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

itis.dtity to support the second reading. He knew that in
doing so he was acting in opposition to the opinion of a noble
lord for whom he entertained sentiments of respect and ad-
miration, and that in taking an opposite view he resembled
Daniel going out to meet the lions, without being certain
of a Divine mission. He did not think it consistent with the
spirit of the constitution for their lordships to make an ex-
treme use of their privileges. (Hear.) He thought the
precedents qaoted and relied upon that evening did not
justify the course which the Opposition proposed to take.
None of the cases referred to were analogous to that under
the immediate consideration of the House. (Hear, hear.)
He would cordially support the second reading. (Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said there could not
be the slightest doubt bat that the House of Lords had the
power to reject this bill, but the question was, whether it
was just or proper to do so. They should recollect that an
additional income tax had been imposed on the distinct un-
derstanding that there war, by way of compensation, to be
a remission of the paper duties. Now, he thought that if
their lordships rejected this bill faith would be broken with
the public. If this tax had not been imposed as a check
upon literature, for what purpose had it been imposed ?
That object was openly avowed in the restrictions imposed
in the reign of Queen Anne. Why, the paper used in the
printing of the Bible was exempted from this tax, and for
the avowed purpose of giving the Bible larger circulation.
He was able to recollect what was the state of things 30
years age, when the Government was continually employed
against cheap impure publications ; but so great was the
change which had occurred of late years that cheap publi-
cations, such as Chambers' Journal and others might be
placed in the hands of their lordships' families. The paper
duty, it should be remembered, was an export duty upon
an article of large manufacture, and it was quite erroneous
to say that the repeal of such a duty could possibly affect
the public credit. The annoyance caused by the collection
of this tax was so great that their lordships could not
possibly be aware of its extent without inquiry. (Hear,
hear.) The only effect the throwing out of this bill will
produce would be to create trepidation thr. oughout the
country. It was said that they were in as' ate of financial
embarrassment, but the elasticity of the revenue was
always greater under a reduction of taxation than other-
wise. They had the power in that house, no doubt, to reject
this bill as well as other bills, bat they would by so doing be
getting up an agitation which would have a very serious
effect upon the country. If they rejected this bill they
would have that agitation which had not yet taken place
in reference to the Reform Bill. Looking to the position of
public affairs, he felt bound to vote against the amendment
of the noble lord.
The Duke of RUTLAND said the noble marquis had ad-
mitted- that the finances o? the country were in a state of
great embarrassment, and yet he said he would vote for the
remission of taxation to the amount of upwards of one mil-
lion. (Hear, hear.) He (the Duke of Rutland) must say he
was ranch astonished at the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, after the speech he had made in 1853, and after
his pledge that in the year 1860 the income tax should be
repealed. He at that time went into details to show to the
House of Commons that the income tax was unjust and
impolitic, and must be repealed. (Hear.) After quoting
from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 'i3,
he said the country might well feel astonished that in this
year, 1860, that same gentleman as Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer came forward and proposed—not the repeal of the
incometax, but that a tax which he had described as being
so unjust and obnoxious should be increased. But, whyon
earth, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found ho was not
in a position to repeal the income tax, should he have
proposed the repeal of thepaper duty ? (Hear.) The noble
earl (Granville) had alluded to the great prosperity of the
country, and he (the Duke of Rutland) was glad to see that
even under free trade there had been such increased pros-
perity. But he wished to show from returns that for a
series of years recently, while the exports, from England
had been atthe rate of 127 per cent., from France they had
amounted to 156 per cent. ; while from Belgium they had
amounted to 240 per cent. The premise of Sir Robert
Peel with regard to the speedy extinction of the income
tax ought to be faithfully observed, which it
evidently could not be if the policy of her Ma-
jesty's Government were sanctioned by the house. The
speech of the noble and learned lord near him had disposed
of the question of the right of the house to deal with the
matter, and he should not follow him into that question.
With regard to the expediency of repealing the paper duty,
however, he would say that, even if they had a surplus the
Paper duty had not a first claim. The malt tax had superior
Claims in many respects, inasmuch as it tended greatly to
increase the price of beer, the drink of the poor man. He
Would only add that he thought, looking at the state of the
revenue as shown by the noble lord opposite, that as next
Year there would be a deficiency of £11,000,000, he hoped
their lordships would exercise the undoubted privilege they
had of interfering to prevent the consummation of a step so
imprudent and unwise.
Lord CRANWORTH said that he felt this to be a ques-
tion which involved the house in a position of very con-
siderable difficulty. The step which their lordships were
now about to take, if not altogether unconstitutional, was
at least so thinly separated from it, that it merited to be so
described. Their lordships of course had a right to throw
out the bill. No tax could be repealed without an act of
Parliament, and both houses must concur in passing that
act. The noble and learned lord's quotations of 1689,
therefore, did not advance the argument one step. The
Commons objected to any alteration of a money bill in that
house, and for this good reason, that it could not be adopted
Without the concurrence of the Commons. But he (Lord
Cranworth) said that from that time to this, no example
of refusing the repeal of a tax under the circumstances in
which they were now called upon to repeal one, was to be
found. The Crown had already communicated to the
country the amount of supply necessary for the service of
the ensuing year, and the money had been voted in con-
alittee of Ways and Means. All the financial arrange-
ments for the year had been made, and being told distinctly
that there was no occasion for the rejection of the tax, he
said again that there was no example of its repeal being re
fused under such circumstances. The noble lord had
given the case of a coasting trade bill. He had endeavoured
to obtain a sight of that bill, but as the bills were not
printed in those days, he had not succeeded. Probably,
however, the House of Commons had coupled with that
bill something which they might not to have coupled, so
that it was not actually refusing the bill. That was the
case with respect to the bill of 1811, about molasses, also
referred to by the noble lord. That bill was introduced at
a time when the price of corn was at its height, and the
object of the bill was to reduce the duty on molasses, in
order that distillation might go on from sugar and not from
corn. The bill came up on the 6th of May, but it was im-
Portant to observe that the financial statement of the Go-
vernment was not made before the 20th of May. It was
introduced at that early time in order that the Government
might ascertain beforehand the opinion of the great land-
holders in that house, but it was opposed by the Earl of
Suffolk of the.day, who said he was glad the question was
not to be made a party question, but that the bill would be
resisted as an attempt to relieve West Indian interests at
the expense of English ones. The bill was rejected. The
course, taken by the Government, therefore, was open to
objection on totally different grounds, yet their lordships
were now called upon to say, upon such an authority, that
the paper duty, though not required for the service of the
Year,' ought to be retained. (Hear.) The noble and learned
lord near him also cited some cases in which that house had
thrown out bills sent up from the Commons, but the pre-
cedents would be found to be equally invalid,
.if their sub-
stance were looked into. He could not conclude without
saying, that if this was-to be the first occasion on which
their lordships meant to take a step not sanctioned by one
substantial precedent from the time of the Revolution, they
were adopting a course fraught with the utmost danger to
the high position which they now enjoyed in the estima-
tion of the country, and which they might continue to hold
so long as they abstained from interfering with the privi-
leges of the other house.

Lord CHELMSFORD—I undoubteily thought, after
the admirable speech of my noble and learned friend at the
commencement of the evening, that the constitutional part
of this question was entirely settled—(cheers)—and I do not
understand, though I have listened with the greatest atten-
tion to my noble and learned friend (Lord Cranworth),
whether he means to deny the principles upon which the
constitutional proposition has been established, or whether
he
merely means to submit to your lordships that because it
would be unprecedented to interfere in the way proposed,
therefore it would be impolitic and inexpedient for you to do
a°. My noble and learned friend does not deny the power
of the house to refuse its assent to this bill. We have heard
no denial of that proposition, and none, indeed, can bo
offered; because it stands to reason that if your assent is
required before this bill can become law, it necessarily fol-
lovrs that you must have the power of withholding your
assent--this, in other words, being the power of rejecting.
(Rear.) We are all agreed as to the privileges of the two
Reuses of Parliament with respect to money bills. We are
agreed in reference to bills of supply and taxation that your
lordships haVe, at all events, the power to reject them. You
have to a certain extent admitted that yon have no power to
alter money bills, and a resolution of the Commons to that
effect was passed in 1678. Your lordships, however, have
never absolutely admitted that you have no power to alter
money bills, though you have acquiesced to a certain extent
in that resolution, and have taken care not to exercise that
which may still be the privilege of your lordships' house,
or if you have exercised it the other house has taken care to
assert its own privileges in such a manner as not to violate
the constitutional rights of either House of Parliament.
There are many instances since 1678 in which your lord-
ships have made amendments in money bills. Those bills
have then gone down to the Commons, and supposing the
Commons have not thought those amendments improper,
they have preserved their privileges and asserted their dig-
nity by refusing to assent to the bill, but have introduced
another bill embodying the amendments proposed by the
Lords. In that way the privileges of both Houses of Par-
liament have been maintained. I und orator dmy noble and
learned friend who has just spoken not to deny the prin.
eiples asserted by Lord Lyndhurst, but he says that the
course which the house is called on to pursue is entirely
Aopreoedented and dangerous, therefore, to be adopted.
14_0' noble and learned friend maintained that the prece-
'mate which had been brought before the house are not at
All like the present case; ht two caves have been pointed

out •in which this house -re:fectedlills for the reduc-
tion
.of. taxation. It has been stated that those
bills were rejected partly for political and partly for
economical reasons. If they were rejected by your lordships
for economical reasons, that is a proof that in dealing with
money bills this house exercised a power which would hardly
be contendedlot by those who say that your lordshipshave
no right to interfere in these matters. The precedent of
1811, which my noble friend tries to disable, he has, I
think, found too strong for him. That was the case both
of the remission and imposition of taxation ; and on that
occasion thii house rejected the bill. The Commons, in-
stead of making any complaint that there had been an in-
fringement of their privileges, silently introduced another
bill, and that bill became law. (Hear, hear.) My noble
and learned friend appears to have been reading the journals
of the day, and to have adopted the argument which I saw
in the leading article of one of them, to the effect that it is
the duty of the Commons, as undoubtedly it is, to provide
the ways and means for the supply of the year, and that
this house has no right to interfere at all with those ways
and means, but is bound to adopt them. Now, suppose ono
of the ways and means devised by the Commons should be
a tax highly objectionable and known to be one which the
people at large regard with no favour or satisfaction,
though it is admitted that the assent of this house is re-
quired for the bill, and, though it is equally admitted that
this house has the power not to assent to it, yet in the same
breath we are - told that we must not touch the ways and
means provided by the Commons. Is it possible that such
an argument can prevail with your lordships ? If your
lordships have the power and the right you have also the
corresponding duty to decide upon this bill ; and I ask you
whether you are not bound to reject it, seeing that the tak-
ing off of this tax will render necessary an increase of the
income-tax and the maintenance of the duties on tea and
sugar; though, according to an observation he had read, if
the nation were polled, not one in a thousand would be
found to be in favour-of the remission of this tax. (Hear,
hear.) If we are ever to exercise the right, what better oc-
casion could be offered than the present ? If we refuse to
adopt the amendment, the consequence will be that a peace--
dent will be firmly established, and it will be said that when
the occasion arose which called for the interference of this
house we abstained from that interference, showing, there-
fore, in the strongest possible manner our own impression
that we had not the power or right to interfere. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot understand what my noble and learned
friend meant by the last solemn warning .he addressed to
the house. He seemed to think thst Were was something
impending on your lordships, and which we should draw
down on ourselves by rejecting the present bill. I must say
that we incur a much greater danger, by refusing to concur
in the-aniendment, because then we show that we are merely
ciphers in the constitution—(hear, hear)—and that we have
no power in respect to any measure in which the public may
be most deeply interested, if it- is only stamped with the
magical name of a Money Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say, if you
lose this opportunity of showing you have the power of in-
terference, and of doing the greatest possible good to the
public, you depose yourselves from the exercise of those im-
portant functions which belong to you by'the constitution,
and will certainly thereby bring down on yourselves in-
finitely more mischief than that which appeared to be
threatened by the noble and learned lord as the result of the
adoption of the amendment. (Hear, hear.)
The-Duke' of ARGYLL observed that many objections
to the bill had reference to the political aspects of the
treaty with France, but he could assure the house that he
believed the Emperor of the French was a free-trader, and
that the treaty had nothing, whatever to do with politics.
He trusted that that treaty would lay the foundation of
more amicable relations with France. So far as the inten-
tions of the Government were concerned he wished to dis-
claim the imputation that they wanted to break down in-
direct taxation, and impose heavy burdens on the owners of
property. This was not the intention of the Government.
He never heard any such. principle mooted by any member
of the Government, nor did he believe that any such inten-
tion existed. Not only did he disclaim thie as part of the
principles of the Government, but he declared his convic-
tion that direct taxation had arrived at a point that it
could not be Maintained: (Opposition cheers.) Such a
system could not be maintained in a time of peace. Never-
theless, by no means could the Government maintain the
finances of- the country with a lower income-tax. Some
thought that a lower income-tax than 9d. in the pound
might have sufficed, but these who considered the question
minutely thought otherwise. He was opposed to a high rate
of income-tax. It was imposed first to remedy a deficiency,
and enable the Government to promote commercial reform.
Since Sir Robert Peel introduced the income-tax there were
three triennial periods, and then periods of two years. When
Sir R. Peel carried the income-tax, the immediate object
was to remedy a financial deficit. That having been done,
he advised Parliament to continue the tax, in order thathe
might carry some great measures of commercial reform. In
1848 Lord John Russell's Government proposed an increase
of the tax. That proposal was a great mistake, but then
there had been the famine in Ireland and a revolution in
Europe, which circumstances would account in some mea-
sure for the increased impost. It was to meet and to enable

the Government of Lord J. Russell to cope with the emer -
gencies of the time that a continuance of the income-tax
was proposed, and the increase of the income-tax, he (the
Duke of Argyll) thought, should always be accompanied
with an extensive system of commercial reforms. He would
not now dwell on the great question of Parliamentary pri-
vilege. In the course of the debate the members of the Go-
vernment had been supposed to be in accordance with the
opinions which had been propounded by Mr. Bright. Now
he (the Duke of Argyll) was bound to say that, in the House
of Commons, they had seen the Conservative party not un-
willing to accept of the support of Mr. J. Bright. 'Be it re-
membered that in July, 1858, Mr. Disraeli deprecated the
maintenance of the Excise duty on paper, but he did nr_t
think it fair to hamper the Government with a declara-
tory resolution; but he added, that it was not the only
indirect tax which required their consideration, and in
which there was great room for improvement, and
he concluded by saying that the tax ox paper ,was
one that required immediate consideration, and that that tax
and other branches of revenue required their severe supervi-
sion. The noble duke (Rutland) had referred to the speech
of Mr. Gladstone in 1853, and had blamed him for increas-
ing and continuing the income tax after that speech, but the
noble duke seemed to forget that circumstances had com-
pelled the continuance of the income tax, and especially the
commercial reforms with which that measure was associated. 11
(Hear.) All the taxes repealed by Sir R. Peel came under
one of four heads—that of being protective, trivial, or expen-
sive in collection, or, as in the case of the paper duty, it in-
terfered with the process of manufacture. Now, under one
of those heads the taxes remitted by the present Govern-
ment would be found to be classed. He held in his hand
the tariff, as amended by Mr. Gladstone, which contained
48 articles, and which made the hairs on the heads of
some noble lords stand on end. Some 350 articles had been
swept away from the revenue because of their producing
insignificant revenue, and only 48 articles had now beenre-
tained by Mr. Gladstone. So carefully had Mr. Gladstone
been to keep on duties which were really paying that he had
imposed upon chicory a tax of about £l,OOO a year, which
had enabled him to dispense with the tax upon a number of
small articles. Taking it generally the speech of Mr. Glad-
stone was confined strictly to facts, and it was one which
made few appeals to the feelings or the sympathy of the
house. It was to be remarked that in the speeches that
night, comparatively little had been said as to the effect
of the duty upon paper. The tariff bill, which was con-
demned so much by noble lords opposite, actually imposed
more duties than it took off, aid that upon articles of
large general consumption. Therefore it was wrong to
say that the property of the country had alone been taxed
to provide for the defences of the country. (Hear, hear.)
If they regarded the commerce of the country in a proper
light, they could not condemn this paper tax in the way in
which it had been done, and he held it to be impossible
that the duty on paper could be regarded as a source of per-
manent revenue after the decision which had been arrived at
upon the subject by the House of Commons. He now came
to the last point upon which he intended to touch, the right
of the house to refuse its sanction to a bill sent up to it from
the Commons. He would be the,last member of that house
to deny that right, but the right was one thing and the con-
stitutional exercise of it was another. Their lordships were
now aiming at the condemnation of a policy which had been
eminently successful. The :paper duty, which it was the
object of the bill to abolish, had been twice condemned, and
that was reason enough why their lordships should refrain
from exercising their constitutional powers. They were now
aiming at the very basis of the constitutional relations be-
tween the two houses, as determined by the precedents.
Those which the noble lord quoted did not affect the ques-
tion, inasmuch as they all referred to: money bills, and not
one to bills of supply. He said it on the authority of others,
but he believed there was no example since the Revolution
of their lordships having thrown out a bill of supply, and
bills of supply were expressly and on the face of them de-
clared to be such by a particular paragraph in the preamble.
Noble lords opposite had rather made light of a circumstance
which had a strong moral obligation in it. In the passing-of
the budget through the other house it was decided that the
repeal of the paper duty should take place, and that a penny
should be added to the income tax. If the other house had
foreseen that their lordships would throw out this bill, it is
quite possible that they would have taken a different course.
That being so, there was an obligation which this house owed
to:the other, for which he hoped some regard would be shown.
With regard to the predicted deficit, he would observe that
that had been prophesied in 1858, and Sir G. C. Lewis in
vain replied to Mr. Disraeli's objections, that he had con-
finleook. T
con-
fined his calculations
result falsified th
lationstothe periode prophecy, for
thehew revenue
sbound
to
was £2,000,000 greater than was anticipated. A similar
result, he confidently believed, would follow now, from the
great commercial changes which the Government were pro-
posing to the country. For some time past there had been
a cessation of songs of triumph through the country. The
people had trusted to the security of the budget, but the
seeds of distrust had arisen, and the issue was hourly
looked foriard to with feelings of doubt and anxiety. How-
ever he might regret an adverse vote of their lordships on
the motion of the _noble baron, he was confident that that
policy which was commenced by Mr. Huskisson, and
matured by the late Sir Robert Peel, and now further ad-
vanced by her Majesty's Government, would triumph not-
withstanding; and he could not bat lament that their lord-

THE"SiIN; fLO

ships should be taking a course that must alienate from
them the support and the sympathy of the country. (Hear.)
Tho Earl of DERBY, to whom Lord Teynham gave way,
then rose and said ,—However important, my lords, may
be' the subject under discussion, it is, I am afraid, one
to which it is difficult to impart an amount of interest at all
proportionate to its intrinsic magnitude. I feel also that I
labour under considerable disadvantage in rising to address
your lordships at this hour of the night (a quarter to 12),
and at the close of a lengthened debate, more especially as
my observations must be mainly directed to dry financial
details, which are in themselves of a character not very
inviting. I may, however, be permitted, before passing to
those details, to say a few words with respect to the consti-
tutional question involved in this discussion which, not-
withstanding what has just fallen from the noble duke, or
from the noble and learned lord opposite, who formerly
occupied a seat on the woolsack, or from a member of your
lordships' house who came forward as a friendly critic, but
not in the capacity of a voter hostile to the Government on
the present occasion, I should be perfectly satisfied to allow
to rest on the footing on which it has been placed by my,
learned friend behind me, and by my noble, learned, and
venerable friend who spoke early in the debate, and who
has signalised the close this day of the 88th year of his
honoured life—(cheers)—by a speech oombining the ut-
most clearness and power of statement, with a knowledge
the most complete of the details of constitutional law and
practice. (Hear.) Now, the noble duke opposite did not, I
must say, in dealing with this point of constitutional Wage,
suocessfully establish the position which he laid down upon
the subject. He said that there was no instance in which
your lordships' house had rejected a supply bill, and he
quoted the ordinary language of a bill of that nature. I,
however, hold in my hand the bill to which my noble and
learned friend near me has already alluded, viz., an act
granting her Majesty certain duties to be levied on wash
and other liquors used in the distillation of spirits, and
which was absolutely rejected, notwithstanding the state-
ment of the noble duke to the effect that there was no in-
stance in which such a course had been taken in reference
to a measure of supply. But this is not all. The argument
drawn by the noble duke from this source completely fails
in the present instance, inasmuch as the bill under our no-
tice is, as it happens, not a supply bill at all, but a bill for
the repeal of a tax. (Hear.) The noble duke, however,
seemed to carry his argument on the constitutional part of
the question still better, observing that almost all money
bills have a political as well as a financial side, so that on
his assumption that we cannot amend or reject a money
bill, but simply content ourselves with expressing our opi-
nion with regard to it, we should be debarred from dealing
not only with matters of finance, but also with matters of
political importance, and prevented from rejecting a mea-
sure kith which such considerations happened to be mixed
up, notwithstanding its political consequences might be
likely to be of a most dangerous character. (Hear.) Surely,
the noble duke can hardly seriously contend for what, with
all respect to him, I must characterise so absurd a limita-
tion of the power of yoUr lordships' house as this argument
involves. But the noble duke' says that we who sup-
port the amendment in the present case are the advocates
not simply of a technical, but of a practical violation of the
ctf)hor privileges
come
houselteagxe s
boysf
eatnhpt eeun
nopt hyfeoirrnoHousethe ps
pound,
unf t
da
whichb Parliament,ill
tincreasing
einasmuch
would the
n in-ao
ts
have done had they not relied on our passing the measure
under our notice. But it is quite clear, my lords, that if
when the bill raising the income tax to 10d. in the pound
came up to us from the other house we had no power of
making any amendment in its provisions, we must either
have rejected it altogether, or given our assent to it as it
stood. The course which we took under the circumstances
was to say that, however much we objected to the proposed
tax, or to certain other portions of the financial scheme of
the Government, or to the treaty, we should not interfere
with the progress of the Income-tax Bill, because by doing
so we might greatly embarrass the finances of the country
and the general arrangements of the Government. I my-
self took occasion to draw a broad distinction between a
measure of that nature and another bill, observing that
when that other bill came before us I should feel myself at
liberty to take a course with respect to it which, while it
would not tend to embarrass the finances of the country,
would place a considerable sum at the disposal of the Go-
vernment. Leaving the constitutional part of the question
where it was left by my noble and learned friend, and by
the noble duke who spoke last, whose advocacy does not
seem to have very much improved his case—(a laugh)—l
proceed now to the main point, the abolition of the paper
duty, and the grounds on which we object to that abolition.
The noble earl who opened this discussion occupied a con-
siderable part of his speech by doing me the honour to
refer in great detail to an address which I delivered to a de-
putation a day or two ago. He called it an unfortunate
speech, but, however much it may deserve the term in most
respects, it certainly is a fortunate one in this, that it fur-
nished my noble friend with matter for almost the whole of
his speech. (Laughter.) He commented on the statement
I made, that I thought it was a fortunate thing that this
amendment was brought forward without any concert with
me by the noble baron opposite, who is generally a supporter
of the Government; and he says it is a question of such
importance that I ought not to have waited for its being
taken up by an independent member, but that it ought to
have been taken up on the ground of policy and principle
by a great party like that which sits opposite to him.
Earl GRAN VILLE—What I said was that the question
was of such importance that the noble earl 'ought to have
made up his mind about it, without waiting until the notice
of this amendment had been given by my noble friend.
The Earl of DERBY.—I don't know that I have said
anything to lead the noble earl to suppose that I had not
made up my mind. On the contrary, I had made up my
mind completely and absolutely (hear, hear), and what I
said then, and what I repeat now is that I was very glad
it had been taken up by the noble baron, who is generally
a supporter of the Government, because I thought if it had
been brought forward by me there would have been fair
room—there would have been ground laid for objecting on
the :other side that it was brought forward merely as a
political question, and not as a financial question and a
question of the greatest possible interest to the country.
(Hear, hear.) I was glad that the initiation of this amend-
ment should lie with the noble baron, who could not be
suspected of being actuated by any feelings of hostility to
the Government. But I will go further, and I will say
that in supporting this amendment with the full convic-

tion that I am performing a sacred and solemn duty I can
assure noble lords opposite, sincerely and distinctly, I do
so with no desire whatever to embarrass, still less to over-
throw, Her Majesty's Government. I can assure them
I 'have no desire to relieve them from the responsibility,
which they have incurred. Still less do I desire that any
friend of mine should be so unfortunate as to have to re-
place them. (Laughter.) I don't hesitate to go further, and
to say that in the present state of affairs—in the threatening
state of affairs abroad, in the alarming condition of our
financial prospects at home, I think it would be a national
misfortune if to these causes of anxiety were added the
complications and difficulties which might arise from the
noble lord at the head of the Government being compelled
to retire from his present position. I can assure you with all
sincerity that it is with no spirit of hostility to the noble lord
at the head of the Government that I am taking this course.
I come forward because I believe that your lordships' inter-
ference is necessary to save the country from great, present
and much greater future financial difficulties. (Cheers.)
The noble earl was right in conjecturing that it was not my
intention to rest my arguilient upon the intrinsic merit■ or
demerits of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) I shall follow the
example set me by the noble lord, and abstain altogether
from discussing the objections to the duty on the one hand,
or the advantages which it may offer on the other. I may
be permit•ed, however, to correct one misapprehension of
the noble earl in reference to what he imagines me to have
said the other day—still in that unfortunate speech—as to
the course pursued by the Government in 1858. Your lord-
ships aro aware that that Government was one not very
strong in Parliamentary support. We had brought forward
a budget which had given general satisfaction. We did
not find ourselves in possession of a large available sur-
plus. The noble duke stated that whereas the revenue was
estimated at £61,000,000, it actually was £63,000,000, but
he omitted to mention that the estimated expenditure was
£67,000,000, consequently there was a deficiency to make
up of £4,000,000. What I said the other day in reference
to this paper duty was this—" Resolutions were brought
forward in the other House of Parliament, that the paper
duty was not a fit source for a permanent revenue ; and,
next, that it was desirable so to frame the financial arrange-
ments as to enable Parliament to dispense with it. My
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
that in the abstract he agreed with the resolution—as Ido

—that if the country could afford the loss the paper duty
was not a dgpirable source of permanent revenue ; but he
objected to the further resolution. That he said was
not the fitting time to take it off. We had proposed a
budget which remitted a certain amount of income•tax in
conformity with the provisions of the existing law—next
year we shall have to deal with the tea and sugar duties,
upon which there will be another fall, we shall have to pro-
vide for the gradual extinction of the war duties and for
the entire lapse of the income, and we cannot give the in-
come-tax the preference over these two great objects."
(Cheers.) That was the argument used then, and that is the
argument I use now. Ido not defend the paper duty if the
exchequer were full, if the finances were flourishing, if the
prospects abroad were more certain, and if your income-tax
were at a less exorbitant rate than that at which your neces-
sities have compelled you now to place it—if you had re-
lieved the taxation which presses on the labouring classes
by the remission of the tea and sugar duties, if circum-
stances, in fact, were altogether different, it might be de-
sirable to repeal the paper duty. But while they remain as
they are, you are only adding to the financial embarrass-
ments of the country by this improvident and reckless pro-
posal. (Cheers.) Proceeding now to the financial part of
the question, I am obliged to say the noble lord need not
have reminded me of my own inadequacy to deal with this
financial question, and of the reluctance with which the
house will listen to figures, even at the period of the even-
ing at which he spoke, much more now. Though Ido not
pretend to the character of a prophet—in financial matters
more especially—l assume all the figures and all the facts
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for all the objec-
tions which I shall offer to the present system of finance I
shall be able to appeal to the authority of that same right

ON,- TUESDAY EVEN il4O,

hen. gentleman. Whether I refer to the strict binding
pledges which were given by the Government that the in-
come-tax should finally expire in 1850, to the feeling that
the falling in of the Long Annuities should be used as a means
Of affording relief, not in the shape of indirect taxes, but to
contribute to the abelition of theincome-tax—whetherl look
to the necessity of looking beforehand to another year, and
not being satisfied to deal with the finances of one year only.
—whether I look to the necessity of postponing the abolition
of the paper duty, or the necessity of abrogating the war
duties on tea and sugar—upon all these points I am happy
to say I have the high authority of the Chancellor of the
Exchecluer, placing himself thereby in direct opposition and
hostility to the right hon. gentlemen who was than Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and who is now his colleague at
the head of the Home Department. (Cheers.) In the first
place, let me deal with the finances of the last and present
year, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The. right hon. gentleman was anxious to
show what would have been the surplus for the year 1859-
60 if unexpected causes had not arisen to increase expen-
diture on the one hand and diminish the produce of taxes
on the other. Even by taking advantage of a very unex-
pected sum received from Spain in payment of an old debt
—for which, I believe,. he was mainly indebted to the exer-
tions of my 'noble friend the late Foreign Secretary—the
right hon. gentleman made the expenditure and income
exactly alike. This year the estimated revenue is
£60,700,000; the estimated expenditure, £70,000,000 —you
might call it £71,000,000, because there is £1,000,000 of
Exchequer bonds which have to be provided for in some
way this year. That leaves a deficiency of £9,400,000. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer offered us various modes of
filling this up; for instance, there were the tea and sugar
duties which might be kept on, which would make
£2,100,000, or we night have a 9d. income tax. He says
an income tax at 9d. will produce £9,772,000, and will give
a surplus of £372,000. Well, my lords, in the circum-
stances in which this country was placed, and looking to
the causes which necessitated such great expenditure—
which was not an outlay ef the ordinary character, but a
war expenditure in the time of peace, which became abso-
lutely necessary for the security and for the safety of the
country—l do not believe the slightest objection would
have been raised to the imposition of the 9d. income tax,
providing it was shown to be necessary for the safety
and security of the country. And, although it would not
have been as striking .and as brilliant a budget as
that brought forward by the right hon. gentleman,
in my opinion it would have been one more likely
to receive the general assent and sanction of Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) But the right• hon. gentleman thought this
was a fit occasion for a display of his matchless rhetorical
powers, Having had the pleasure of listening to that most
eloquent and most able speech, I came away with the fullest
conviction that such a budget as was then proposed, such
a financial arrangement, combining so many difficulties
and so many dangers, never could have commanded the
consent ef any legislative assembly if they had not been so
dazzled by the brilliancy of the rhetoric of the right bon.
gentleman as to be willing to blind their eyes to the dan-
gerous 9onsequences of that reckless career on which he was
urging them to enter. (Cheers.) With a deficiency of
1 £9,400,000 the right hon. gentleman proceeded to make
his statement, and, adopting the principle which seems also
to have been followed by the noble duke opposite—who
contended that because you could not strike off the income
tax at all, you might therefore proceed to enlarge the defi-
ciency—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—he proposed that you
should make great experiments in finance. I shall not stop
to show how completely different the measures now proposed
by her Majesty's Government are from those successive
systems and plans originated by the late Sir R. Peel; but
the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down this paradoxical
doctrine :—Most persons hold the opinion that periods of
prosperity,- in which the revenue is fairly productive, are
those in which you ought to make financial amendments
and improvements ; on the contrary, says the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that is quite a mistake ; the worse the
position of your affairs, the more desperate your deficiency,
the more serious your loss and the greater your dangers,
the more imperative is the necessity for an audacious and
daring Minister to enlarge that deficiency and to increase
the difficulties, so that you may take your chance of throw-
ing " double or quits." (Cheers.) You are already half
through, he tells you ; one more dashing move, it is possible
you may recover your fortunes, and if you fail you cannot
be much worse off than you were before. My lords, I say
that is not the policy of a statesman—it is the policy of a
desperate and improvident gambler. (Loud cheers.) What
is the course the right hon. gentleman proposes to take ?
Finding a deficiency of £9,400,000, he introduces a
further deficiency by the French treaty, whieh he esti
mates at a gross loss of £1,737,000, or a net loss of
£1,190,000. I take all his figures as I find them, and I
suppose him to be perfectly accurate in his calculations.
The, loss by the abolition of the Customs' duties is set down
in the gross at £1,440,000, or £910,000 net ; and he winds
up the whole by the abolition of the paper duties at the net
sum of £900,000 for the present year. In this manner he
increased the deficiency of £9,400,000 by £3,090,000, and
he left the House of Commons to deal with the very nice
little deficit of £12,490,000. Now, how did he deal with

that amount ? In the first place he proposed a number of
new charges, and these numerous petty and vexatious im-
posts on commerce will, I believe, be found productive in
practice of infinitely more embarrassment and annoyance
than the trifling reduction in the duties will compensate
for. (Hear.) He estimated that from new charges and
savings on the Customs establishment he would realise
£982,000 ; he continued the war duties on tea and sugar ;
from which he derived £2,100,000; he put on an income
tax of 10d. in the pound, producing £8,472,000, and carry-
ing out the principle which pervades the whole of this
budget, by a new arrangement of the income tax he ma-
naged to get in for the present year a larger amount than
would be yielded by the ordinary mode of imposition. In-
stead of half a year's proportion of the tax he is to receive
three quarters of the amount in the present year, in addi-
tion to the one-fourth which remained for, the service of
the year, arising from the previous sd. income tax. Even
this would have left him in a deficiency of something like
a million after taking his new charges : and so, after he
had continued the present war 'duties on tea and sugar,
after he had saddled the country with an income tax of
10d. in the pound, three-fourths of which was to be
raised in the first half-year, he found it necessary to take
for:the year 1860-61 the malt and hop credits, amounting
to £1,400,000, which properly belong to the ser-
vice of the years 1861-62. (Cheers.) And thus
by anticipating revenues, he converted his large deficit into
an apparent surplus of £464,000, at the expense of the year
1861-62, and without making the slightest prilvision tomeet
the difficulties which must then come upon the Exchequer.
(Cheers.) I said an apparent surplus of £464,000, but the
noble earl has admitted in the first place one very manifest
error, arising from a very sin- ple cause. The Budgeresti-
mate for the collection of revenue was £4,700,000, but the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward this bril-
liant budget forgot that the cost of collecting the income-
tax was by poundage ; and consequently the increased pro-
duction of the income-tax was acquired at an increased
charge, so that when the estimates are brought forward the
amount no longer stands at £4,700,000, but at £4,932,000,
being an increase of £232,000, or exactly half the estimated
surplus. The noble duke behind me pointed out, and it has
not since been denied—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has been compelled to admit drawback to the extent of
£250,000 on this very paper duty. That of itself would be
sufficient altogether to exhaust the remaining surplus for
the present year, and leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with a deficiency. My noble friend the President of the
n were g speech,
estimatedstated
at
ztlhoaot some
,000,h ad b furtherbeen
e
mC:anulielceec.sisli,•Wilinsh'ehnwishNoiehneome to look at other questions, I think
it will be manifest that even in the present year the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has landed us in a most formidable
deficiency, and to that you wish voluntarily, spontaneously,
and unnecessarily to contribute to the amount of a million
by the abolition of the paper duty. (Cheers.) The
miscellaneous estimates are seven in number, and they
were taken at £7,500,000. The six already presented
amount to £6,644,000. The seventh has not yet been pre-
sented, but if the estimated amount for the whole be
£7,500,000, it follows that for the seventh there is only left
the sum of £855,000. The similar article for the miscel-
laneous estimates last year amounted to £1,128,236, and
therefore, to bring it within the, seventh estimate with
the stipulated amount of £855,000, you must accomplish a
saving
aavreintreg
tnc2h727ooenot
saving this year of £272,:d0.,
thßeurtefoonretihoeovwehyooluerolofrdtheshrier-,8
000. (Hear, hear.) We are told
re-
maining £6,644,000 youno,chao vtheeornleiys
oefffe:oteurd
to
oouctthoonefieoexettoteutonratl of £107,080,
what£loof7c£,haooB
55
that in the budget credit was taken fora vote of £500,000,
which, I suppose, mast be taken in addition to the sums
voted for the military and naval forces engaged in the Chinese
war. And, therefore, by whatever amount the expenses of
the war in China exceed that vote of credit of £soo,ooo—and
we may be sure that it will not be a trivial excess—by so
much will there be, on the showing of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, an addition to the deficiency in his budget for
the present year. I should like to hear some explanation
on this point, and perhaps the noble lord the Under Seem-
tary of State for the War Department will enlighten me on
this subject. He will remember that the Army Estimates
were taken back and altered after they had been laid on the
table of the house, in consequence of the arrangements of
the Government having been materially interfered with by
a number of troops which were sent back from India. They
were altered, but they were increased by a very small
amount indeed. I want to know the meaning of this. The
establishment was added to by 1,900 men, in addition to those
charged on the previous estimates, and those men had, I
suppose, to be clothed, provisioned, and stores found for
them ; and yet, although a slight addition was made on ac-
count of the men, I find no addition for any articles of cloth-
ing, provision, or storage. I want to know how this addi-
tional expenditure is provided for, since it does not appear
in the budget. I believe the vote of credit of £500,000 will
be mainly absorbed by these items; but at the present mo-
ment we are unable to obtain the slightest information on
the point. In the budget for the present year no reference is
made to any contemplated outlay for fortifications with
a view to the defence of the country, and yet we
pareend a given to
aunteresftamndentehay
itnitth willsannbe
enr. ecesAnsaryy
pteorteiexn-
of this charge which may be incurred in the present year must

47... rit.,,,....ke,e5t5"......44...T.0.4,..,,,,,..4.4.1...........„..,--,
abolition of t,,he ni,lt-tax. Some of these proposals may be
inoreasenAT , and some of 'them may be and are very rea-
sonnble:“bir t at this time, owing to the state of our expen-
dituro, we ere not Orly precludd from • the process of re-
duct ;‘,13 cc debt, bat Pre/ lulled from carrying forward bene-
ficial char .es in our commercial system."
And tly:ri- upoti the paper duties, on account of the state
of the errp enditure, could not be reduced in that year. Now:
tha estimated expenditure in , 1855 was ,f.,67,000,000, the
estimated income £63,000,000, leaving a deficit of £4,000,000.
In the present year the. estimated expenditure is
£70,100,000, and the receipts are £60,700,000, leaving a de-
ficit not of 4000,000, but £9,400,000, besides those little
items which we won't talk about at present, notwithstand-
ing*hich the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he is
bound to take off the very paper duty which the state
of the revenueprevented him. from dispensing with'in 1858.
(Cheers.) But really , the number of objeeflons which I
could Eid Nemec to the Chancellor of the PXchequer's scheme,
and which have the sanction of the Chatibenor or the Ex-
chequer himself, render his speech on this memorable occa-
sion as useful to me as my speech the other day
was to my
noble friend. (Laughter.) He considers it of the utmost
importance that an accurate estimate should be taken,
not onlyT for • the expenditure of the current year,
but of the year following; and no Chancellor of the Ex-
chequei- ever stood such an attack and such an amount
of bantering respecting his inability te produce such an
estimate, as Sir C. Lewis did from Mr. Gladstone.
(Hear,, hear, and laughter.) On one point the right hen.
gentleman was particularly eloquent and impressive, and
that was upon the propriety of having a large margin
in the estimates for a war in which they were engaged,
and the expenditure of which was not provided in the
budget of the year. Now; only substitute the word
".China "' for "Persia," and you might at the present
moment read to the right hon. gentleman from his own
speech just that which he then read to Sir C. Lewis :
" When we recollect that we have to carry on two wars
in the East, and that the right hon. gentleman has not
called upon us to vote any money for the expenses of
those wars; that among all the votes he has subinitted to
Parliament he has not asked for one farthing for the Chi-
nese war, while, with respect to the Persian war, he finds it
the most convenient course to keep it as long as possible out
of sight—can, you believe, with these considerations before
you, that the right hon. gentleman is correct in his esti-
mate of £900,000, surplus ? He confines himself, as to the
Persian war, to covering the expensesbf last year, and does
not call upon us to vote any money for its charge in 1857-8.
If there be any life in the House of Commons, any sense of
its constitutional duty, it will not allow the Persian war to
be conducted on those principles. I give the fullest notice
that I do not understand it to be the function of the repre-
sentatives of the people, while attending in this house, to
allow wars to be begun by the Governmept, to be carried
on by the Government, without any explanation or estimate
of the charges being submitted to us until after, the conclu-
-1 sion of the war. After the money has been spent and the
lives of our countrymen sacrificed, the little bills are pre-
sented, and we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that we have nothing to do but to consider how they shall
be paid. That is not my understanding of our duties as
representatives of the people. If the Government form
such an estimateof our duties, I tell them that Tfor one will
never conform to that estimate, and if - the House of Com-
mons shall be of the same determination as myself, we
shall invite the Government to give us a distinct explana-
tion of the character and expenses of those wars, if they
decline our invitation we shall urge them to do so ; and, if
they still refuse, we must coerce them by our votes to
gives us an estimate of the expenses of the Persian war,
that we may know precisely what it is before the war goes
further, and not allow ourselves to be kept in ignorance of
it untie the war is over,"
One point more. The budget is proposed to be taken, not
for a period of three years, which has the high approbation
of the noble duke opposite, and which, according to him,
would give time for the great commercial change which he
thinks very desirable, but it holds good for one year only;
and it is to be taken for that period for the purpose of en-
abling the future Parliament, however constituted, to deal
freely with the finances of the country at a moment when
you have created a deficit of £12,000,000, and by repealing
the paper duties have dried up that source for supplying
the deficit. What did Mr. Gladstone say in Mareb, 1857 ?
" The hon. and learned member for Newcastle (Mr.Head-
lam) says that the only way to keep the income taxunder our
control is to vote it from year to year. Now, I beg leave
te differ in opinion altogether from the hon. member. I
believe that the transition from voting it for a term of years
to that of voting it from year to year is the sign of another
transition which we should endeavour by all means to shun,
namely, a transition froln a solid and steady system of
finance to a vacillating and merely provisional system of
finance."
(Cheers) I leave it to the right hon. gentleman, with all
1 his eloquence and ability—and no one admires them more
than I do—to reconcile these two principles. One more de-
claration-on the subject of finance was made by the right
hon. gentleman in 1857. lie said the house was called on
to take a burden off the shoulders of the wealthy classes in
order to impose taxes on tea and sugar, which were arti-
cles consumed by the poor man ; that he entertained a de-
cided opinion against such a proposition ; and that before
the Speaker left the chair, if health and strength re-
mained to him, he should endeavour to induce the house,
whatever taxes were proposed, not to levy more on the tea
and sugar of the poor man. I have endeavoured, my
lords, to show, and I said I would at the outset,
that whatever objections I entertain to this budget—
namely, because of its improvident character, because of
its rendering it absolutely impossible to take off the in-
come-tax, because of the necessity which I conceive we
are under of looking forward to the resources of future
years, and because of the impropriety of reducing the
taxes on the rich man's luxuries, while we retain those
on tea and sugar, in these objections I am supported
by the recent, repeated, eloquent, and energetic declara-
tions of the Chancellor of Exchequer. Once more I de
not object to the repeal of the paper duties if you can
afford to do so, but I do object, when our finances are in
an undue, or rather in a hopeless deficiency in
1861-2, and when, with the prospect of foreign
disturbances, of greatly increased taxation, of a large
military and naval expenditure, with the necessity of in-
curring great expense in fortifications and in the national
defences, you voluntarily deprive yourselves of a source of
permanent revenue, collected without difficulty, and yield-
ing £1,285,000 a-year. I should like to hear from the noble
duke opposite a declaration on the part of the Government
that they have nothing in common with the principles an-
nounced by those who are described as forming the Man-
chester school ; but whatever may be the intentions of the
Government, they are by their acts playing into the hands
and furthering the avowed objects of that party. (Hear.)
What is the announcement of that party ? The announce-
ment made—not concealed, but openly proclaimed—is that
they will effect a change of taxation and so cut down the
indirect taxes as to make the whole dependence of the country
be upon direct taxation ; and the pressure of that direct
taxation, they anticipate, will be so grinding and so odious
that, whatever the circumstances of the country may be,
war will be avoided, because no party will incur the expense
necessary for carrying it on. (Hear, hear.) That is the
avowed object of those persons. They say, "We will
secure peace by taking away the power of making war
by throwing the whole burden of taxation on direct
taxation, and making the pressure odious. (Hear, hear.)
The Government have quite different views, I have no
doubt ; but if they ha i the same objects they could
not more effectually promote them than by the system of
finance they are encouraging. (Cheers.) Ido not, there-
fore, solely on account of the amount, though that is consi-
derable, object to the abolitionof the paperduty, butbecause
you are taking away an important branch of revenue, and
are establishing a principle contended for by those parties
who, by weakening the financial condition of the coun-
try, desire to effect the purposes they have in view.
For these reasons of political as well as financial im
portance I object to the proposition of the Government,'
and shall not feel myself justified in giving my assent
to it. (Cheers.) I have troubled your lordships at
greater length than I desired, and in closing my ob-
servations I will again avail myself once more of that
valuable speech to which I am already so largely in-
debted : and I will read the passage in which the right hon.
gentleman sums up his objections to the budget of 1857 in
language more eloquent and forcible than any I could use.

I shall not, therefore, add a single word to the concluding
observations of the right hon. gentleman. The noble lord
then read the following passage from Mr. Gladstone's
speech on the 20th of February, 1857 :

. -
"I feel strongly upon this subject, and I dare say I have
expressed myself in strong language. I hope it has not
been stronger than the occasion demands. I confess I
do feel strongly the nature of these propositions. I
will conceal nothing. I may be wrong and my
judgment may err, like that of other men; but this is the
first time—l will not say that I have heard a defi-
ciency recommended and sanctioned by the Government,
for, and unfortunately, I have heard that, in principle it
was quite as bad as this proposition, though in degree it
was entirely different ; but, certainly, that I have heard
propounded from the Treasury Bench by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer a plan which seems to threaten to throw the
land into financial confusion. I felt that it wasour duty to
strip the veil from a statement which was certainly calcu-
lated to convey false impressions to the country, and from
the discharge of that duty I could not shrink. Every
year that a man lives he learns to estimate more humbly
his own powers. He must be content to see remain
unaccomplished much that he may earnestly desire, but
in this free, happy country there is one privilege and
one corresponding duty which remains to man—
it is to bear bis testimony in open day to the duty and the
necessity of maintaining public obligations, and to strip
away every veil from every scheme which
tends to
under-
mine this principle. That duty, with the indulgence of the
house, I have endeavoured to discharge. No consideration
on earth would induce me by voice or by vote to be a party to
a financial plan with regard to which I feel that it under-
mines the policy which has guided the course of every great
and patriotic Minister in this country, and which is inti-
mately associated, not only with the credit and the honour,
but even with the safety of this country."
The noble lord then resumed his seat amid load cheers.
Earl GRANVILLE, who, in consequence of the noise
which prevailed in the house, waa very imperfectly heard,
briefly replied. He was understood to say that he could not
follow the noble earl who had just spoken into the many
questions of detail which he had submitted to their lord-:
ships, but he wished to protest against the statements which
the noble earl had made to the house. He emphatically de-
nied that the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was that of a gambler who played at double or quits,
Such a phrase could not properly be applied to a person
who merely repeated an experiment which had been found
eminently successful. Nor was it correct to say that there
would be a deficiency in the present year, unless, indeed,
there came in claims on account of the Chinese war which
it was impossible to calculate or foresee. The wine duties
since their reduction
in the short time which had elapsed

..... '',;% Ay...,.......44•4.t-i-7,1,04- ir.11,4,5",e41,,,,,,---V.17-7,-;,-,..- 1:11,;--,z-.7 bite! prochwod the estimated amount even without the sys.
tern of refreshment houses which formed part of the finan-
cial scheme of the Government. It was possible that there
might be a d: fieiency next year, but that was a matter
which could not be dealt with at the present Min/lent. He
Maintained that the Government would not have been jus-
tifled in, proposing 4 10d. income-tax for a term of years in
the absence of any knowledge* whether it would be required.
In coneluSirin, he hoped their lordships or the public would
not be lei away by the calculations of the noble -earl with
respect to next year—calculations in which he had refused
to take into account a sum of £1,200,000 which would then
be available.
Their lordships then diyided. The numbers were—
.
For the second reading-

Present-..
Proxies

Total ........ .
Against,—

Present ...

Proxies . u 32
Total. . .. - —193

Ilfajority B9
The announcen'ent of the numbers by the Lord Chancel-
lor was received with cheers from the Opposition benches.
There was also some cheering in the StrangeTs', Gallery,
which was immediately suppressed by the officers of the
house.