago came the Russian war, and
we had to make great additions to the taxation of the coun-
try. The house thought fit to make those additions in cer-
tain proportions between what was direct and what was in-
direct taxation. I put out of view now—what if not put out
of view would make for my own side—the additional taxes
laid on spirits, because I conceive they were permanent
additions to the revenue which we gladly adopted. irre-
spective of the question of what class they favoured, and I
look only to the temporary additions which the House of
Commons made to the taxation for the purposes of the war.
They were these :—ln 1854 and 1855 we laid on for the pur-
poses of the war £8,557,000 of direct taxes ; and in the same
years, also for the purposes of the war, putting aside the
spirit duties, £5,450,000 of indirect taxes. The House will
see that this is in the proportion very nearly of 8 to 5 ; 8
representing the direct, and 5 the indirect taxes. That was
the measure and the mode of the deviation which we made
at that period from our old system of taxation, and I think
the house will go with me when I say that it was desirable
when peace returned, and we began to remit those taxes,
that we should not have remitted exclusively or mainly the
taxes paid by the classes that, returned us to Parliament,
but that we should have observed the same proportion, or
at least a proportion equally favourable to the classes not
directly represented here. What have we done ? Have we
conformed to that law—does the plan of her Majesty's Go-
vernment conform to it—does the plan of right hon. gentle-
men opposite conform to it or reverse it ? Here are the
figures, and I must say they are more curious than satis-
factory. In 1557-8 we retained of direct taxes—above the
standard provided for peace, viz. id.-12,000,000. We
retained of indirect taxes /3,ooo,ooo—those on tea and
sugar. In 1858-9, when the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site was in office, we retained of direct taxes of the war
—none at all of indirect taxes-13,900,000. In 1859-60
we put on of income tax £4,000,000, not done by the
right hon. gentleman opposite, but done by the present
Government, in order to meet the charge of the esti-
mates in the main prepared by their predecessors, and
we still retained £3,000,000 indirect taxes on tea and sugar.
(Hear.) In point of fact, if we take the totals of 1857 and
1858, we levied of the direct taxes of the war £2,000,000
and of the indirect taxes of the war £6,000,000, and whereas
they have been laid on in the proportion of 8 to 5, not much
short of double, they were retained in the proportion of 1
to 3. The proceedings of last year somewhat rectified this,
because then we should have paid up to April £6,000,000
of the direct taxes of the war, and £9,000,000 of indirect
taxes—the proportion still standing at 2to 3, instead of, as
ought, at 3to 2. If the house has followed me in these

figures, I think it is clearly demonstrable that, if this house
really wishes to show the reformed Parliament which is to
follow us that we have done justice as between class and
class, something is due from us to the consumers of the
great commodities in which the people take aninterest, and
to the relief which is afforded to those classes by the remis-
sion of duties affecting trade. (Cheers.) If any hon. gentle-
man opposite says we have made a great mistake in select-
ing the paper duty instead of the tea and sugar duties—
though I may differ from him, though I may enter into an
argument to show that it would be bettor for the masses
that the paper duty should be repealed, still we stand, at
any rate, upon common ground ; and I am ready to admit
that, as far as principle is concerned, the reduction of the
duties on tea and sugar would be as just in intention to-
wards the masses of the people as the repeal of the duty on
paper. But this is not the fact. Every proposal that has
proceeded from the opposite side of the house goes on the
principle of maintaining not only every farthin
duties in
which the masses of the people are directly con-
cerned as 'consumers. (Cheers.) If I were to take it
as a sum in arithmetic, the real state of the case is
this :—ln proportion to the nine millions that we have
levied of indirect war taxation since the war, if we had
observed the same rule which we observed in laying it on,
we should have levied £14,000,000 of direct taxation. In-
stead of that we have levied £6,000,000, and the balance of
£8,000,000 would still be due from those classes. It is under
these circumstances, when we have kept up heavy charges
on articles consumed by the people, in which the labouring
man takes a great interest, that we are again asked to ad-
minister relief; for I admit that a penny in the pound is a
great relief to the classes which have so long been subject
to the burden of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) lam qite
satisfied with.the issues which haN e been raised. Ido net
think it ie necessary longer to detain the House. When hon.
gentlemen opposite regret that an unnecessarily high in-
come tax should be levied, I certainly agree with them. I
am sorry that any high income tax should be levied, whe-
ther necessary or unnecessary. We will debate on the mean-
ing of theso terms when the proper time conies. For the
present, I have endeavoured to direct your attention to this
I fact, that the main-proposition of the Um. gemtlmail
_th9

~;

' '

member for North Essex is a proposal which attacks the
whole of the past course of legislation since 1842, and which
stigmatises it for the past, and which renounces it for the
future. (Cheers, and cries of " No.") I have also shown
that, if Parliament is to be reformed, the best security we
can take for the institutions of the country, for the loyalty
of the people under the action of the new system, is to show
that we have done justice to all classes while the old one
was in existence. (Cheers.) Upon these two issues the
house has now to decide, and I am convinced both that
their decision will be favourable to the scheme of the Go-
vernment, and likewise that in delivering it the House of
Commons will do no more than echo back the voice which
has sounded throughout the nation from one extremity to
the other. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI then addressed the house as follows:
I rise to answer the challenge of the right hon. gentleman,
and to interpret the indignant negative which he heard
from my friends behind me, and which hosaid I was bound
to translate. (Hear, hear.) The right hen. gentleman says
the motion of my hon. friend the member for Essex is one
which impugns the whole policy of our commercial legisla-
tion for the last 18 years—that the measures which he in-
troduced and the policy which he recommended are pre-
cisely the same as those which on preceding occasions have
received the sanction of Parliament and the approbation of
the nation ; and that if the house accedes to the motion of
my hon. friend, weare doing all we can to reverse the spirit
and principle of our commercial code for the last 18 years.
But I deny the position assumed by the right hon. gentle-
man, and deny that there is any similarity between this and
the measures of 1812, 1845, and 1853, when he himself in-
troduced that budget to the house. Sir R. Peel in 1842 and
1845, and the right hon. gentleman in 1853, found or made
a deficit ; but when they proposed a tax it was for a period
which cevered the period during which the experiment was
to apply, and during which the revenue might be rallied.
But the right hon. gentleman now finds a deficit—he makes
a deficit, and does not propose any experiment by which
that deficit can be supplied. (Hear, hear.) The whole of
the speech of the right hon. gentleman depends upon this
position; for if he be not warranted in the assumption he
has made the whole of his arguments and calculations fall to
the ground. I hope I shall succeed in showing this to the
house. The house, lam sure, will generously remember
that the hour is late (20 minutes to one), that this is not an
occasion on which I should shrink from representing the
opinions of the party which I have the honour to represent.
I will therefore consider as briefly as I can, and for the mo-
ment in a merely financial point of view, tho plan of the right
hon. gentleman, and see how. it agrees with the position he
has laid down, and how he can reconcile it with the character
he has given of the motion of my right hon. friend. Of this
budget of the right hon. gentleman, I would say that it
aims at too much and provides too little. The right hon.
gentleman finds a deficit, he increases it, and he eloses his
proposition with introducing a tax of a very extensive cha-
racter, to exist only for a very short term. The right hon.
gentleman has estimated the deficiency at £9,500,000.
When he made his financial statement, however, the army
estimates werenot on the table, and I think it will turn out
that the expenditure for the army will be one million more
than appears in the estimates. We heard to-night of an
armament sent to China from the India establishment,
and when they arrive in China from India they will be im-
mediately on our own establishment ; in the same way, when
regiments arrive here from India, they, too, will be on our
own establishmenr. In the same manner I find that only
£500,000 is taken for China, an amount ludicrously small.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--You are
not to suppose that the vote of credit represents the whole
charge of the Chinese war, it only represents certain extra-
ordinary charges which could not be stated in the ordinary

estimates.
Mr. DlSRAELl—Certainly £500,000 appears on the irst
blush very inadequate to the occasion; the estimate has
already assumed the form of £350,008.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
dissent.

Mr. DISRAELI proceeded. Without dwelling at this
moment too much on the estimates, there should not be a
very sanguine anticipation on the part of the house to sup-
pose that the estimate could not be exceeded. The right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the
enormous deficit already existing, will next year have a fur-
ther deficit in tho malt and hop credit of L 140,000, and the
appropriation of which I protest against as a measure nu -
ipund in finance, and of which I am quite surprised the
right hon. gentleman should have proposed to avail him-
self. In 1852 I proposed as a measure of reform the ex-

tinction of a small office connected with the Treasury which
had a comparatively small sum of public money entrusted
to its administration ; I believe not more than £350,000. I
proposed that it should be taken, in the revenue for the
year, to have a surplus which would be ultimately found
in the balances of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentle-
man denounced the project, but the right hon. gentleman
is in effect doing the same thing, but on a much greater
scale and under circumstances far less justifiable. We have
now that million of Exchequer bonds. Well, sir, I under-
stand from the right hon. gentleman that we are now in a
condition of unexampled prosperity. Well, if we can't pay
them now that we are in a condition of unexampled pros-
perity, when are we to pay them ? (Hear.) The Secre-
tary to the Treasury, the other night, courteously reminded
me that in 1858 I postponed the payment of £2,000,000
of Exchequer bonds. Surely the house will recollect
the difference of circumstances. The country was still
staggering under a great commercial panic. A month
before Parliament met the minimum rate of interest
was I 0 per cent., and it was felt by everybody that
it would be totally impossible under such dream-
stances to propose taxes which would especially press upon
the commercial classes, then suffering under events of so
startling and fatal a character. (Cheers.) The proposition
I made was unanimously adopted by the house, and no one
rose to make the slightest protest against it. I see no
similarity whatever between the circumstances of that time
and the unrivalled prosperity with which we are now blessed.
(Hear, hear.) What we object to in the scheme of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it does not resemble
the transactions of 1842 or of 1845. It does not resemble
the operations of Sir It. Peel, or the operations which the
right hon. gentleman himself conducted in 1853. It is be-
cause the right hon. gentleman has neglected to take the
same security—because his plan is improvident, and because
imprOvidence under such circumstances is extremely dan-
gerous—that 1 ask the house to interpose, and express its
opinion upon his propositions. (Hear, hear.) What will
be our situation next year ? It may not, under ordinary
circumstances, be discreet to indulge in very prospective
finance ; but it appears to me that it would be perfect mad-
ness not to contemplate a little what may be our position in
1861. The member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who
has some experience, has calculated the amount of the de-
ficit ; and I shall confess myself surprised—l can hardly
say pleased—if it does not exceed that amount ; but if the
probable. deficit in 1851 be £12,000,000, surely the house
should pause before it sanctions the propositions of the right
hon. gentleman, and should hesitate, with such a prospect
before it, before it accedes to a measure which unnecessarily
increases that deficit, and of which, if it be not persisted
in, the modification would mitigate the pressure of 1861.
(Hear, hear.) ,The right hon. gentleman seems to be dis-
pleased that more than one speaker in this debate should
have contemplated the dangerous and inevitable conse-
quence of such a state of affairs, and should have suggested
that there will probably be a very considerable attempt to
fasten the expenditure of the country upon direct taxation.
The right hon. gentleman has brought forward a paper—
and it is nut the first time that he has done so—and he has
tried to show the house that in the recent impositions of
taxes there has not been that fair proportion between direct
and indirect taxation which we believe just and politic.
But there is this fallacy in all those papers which the right
hon. gentleman read and in the inference which he draws
from them. We do not object to a fair proportion be-
tween direct and indirect taxation in our financial system.
What we do object to, and what we are objecting to, is
that the direct taxation should take the form of an
income tax on this large scale (Cheers.) It is not
fair in the right bon. gentleman always to state
the question as if it were a competition between direct and
indirect taxation, and to describe this side of the house as
advocates of indirect taxation as against direct, when the
question is not what system is the superior (for I suppose
there are very few even now in this house who contemplate
a time when a considerable, portion of indirect taxation will
not be an ingredient in our financial system)—when the
real question, I say, is as to the form of the direct taxation
--a form which no one has denounced in stronger terms
than the right hon. gentleman himself. (Cheers.) The
question is whether that form, the national evils of which
he has proclaimed, and the demoralising influences of which
upon the people ho has described in such glowing terms,
should still exist, and not only exist, but shall under his
own administration be increased, without his holding out
the slightest prospect er hope that that increase will not go
on in a ratio which no one can contemplate without appre-
hension. (Cheers.) From more than one gentleman who
has addressed us in this debate we have heard a great
deal about the people, and those who have objected to the
income tax in this form and to this degree—to this excess,
I will say—have been told that they do not advocate the
interests of the masses, who are not sufficiently represen-
ted, but by whom we now learn the house is to be elected
in the next Parliament. (Hear, hear) Well, sir, I pro•
test against the justice of those observations. (Cheers.)
There is a class of political philosophers who are repre-
sented in this house, and who think that they elevate a
nation by degrading it into a mob. (Cries of "Oh," and
cheers.) Sir, Ido not share in that opinion. (Cheers.)
The contributors to the income tax consist of various classes
in the State. They are very numerous, of very different
degrees of wealth, and of very different degrees of cultiva-
tion and position ; but it is no doubt true that those who
pay the income tax are, generally speaking, the " flower of
the nation." With them are to be found the traditions,
the domestic integrity, and the moral qualities of the
nation; and it is in the high spirit of those classes, from
the highest to the humblest, that the State must look in
the time of its exigency. (Cheers.) It is not true that
the payers of the income tax are a class apart from the
great body of the people. They form a great portion of
that body, and they are themselves divided into classes
very numerous and very different in their respective posi-
tions. lam not sure if you go into the question of the
pressure of taxation, Whethei there are not several of
those classes who, under the imposition of the income
tax, suffer more severely from it than any of the work-
ing classes of this country suffer under their peculiar bur-
dens. lam perfectly ready at all times as freely as any
other member of this house to acknowledge how important
it is that we should consider the condition of the labouring
classes in this country—l know as well as any other gen-
tleman how much depends upon the ample and remunera-
tive employment which they may command, and what vi-
gorous action it gives to the wealth of the country—l know
that upon the whole how to accomplish such a result we
should extend our commercial intercourse between this
country and other countries—(hear)—and I feel, too, that
those burdens which remain ought to be judiciously re-
moved. All these are high objects of policy, and objects
which I take for granted the present House of Commons
are prepared to accomplish--(hear, hear)—but to accom-
plish these results only upon the condition that they are
practieable and consistent with the financial position of the
country ; and we cannot decide upon our financial position
without considering it.), some degree the future. (Hear.)
Well, sirs let pie say one word upon the point raised in re-
' formic° to the commercial treaty with France. (Hear,

hear.) Sir, I entirely approve of any means which may
increase. our intercourse with Fran je. That has been for
many years—at least, a quarter ela century—the object of
the constant solicitude with n.may of the Governments of
this country. (Hear, hear.) in 1840 we were informed—.
not publicly, but it was well I,;nown at the time—that a
commercial treaty with Fran „le was in fact, in negotiation,
and I ant not aware what ',vas the real reason why it was
not ratified, except it wati •in consequence of difficulties
which arose with the French Government. I should not
have alluded to this circumstance had not a member of the
Cabinet risen and referred to it, said had it not been an-
nounced by a servant of the Crown. When I was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, not a .month elapsed after the
Government was in (MICA but they thought of seeing what
they could do with Fiance ; and a !Ler the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs had opened thq more formal part of the
business, the Earl of Malmesbury requested, me to place
myself in communication with Lotd Cowley. I corre-
sponded with that noble lord, find I do not say that it
would not have taken the form of a treaty but
perhaps not the one which I ins been contemplated by
the present Government. If 4.t had been arranged, there
would have been mutual alta-mtions in the tariff. (Hear,
hear.) What prevented, unfortunately, those changes not
tukin g place ? Why, towards the end:of the autumn circum-
stances arose which rendered it to be our duty when Par-
liament assembled to call upon Parliament for a great
increase-in our armaments, and we found it impossible to
have to pass the budget for Sk war expenditure. I was the
victim. and my budget never recovered that fatal blow.
(Hear, hear.) But we had none of those prejudices which
the right hon. gentlemnn imputes to us—(hear, hear)—
against the French Gravernment. On the contrary, if the
position of affairs had permitted, nothing would be more
desirable than that cur commercial relations with France

should be considerably enlarged, and they might take the
form of a treaty. (Hear, hear.) But my objection to this
treaty of the Government is irrespective of the financial
one, and which in a moment I will refer to. I think it a
very bad treaty which was drawn with less care and with
less knowledge of the circumstances with which the nego •
tiators had to deal, and I think that altogether, consider-
ing the many arrangements it refers to, that it will be not
only injurious to the interests of this country, but inferen-
tially. Ultimately it will ha injurious to France, and it will
sow the seeds of distrust between the two nations. (Hear,
hear.) It is not a time now, at one o'clock to enter into the
details. But take the previous clause in reference to coal.
I think it is a great mistake, and if acceded to at all, it
should only have been upon a reciprocal arrangement on
the part of France to let her coal come into this country free
of duty. (Hear, hear.) Take the arrangement in reference
to the silk trade. That is extremely imperfect. There are
articles of our silk manufacture which now enter France at
a duty of 16 per cent., and many of them will bo charged a
duty of 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) It is a very great
error that France should be permitted to enter into a treaty
which leaves an export duty upon raw silk and our manu-
factures subject to a duty of 30 per cent. import duty.
There are many other details of great importance ; but I
will not now weary the house with them. I object to the
treaty as an ill drawn instrument, and under the the cir-
cumstances I could Rot allow the discussion upon it to pass
without criticism and some opposition. (Hear, hear.)
But what I object to particularly in regard to the treaty
is this, that we have entered into it, and have thereby in-
creased that deficiency in our revenue, under which the
right hon. gentleman is suffering. (Hear, hear.) I will say
this of the treaty, that it will add to the deficit at least
£1,200,000 immediately; and it is so drawn that, when the
right hon. gentleman brings it into full operation, I feel
persuaded of this result, that ho will not put it into order
without a further sacrifice of £500,000 to the revenue; and
that, I think will be a more considerable sum than that con-

templated by the right hon. gentleman in his statement
when he brought his budget under the consideration of the
house. I say, then, as to commereial intercourse with France,
there is no abstract objection to such a course. On the con-
trary, there is the greatest readiness to enter into any ar-
rangements which have that object; but we object to this
treaty, not skilfully negotiated—a treaty entered into at a
time which creates a considerable deficiency in our revenue,
and probably a much more considerable one thaw is calcu-
lated by the Chancellor of Exchequer; and we object to the
time at which it is brought forward, because the Chancellor
of the Exchequer hiinself confessed that the French Go.
vernment is bound to postpone the carrying into operation
of a portion of it till the year 1861. As there was a secret
negotiation, there was not the slightest reason why it should
not have been a secret treaty till it was all brought into
operation, But I must consider the proposition of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer this year in combination with the
budget of 1853. It is a complement to that budget. They
are, in fact, inseparably united. Now, what has been the
fate of the financial propositions of the Chancellor of the

Exchequer of 1853 ? and. can we not draw some warnings
from their fate as to the probable result of the financial

rangements of 1860 ? Tfiere were four great features of the
financial scheme of 1853, that famous financisl scheme whose
praises have been so celebrated, and on the credit of which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has flourished until he

made the statement of 1860. fneed hardly take up much
time with the first. It was not attempted, I will not say, to
pay off the national debt, but t o reduce the interest. But it

appeared that when he endeavoured to enter on that enter-
prise, he found it necessary to give anotice of some months
to the owners of some 500 millions of stock, which rendered

it impossible to carry out the project. The right hon. gen-
tleman acknowledged thatthe scheme was an abortion. But

I will say in passing, what is perhaps not known, that it WAS
an abortion that cost us the whole of the balances in the

Exchequer, and that we entered into the great Russian
war with a balance in the Exchequer of little more than a
million. The second portion of the scheme was a reduction
on the tea duties to Is. in the pound. Well, I may venture
to say that that was a measure adopted from his predeces-
sors. I had the honour, when in Lord Derby's Government,
to bring forward a proposition by which the duty on tea
should be eventually reduced to Is. a-pound, and if that plan
had been carried into a law the duty on tea would at this
time have been ls. The right hon. gentleman was deter-
mined to do it quicker than I anticipated, and what is the
result ? The duty on tea is now much more than ls. in the
pound, and I was quite surprised to find that from the de-
putation from the tea trade the other day the Chancellor of
the Exchequer received with some complacency a sugges-
tion from a gentleman interested, that that duty should be
increased Id._apound,_ _

The C II ANCE LLOR of the EXC HEQUER here made
an observation across the table which did not reach the
gallery.
Mr. DISRAELI—One great advantage of the freedom
of debate is that we are favoured with a running commentary
by the right hon. gentleman. I never object myself to be
interrupted, and 1 hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will not object in future. Well, that was the fate of his
second great proposition. The third great feature of the
financial scheme was the succession tax. Let me recal to the
house the mode in which that scheme was recommended to
us, and the estimate of its produce. Here was a taxdirectly
against the landed interest, which recommended itself very
much to the hon. member for Birmingham, and which was
to produce £2,000,000 a-year, and with these £2,000,000 and
£2,000,000 of terminable annuities the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said, " I shall have a pretty good sum of money to
assist me in putting an end to the income tax." But the
succession tax, instead of producing £2,000,000 per annum,
has produced about a third of that sum. The fourth great
measure, much larger in proportion, is now before the house,
and the income tax, the promised remission of which gained
the right hon. gentleman the applause of all parties, and the
gratitude of a grateful country, ss hich in 1860 was to termi-
nate, is now to be reimposed in an aggravated form. (Opposi-
tion cheers.) The income tax of 1853 is unfortunately still
alive, and is a child that has grown wonderfully. The income
tax of 1853, which year after year was to diminish, and this
year to cease altogether, is now 4 per cent. or 10d. in the
pound, was the fourth great measure and the fourth great
failure of the right hon. gentleman. And it is in conse-
quence of this successful measure that we are to put great
confidence in the wild and improvident proposition now be-
fore us. But I shall not state the case unfairly against the
right hon. gentleman. He had reminded the house that
circumstances intervened which he could not control, and
to which he attributed the failure of his arrangements. A
revolutionary war which was not expected occurred. But
let me remind the house that the Russian war was entered
into as an excuse, because he repeated his views and opinions
1 in 1857, when he criticiae 1 the budget of: the right hon.
member for Radnorshire. So far as a speech could aid him
he recommended the same course himself. So far back as
1858, when I occupied his position in the Ministry, and
when the income tax lapsed to 5d., the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, ever and still faithful to his pledges, main-
tained the course which I thought it-my duty to state.: But
now for the plea. Instead of witnessing the termination of
the income tax, we are called on, not only to sanction an
increase, but also an arrangement which will inevitably
cause its re-imposition another year in a more odious form.
We are told that it is to the Russian war that we are to at-
tribute the budget of 1853. Let me remind the house that
we now know much more of that war and its causes than
we did in 1853. He never had placed on the table the se-
cret correspondence between our Minister at St. Petersburg
and the noble lord opposite, and which, in consequence of
authentic information which I received, could not be kept
back, and in which we find that no sooner was Lord Derby
expelled from cffice than the Russian Emperor declared to
the new Government his designs on Turkey. 1 could bring
the evidence of a man of great commercial, now of great di-
ploniatiu reputation—the secret negotiator of the 1- aria
Treaty—l can briug forward Mr. Cobden to prove he never
gave a vote with greater reluctance than that which expel.
led Lord Derby from office, because, as ho stated, he had not
the slightest doubt that that fact produced the Sussian war.
(Loud Opposition cheers.) On the Ist January he informed
our Minister he intended invading Turkey, the Meuschiketf
mission followed, and yet it was with all this knowledge
that the right hon. gentleman brought forward his budget of
1853 with all these arrangements, which only the certain
expectation of peace could justify. Ho held out to
the Pat lament which had long repudiated the income tax
a plan for settling this long difference when Europe was on
the eve of convulsion, and a war was imminent, in which
England must be the prime mover. (Heat, hoar.) But,
Sir, is that all ? The Emperor of Russia acted with
great hesitation and perplexity, watching the course of
the English Government ; and at that period, had that Go-
vernment been energetic, it could have arrested its course.
But wo know that our Cabinet was torn with internal dis-
sensions with two parties,•by theirown confession in it. We
know that if the First Prime Minister had remained the
war would not have taken place„ but there was a party
that exercised a greater influence than the Prime Minister
or the Secretary of State, and that Iv:Ls the party that pro-
duced a peace budget when it should have been preparing
war armaments. (Opposition cheers.) - And what was the
, consequence ? That famous vote of supply in 1854, when
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forced to join in a course
that would arrest the progress of the Emperor, and show
that England would net be trifled with, proposed to send
certain battalions of Guards out to Malta, and proposed at
the same time the vote that should bring them back again.
(A laugh.) Who could be surprised that war took place
three months after such feeble conduct on the part of the
English Government? And what has been the consequence
of that war ? An addition of £40,000,300 to the debt, en-
tailing an annual charge of £1,180,000, exactly the sum we
are going to pay annually for this French treaty of com-
merce. Yet we are told of that successful financier who
proposed the great budget iu 1853, and who has now
brought forward the budget of 1860—that great statesman
whose policy is to equalise the incidences of taxation upon
different classes who shrinks from unnecessary expenditure
—whose constant call is for retrenchment, and who re•
sorts to every possible means to lighten the bur-
den of taxation on the people. (Cheers.) Why,
had one of those great statesmen shown more
force and firmness and prevented the Russian war,
which they precipitated by their feebleness, do you not see
that the incidences of taxation would have been much
lightened ; and do you not see from what has occurred that
other qualities than mere political economy are necessary
for the government of nations ? (Hear, hear.) I told you
that the budget of 1853 was inseparably connected with that
of 1860. You have seen how completely the budget of 1853
was founded on all these four features ; you see why it failed
—because external circumstances that were not foreseen by
those who ought to have been prescient of them interfered
with their consummation. What is the state of afairs
now? Is the aspect more serene than in the spring of
1853? No one can supposed that the right hen. gentle-
man now is ignorant of the state of external polities. The

right hon. gentleman takes great interest in the affairs of
Italy. He has favoured us in this house with his opinions
on that subject, and if the budget of 1860 ends in that
confusion which I believe awaits it, as must await all
schemes so truly improvident, he will not be able to tell us
next year that his plan has been frustrated by external
causes he could net foresee. He takes great interest in the
affairs of Italy, though he has quarrelled with the Pope,
as he has quarrelled with many other of his friends—
having, I suppose, learned that Christian charity which
the other night he grudged me for the Greek
Church. But, sir, it would be well when' the house
has a scheme of finance so improvident placed before it
—when a deficit exists, a deficiency is created, and a tax
is increased, that at the moment of emergency should
be the source upon which we can most rely—it would be
well to consider what is the state of our foreign relations.
They, contain at this moment the greatest causes that can
possibly impel men to action, or that can influence the des-
tinies of empires. Totally irrespective of many causes of
comparative insignificance that in olden times have produced
wars, we have now in Italy three causes, any one of which is
, enough to convulse the world. We have first the question
of Papal supremacy—we have the question of the natural
boundary of empires, and we have the question of the na •
tionality of races. Each of the first two has in its time pro-
duced the longest and most sanguinary struggles that have
taken place in the history of mankind. The question of the
Papal supremacy once gave you the SO year.' war. The
question of the natural boundary of empires gave you the
long war of the French revolution. 13.,th these questions
are still at work, and iu addition there is that which cannot
be avoided, nor perhaps long delayed—the question of the
nationality of races. And we are told fu such circumstances
as these that all statesmen should do is to simplify their
tariff. (Opposition cheers.) Why, was there ever a mo-
ment in the history of the country when we ought more to
husband our resources ? Is this a time wantonly to put an
end to any of the sources of even ordinary revenue ? Is this
the time you should fix upon to anticipate the resources of
your direct'taxation? There is not a man out of the house
who doubts the course that we ought to pursue. I think
the course recommenced by the Government is the most
improvident—l could use a stronger word, but will not do
so—that ever yet was counselled to Parliament. Under
ordinary circumstances I should hesitate to adopt it. But
in a moment like this I feel it my duty to thoroughly and
completely protest against their policy. (Cheers.) The hon.
gentleman the member for Liskeard spoke with great friend-
liness to me this evening. He told me aloud, and of course
in confidence—(laughter)—that I recommended my friends
to a very unwise course in requesting my hon. friend to
propose that resolution which he did with so much spirit
and promise. (Hear.) The member for Liskeard said to me,
" Why did you have a resolution of this kind—why did
you not admit the principle of the budget—that is, the
principle of the policy—and worry the Government in corn
ruittee. (Laughter.) You would have got a great deal of
assistance. I would have helped you, and would have
beaten the Government on details." (Laughter.) But
nothing could be more unwise than the course you have
taken in doubting the propriety of the policy, and chal-
lenging the whole syetem which they recommend to the
country. I have no doubt my hon. friend the member for
Liskeard would make a much more adroit leader of a party
than I can pretend to be; and it is only, indeed, with the
assistance and the constant indulgence of my friends that
I can fur a moment pretend to fill and carry out the duties
of the office which I now occupy ; but the hon. member
for Liskeard will allow me to tell him that he has
totally mistaken the motives which influence us—
(cheers)—and that those motives are quite different from
those which would regulate his conduct. (Laughter.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the
speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge—a speech inspired, I believe, by as true
a sense of patriotism as ever actuated any hon. gentleman,
and characterised by as pure and noble an eloquence as any
speech which has ever been made in this house. (Cheers.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the pos-
sibility that we had any object in the course we have taken
but to embarass or subvert the Government. Ho said it is
our duty to terminate their Ministerial career if we enter-
tain the opinion we have expressed. But I differ from him.
I remember that the Parliament I am addressing was sum-
moned by the Queen by the advice of her councillors, of
whom I was one, and.fthat Parliament, on its meeting,
though by a very narrow majority—still by a majority—
expressed that they had no confidence in the then Govern-
mens of her Majesty—they had no confidence in our foreign
policy—they had no confidence in our reform policy.
(Ironical cheers.) What confidence the present Parlia-
ment has in the foreign policy of the present Government
I will not at present decide. (Hear, hear.) All I know,
as far as I can form an opinion, is that tho affairs of Italy
are exactly in the same position in which they were
who Parliament was prorogued in August. (No,
no.) I think I speak with some knowledge of the circum-
stances. As far as the reform measure is concerned, I
confess that after the announcement of the Chancellor of

the Exchequer that the franchise is to be given to the
masses, no bill of reform that we could propose will vie
with the coming measure of her Majesty's Government.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think they have a right to
understand that neither I 'or my colleagues after that vote
are at all anxious now to attempt to occupy the places whitk
they then fired. (Hear.) But I at least may say for myser
that hon. gentlemen for more than two years led this house
in a minority. I shrink from the unparalleled anxiety and
responsibility of such a post, and I would recommend no
gentleman, on whatever benches he may sit in this house,
who has any regard for his nervous system—(laughter)— •
to aspire to that position. (Laughter.) The important post j
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tills gives an ample
opportunity for the exercise of his eager mind and great
resources, and ho may perhaps aspire to the proud position
of leading this house, which no one could fill more efficiently.
(fear, and cheers. But from what I have observed of the
temperament of the righthon. gentleman—kcheers)—l think
I may tell him that it is as well for him that, however
eminent his position, he reposes, at least for a term, beside
the multis sapientium of the noble lord the Foreign Se we-
tary, and the mild patience of the noble viscount—(cheers)
—that there is is such a thin.. as fulfilling a noble duty. We
are not unconscious of that duty, and we will not enter into
combinations and cabals to embarrass the Government.
But when a party conies forward with a distinct principle
and to advocate a cause which is perfectly intelligible..-
which they believe a great portion of the nation sympathise
with—to hold that such a party movement is liable to re-
proach is to confound the nature of things, and not to com-
prehend the scope and spirit of our constitution. (Hear,
hear.) It is the duty, and the noblest duty that can fall
to members of this house to fulfil such a task, and such is
the course we are now about to take. It is our opinion that
the proposal of the Government is one pernicious, impru-
dent in finance, not to say profligate—one that may lead the
country to an extremity of circumstances at this time next
year which few can contemplate without the utmost alarm.
(Hear, hear) I wish to see such a course arrested. I have
no hope that by asserting in this straightforward manner
our policy we can accomplish that object at present , but
when by this resolution we all declare that to add to a de-
ficiency is a course in finance to be deprecated, and that we
will not disappoint the just expectations of the people by
largely increasing the income tax we assert the policy which
we believe in, and will maintain. (Opposition cheers.) At
least those just expectations I myself will not disappoint,
and to the country I ultimately appeal. (Loud cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
follow the right hon. gentleman either in discussing the
details of the budget of 18,53, or the causes and effects of
the Russian war, or the affairs of Italy, or even the nervous
system of the right hon. gentleman himself. (Loud
laughter.) I beg to say, in passing, that I feel
an unfeigned pleasure in finding him in 83 good

a condition. I will endeavour in a few short sen-
tences to recal the house to the subject really now
to be decided.; and I will venture to say that a more im-
portant subject never was confined within six short lines of
a resolution, ample enough, however, for the decision of
Parliament, without mixing with it those various topics—
some personal and others general in their character—with
which the right hon. gentleman has indulged in the speech
he has just made. The resolution before the house contains
a decided opinion upon two great questions, the one relat-
ing to our commercial arrangements with foreign countries,
the other relating to the developement of our national re-
soirees at home. Either one or the other is a fit subject for
a separate discussion. The hon. member for Essex, how-
ever, has judged proper to put them both together, and what
is the result he proposes to accomplish by obtaining the as-
sent of the house to his resolution ? Nothing more or less
than this, to reject, by anticipation, without any detailed
discussion, summari.y the treaty with France, and the
budget of my right hon. friend. (Hear.) That intention is
sufficiently to be gleaned from the words of the resolution;
for if any doubt could have been entertained, that doubt
must have been destroyed by the frank avowal of the right
hon. gentleman opposite that that is the intention and the
spirit and object of the motion now under discussion. I
shall not enter into any details as to the treaty or the bud-
get, because the house knows that we are going to invite
it to enter into a discussion of the different provisions of the
treaty, and it will have an opportunity of giving its opi
niou in detail upon each. We have accomplished that
with regard to our commercial relations with France which
has been admitted to have been the object of Government
after Government in constant succession. We are
called upon now, although the right honourable
gentleman has not laid the ground for the
premature rejection of the treaty by the words of the reso-
lution to do that which is tantamount to an utter and entire
rejection of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
budget, by that part of the resolution which deals with the
income tax it is palpable that if the house agrees to the re-
solution they will set aside summarily the whole financial
arrangements which my right hon. friend has proposed.
The latter part of the resolution disposes of the budget as
the former does of the treaty. On what ground is it advo-
cated P That of the increased expenditure ? Why, if we
are obliged to have an increased expenditure, which hon.
gentlemen opposite and the country don't find fault with,
but which has been in a manner forced upon us, then it is
the duty of Parliament to increase Or income of the country
by all possible means ; and one great means of doing that is
by promoting commercial intercourse with our nearest
neighbours. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman talked
of a secret treaty, to come into force a year hence. What
would have been thought of the Government if they had
adopted such a course, so directly injurious to all connnerce?
(Hear, hear.) No doubt the example set by England and
France will be followed by other countries, and this treaty
will lay the foundation not only of increased intercoursetiof
be-
tween England and France, but amongst alltheeyna
Europe. (Cheers.) So far from increased
t say
that it
pons
enditure
being an argument against the treaty, While -1-
strengthens the reasons for it. (Hoar, h.
pur-
suing the course of developing ourresoui ces, as exemplified
in 1842, 1845, and 1853, we are setting free the springs of
industry at home, giving
le "meat to our foreign com-
merce, and increasing oudrevoewenPresources. (Hear, hear.)
Let gentlemen not bo led away by the fallacious arguments
other side. Let them reflect that, by disapproving
thisoofnthe
treaty, they would incur a responsibility for which
they would not like to be answerable in the future. (Cheers.)
The house divided. The numbers were—
For Mr. Du Cane's resolution .. 223
Against it
Majority for Ministers
The announcement of the numbers was received with
great cheering by the Ministerial side.
The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill was read a third time
and passed.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a new writ was

ordered to issue for West Surrey, for the election of a mem-
ber in the room of Mr. 11. Drummond, deceased.
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at half-past two.

P.4111-41.431ENTARY DI VISION

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FED. 24.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.

Order read, fur resuming adjourned debate on question (21st
February), " That this house, recognising the necessity
of providing for the increased expenditure wl the coming
financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add
to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary
revenue, ,and is not prepared to disappeintbejast expec-
tations of the country by re-imposing the income tax at
an unnecessarily high rate." Question again proposed;
debate resumed ; question pat. The house divided—
Ayes, 223 ; Noes, 339.