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

out in which this house rejected bills 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 t his house exercised a power which would hardly
be contended for 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 this 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 one
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 prece-
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 that there 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 amendment, 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 wasted 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 this 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 those who considered the question
minutely th,,ught 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 that he
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, a-id 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, 1853, Mr. Disraeli deprecated the
maintenance of the Excise duty on paper, but he did n 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.
(Hear.) All the taxes repealed by Sir R. Peel came under
one of four heads—thatof 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 upcn 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, and 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 tone, 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-
fined his calculations to the period to which he was bound
to look. The result falsified the prophecy, for the revenue
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 forward 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 but lament that their lord-