The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-31 00:00:00

IRE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 31, 1860.

presented by Capo d'lstria and Pozzo di Borgo, by Lord
Clancarty and Lord Castlereagh, prevented her from ac-
quiring that territory, but she has now taken it without
asking. I wonder whether the Emperor of the French ever
reads his Bible. (A laugh.) It is a very serious =titer. If
he does, I wonder it does not recal to his recollection that
small territory which Ahab the King wanted to take from
Naboth the Jezreelite. That was un territoire de tres peu
d'etendue. Ahab wanted it for money and took it with blood,
and what was the consequence ? The cry of the weak rose
like a sacrifice to the Almighty, and the expectations of
the rich man were blasted with disappointment. Such, I
believe, will be the case in the present instance. We do
not live in a period when miraculous interpositions take
place, but I hope that the cry of the weak will still find an
echo with the Government of this country; sure I am that
it will find an echo in this House of Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) You ought not to disregard national feeling. This
country never has disregarded national feeling in Europe.
I well recollect having read in the speeches of a great Par-
liamentary leader, when some members of the House of
Commons were urging the Government to adopt a policy of
cowardice and cringing towards the first Emperor of the
French, of which I hope we shall have no examples in the
present day—(hear, hear)—l well recollect that when those
members of the House of Commons were attacking the Duke
of Wellington, and arguing that, after all, Napoleon would
govern the Spaniards a great deal better than the Spaniards
governed themselves, Mr. Canning, with that magnificent
élan of character which always distinguished him, said,
"National feeling I National feeling is prior to and para-
mount over every"consideration of political convenience."
I think the national feeling which has been aroused not only
in Switzerland but in every country of Europe by the aggres-
sive policy of Francais worthy of the attention of this house.
What are the reasons which M. Thouvenel gives for the
annexation of Savoy and Nice ? At first he said the people
would be consulted—the people are against annexation.
Then he said he would consult the municipalities—the rieu •
nicipalities agree with the people. Then he promised to
consult the Powers of Europe—the Powers of Europe are of
the same opinion as the people and the municipalities ; but
before they have had time to return an answer France has
accomplished the annexation. The conduct of M. Thou-
' venel has been marked throughout by a duplicity unworthy
the Minister of a great empire. He says in a despatch to
the French Minister at Berne, " Historical traditions
favour the annexation of Savoy to France." I should have
liked to answer that despatch. (A laugh.) It is a total
perversion of the truth. The conduct of France towards
Savoy has been the very reverse. Charles Emmanuel was
Duke of Savoy when Henry IV. was King of France,
and Richlieu was his chief Minister. (Cries of "No !")
Perhaps lam wrong. When Henry IV. was King of
France the Minister may have been some ether gentleman.
(Laughter.) Charles Emmanuel, seeing that difficulties
were about to arise with France, wanted to extend his coun-
try. Henry IV% attacked him, and took the whole of Savoy;
but what was his policy ? He was generous and politic,
aid returned Savoy to its duke. How can M. Thouvenel say
that " historical traditions favour the annexation of Savoy ?"
Louis XIII., in 1628, also took Savoy; but he, too, gave
it back to the duke—another conclusive proof that historical
traditions are not in favour of the annexation of Savoy to
France. It is only since the dynasty of Napoleon has arisen
that any attempt has been made to take permanent posses-
sion of that which has for so many centuries belonged to
the dukes of Savoy. (Hear, hear.) In a despatch to M. Per-
signy the French Minister says that the annexation of
Savoy and Nice has always been considered by several of
the principal Powers of Europe as a compensation due to
France. That statement is also without foundation. Cas-
tlereagh and Clancarty, Cape d'lstria and Pozzo di Borgo,
were all desirous of preventing Savoy being annexed to
France. Here I may ask how the King of Piedmont could
have been induced to part with those provinces which abut
upon Switzerland, and which ho was bound either to keep
or to return to Switzerland ? He has no more right to part
with Savoy to the Emperor of the French than the Sove-
, reign of this country would have to part with Gibraltar, or
than Charles 11. had to part with Dunkirk. It was given
to him as a defence against France, and he was paid
10,000,000 f. as an inducement to keep it. Count Cavour
hopes the declarations of M. Thouvenel will be satisfactory
to the Powers, as they are satisfactory to the Savoyards.
What is the truth ? I hold in my hand a protest against
the annexation to France, signed by 12,000 inhabitants of
the neutralised provinces. There are a few avocata, but
they are chiefly small landowners, and they demand an-
nexation to Switzerland. The names of the Savoyards
resident in Geneva are not included. A more remark-
able manifestation of opinion never occurred, and its
importance is increased by the fact, which has been
communicated to me from Chambery, that the French
agents are doing everything in their power to get up a
movement in favour of France, and have bought nearly all
the newspapers, which, consequently, give a very false idea
of the feelings and wishes of the population. (Hear.) I
cannot understand a policy whibh gives liberty to Italy and
destroys it in Switzerland and Savoy. It is impossible not
to contrast the conduct of the King of Piedmont in 1814
with that of the present sovereign. In 1814 the Powers
had the greatest difficulty in inducing the King of Pied-
mont to give up a portion of his territory, even upon the
understanding that it should be comprised in the Swiss
neutrality, because he said he could not think of separa•
ting himself from old, faithful, and loyal subjects. Th 6
Victor Emmanuel of the present day is ready to make any
sacrifice in that respect, and I cannot help thinking that
his conduct showq he is little worthy to reign over a brave
and attached people. (Hear.) The House of Savoy should •
have one resemblance to the glaciers of that country. As
the glaciers take their form from the womb of the moun-
tains out of which they burst, so the House of Savoy ought
to bear the stamp of the people among whom it sprang
into existence, and over whom it has reigned for so many
centuries. But the hon. member for Birmingham ex-
claims, " Perish Savoy !" and he says to the Savoyards,
"The industry of Lyons will double your incomes, and
therefore you can easily shunt your loyalty." (Cheers and
laughter.) The hon. member must have been thinking of
the loyalty of the House 9f Savoy and not of the loyalty of
the people. (Heal.) "Perish Savoy I" I should rather
say—Perish the power which seeks to enlarge its bounda-
ries by sacrificing the liberties of half a million of people who
for centuries have been the mainstay of its existence and
the rock of its defence I Savoy has been called a barren
rock. Tho people are poor, but the very rocks among
which they live make them place a higher value upon
liberty and independence than upon the industry of
Lyons and the duplication of their incomes. (Cheers.)
I am almost afraid it is all over with Switzerland, and
Savoy is already gone. (Hear, hear.) A deputation from
Savoy went to the Emperor to offer him the country, and it
is quite amusing to read how the Emperor received this de-
putation. I do not know where the deputies came from,
but they arrived in cabs at the Place Vendome, dressed in
the national costume. Having dined with the Emperor,
they received a photograph, signed in memoriam 24th
March, and since then they have not been heard of.
(Laughter.) It is a very curious thing that the Emperor,
when he received them, made a most striking remark to one
Of the deputies from Chablais, which is close to Switzerland.
He said, "By the way, Depute Savoisien, are there any
barracks in your country ?" "Yes, Sire," replied the de-
puty; and then. the Emperor exclaimed, "Ali !je vais
roue envoyer (les troupes, dont la presence donne toujours tie
la vie et (le I' animation a an pays." That is charming—
that is the way in which the liberties of these people are
going to be got rid of, and the manner in which they are to.
be deprived of what they at present :enjoy. I am afraid
that they would have but a slight enjoyment of the liberty
which they expect-to receive from the Emperor of the
French. I recollect a famous letter of the first Napoleon,
which was published the other day, and the present Napo-
leon is following precisely the policy of the dynasty. (Hear.)
It is only surprising that we cannot be on our guard against
what must be the infallible consequences if we allow
that policy step by step to advance. There was a letter,
which the first Napoleon wrote to his brother Joseph, who
was a quiet man—(laughter)—and not in favour of violent
measures. In this letter the first Napoleon wrote:—" Mind
your favour national feeling." But in a private letter ho
said, "Crush national feeling; enfin faites puller quatre ou
cinq gros bourgs pour efrayer les habituns et pour dormer
de lagaiete aux soldats" (Laughter.) These. Savoyards will
have to undergo the same consequences, and the people of
Switzerland are in the same danger. La question Suisse is a
different thing from la question Savoisiennc. The question of
Switzerland is one of the greatest aggravation. 'From the
earliest time the President of the Swiss Confederation
impressed upon Captain Harris that it was of vital impor-
tance to the independence of Switzerland that Savoy, and
especially " Haute-Savoie;" should never be annexed to
France. (Hear, hear.) • The hon. member for Birmingham
has said that Savoy is politically worthless, That expres-
sion shall not go forth without correction, and so I have
quoted what the President of the Swiss Confederation says
with regard to the annexation of Savoy'to France. Louis
Napoleon in one of his writings says, "Not only will Savoy
augment the French territory, but it will open the great
e/uasttedeoff9 sic Zesse7lfffgenn's:fiAive42e'ch(almlear -P
Simplon road, and give to France la liberte des Alpes, et en
,dehbeaarta.)ille.wp
Joliet
nr any
lutte Offensive et defensive" (Hear, hear.) When the
,trbsitsNolniplyoleshonowans
how annexed
the
hn
Savoy,od. idmheemtbheirrde for it
Buniiinmrpionrgh
t_anatin?
sconsidered the Switzerland
makes statements without the slightest foundation. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The first Napoleon, directly after he
tool:
Savoy,
ry
o u necessary
on occupation
military
grounds,o and h
one
ads,asa
thing e
came to the same conclusion on political grounds;
and
Of. Switzerland has
when he took Geneva he procured t,wooo
military
through Constance and the other by the Simplon,
i
nr oobt b. e
yet d
President forgotten Berneof
tohfe Swissh nt o
el ess
horrorsth a n
Confederation 4
inflicted2,oo o,
told by
t Captain Harris
the troops. The
that there was great danger for Switzerland, but Captain
Harris, on the other hand, replied that there was no occa-
sion for claim; that no change would take place of a neu-
tral territory without the entire consent of the parties to
the treaties'. The; President of the Swiss Conted.eration,
however, insisted 'upon. the danger, and said that without
consulting the Powers these important provinces would be
annexed. (Hear, hear.) Very great satisfaction has,
indeed, been afforded by the answer given by the noble
Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a question I put to him the
other night. I asked the noble lord whether the Govern-
ment were prepared to abandon the neutrality of Switzer-

land, as guaranteed by Great Britain in common with the
other Powers, and the noble lord replied in language worthy
of himself and his ciountry, " That' the Bifss Government
have asked us whether, in case of such annexation (of
Savoy), we are prepared to maintain the neutrality of.
Switzerland, and to provide in such a nianner that the
neutrality should in no'way be injured, and we have always
replied that we have determined to do so ; that Chablais
and Faucigny were parts of the general arrangements for
the guarantee of Switzerland ; and that if separated from
Sardinia they ought to be annexed to Switzerland." (Hear,
hear.) It is a curious thing that M. Thouvenel at one
time made the same assertion, for he told Lord Cowley that
if Savoy should be united to France the provinces of Chab-
lais and Faucigny should go to Switzerland. But the
French Government and H. Thouvenel have strangely
changed their opinions, and in point of fact it is impossible
to expect them to abide for one week by their declarations.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) One of the most unworthy
documents I ever cast my ?ye over is the answer of M.
Thouvenel to M. Turgot atßerne, and it broaches the most
extraordinary doctrine that a Sovereign might shift his
' people from himself to another. In fact, this is the esta-
blishment of what is called the "divine right of kings," and
I never could have believed that it would be maintained in
the 19th century. So the Rsvoyards are to be shifted from
one monarch under whom they enjoyed liberty, to another
under whom they would surer the consequences of a severe
1 despotism and an overbearing ambition. (Hear, hear.)
1 don't like interference when the interests of this country
are not concerned. For instance, there was recently an
attempted interference between Spain and Morocco. Ido
not approve that. (Hear, %ear.) Again, there are some
passages in the despatches of Mr. Elliot from Naples which
I think are far from satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) On one
occasion Mr. Elliot tells the King that such and such
a thing has occurred. The King says that his Ministers
have told him just the contrary, upon which Mr.
Elliot replies in the moat overbearing manner, that
what the Neapolitan Ministers say does not matter
to him, -the King may believe that what he has told him
is the case. Into the Neapolitan question Ido not wish
to enter, but the position assumed by our representative
cannot, I think, be altogether justified. But the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Bright) says that England has always ignomini-
ously failed in the exercise of its influence with foreign
countries. Ido not agree with him. Did Mr. Pitt igno-
miniously fail when he endeavoured to use the influence of
this country in Europe ? Did Lord Castlereah, did Mr.
Canning, did Lord Aberdaen, did Sir Stratford Canning ig-
nominiously fail ? (Hear.) In 1830 Lord Palmerston was
Foreign Minister. I allude to an historical circumstance,
and therefore mention the noble lord's name. He did not
ignominiously fail in making the influence of England felt
in Europe: The qUestion.ef Belgium had then to be treated,
and, through the influence of England and of Europe, Bel-
gium has for 30 years enjoyed the blessings of constitu-
tional Government, • under a wise and liberal sovereign.
(Hear, hear.) Again, did Lord Palmerston fail, during
1838-9 and 40 in making the influence of this country felt
as regards the affairs of the East ? (Hear.) Then, I say,
that what we want now is a generous and a vigorous pro-
test on the part of the British Government. I recollect, in
'1847, when the question of Cracow arose, the noble lord (J.
Russell) made a protest, from which I wish to read a sen-
tence. He said :

" I consider that in the late transactions in Europe, al-
though on more than one occasion, and by different Powers,
our wishes have not been complied with, our desires have
not been listened to, our protests may have been disre-
garded, yet there does remain with us a moral strength
nothing can take away. We are ready in the face of
Europe, however inconvenient some of those stipulations
may be, to hold ourselves bound by all our engagements to
keep the fame and the name and the honour of the Crown
of England unsullied, and to guard that unsullied honour
as ajewel which we will not have tarnished."
.That , was the protest of the noble lord against the conduct
of the three Powers in 1847 with regard to Cracow, and I
hope to see that the 'English Government has not re-
trograded since then. I hope also to see a vigorous pro-
test from this house. We are not, as the French paper
said, the nominees and the chambellans of an Imperial
Court, but we are the free Parliament of a free people,
(Hear.) This house is a great assembly, and ought to exer-
cise the rights which belong to it as the representative of a
great country. (Hear.) We have always been battling
against France. It has been the policy of this country to
counteract the policy of France, and we have done so suc-
cessfully. We checked the aggression of Louis XIV. and
of Louis XV. ; we curbed the ambition of the First Napo-
leon, and are now called upon to check the unhappy policy
which the present Emperor of the French seems desirous
of inaugurating. (Hear) I hope the Emperor will not,
like his uncle, curse Europe with the destruction and the
desolation which swept over its face in the last great war.
If he does, and if we resist him, our quarrel will be a just,
our cause a good one, and worthy of this country. (Hear.)
Shakspeare says—
" Thrice is he arm'd who hath his quarrel just, 1.)
And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."

I believe that to be the corruption which now infects the
Imperial policy ; and that injustice sooner or later will bear
bitter fruits in the condemnation with which it will be met.
(Hear.) This very night I have been told that perhaps
there may yet be some lope for Switzerland, and that the
union of Chablais and rauciglay with France is not yet
If tbal b© so, I ask the house to joie oic in a
protest which shall vindicate the interest and liberties of
Switzerland. (Hear.) I ask the house to allow me to be
its interpreter on this Occasion in favour of a liberty-loving
nation and of a most loyal Republic. (Hear.) I ask it to
allow me by anticipation to give expression to its feelings,
and I think the house will then concur with me when I say
in the name of public opinion in this country, that upon
every principle of justice, of honour, and of right, it is ab-
solutely necessary that these provinces should be annexed
to Switzerland, or otherwise you will infallibly see that
Republic sink into the lowest depths to which it can de-
scend, the consequence of its absorption into the Imperial
domains, and of its subjection to the Imperial dynasty of
France. (Cheers.) A

The motion for adjournment until Monday was then pul
and negatived.

THE INCOME TAX BILL.

The order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate
on the consideration of the Income Tax Bill, as amended,
having been read,

Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the noble lord on what
day the Government meant to propose the adjournment for
the Easter holidays.

Lord PALMERSTON said they would move the adjourn-
ment of the house on Tuesday next if the state of public
business would allow them; and if not, they would make
the motion on Wednesday.
Mr. BRIGHT said he .would venture to recommend to
the Government to dispose of the questions involved in the
budget before they proceeded with the Reform Bill. They
would then be able to go on continuously with that mea-
sure.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that was very much the
course which the Government wished to take. He pro-
posed to fix the resumption of the debate on the Reform
Bill for the 20th of April. lie trusted by that time the de-
:hetes on the budget would be got through ; and by the end
of the month of April he further proposed that the house
should go into committee on the Reform Bill (hear, hear),
and he proposed that they should then go on with the bill
continuously.
,
The motion for considering the income tax, as amended
was then agreed to.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved a .clause, in pursuance of
notice, to the effect that incomes under £l5O should be
exempted from the operation of the tax, and that pereons
now charged on incomes under £l5O should have a power
of appeal.
Sir-H. WILLOUGHBY said there could be no doubt as
to the hardship of the tax on the class alluded to ; but what
he wished to know was, whether the right hon. gentleman
contemplated the appointment of a committee to consider
the inequalities of the tax. He believed there was no
doubt that the tenpenny tax proposed would on property
amount to one shilling. He knew that in Leamington
some paid the tax on the net rental and others on the
gross rental, and . yet. the parties injured had no redress
whatever. It was hia intention to have moved for such a
committee, but he did not wiskto delay the passing of the
bill. The taxation of the country ought to bear equally on
all classes, and when it did not the house should remedy
the evil.
Mr. HUBBARD thought, that an inquiry at that time
would be useless, but he hoped for some explanation of the
views of her Majesty's government on the subject. The
tax was only imposed for. one year, and it was so full of in-
equalities that he thought they ought to get some insight
into the policy of Ministers in the coining year with regard
to this subject. With respect to the motion before the house,
he objected to it because they, could ill afford to lose such a
sum, and in his opinion £lOO a-year was a fair point to
start from. So far helves perfectly satisfied with the bill,
and he thought the Government ought to be assisted in
carrying it into effect.
Mr. ROEBUCK had no doubt that the Chancellor of
.the Exchequerwanted the 'money, but still he would *sug-
gest to him the injustice he was inflicting, not intention-
ally, but of necessity .on other parties. The income-tax in
its prpSent shape was incomplete and unjust in its opera-
tion. Take a man with £5,000 a-year in the funds or in
land, and compare his position with another who earned
by his brains the same: amount. The physician or the
lawyer makes that income by his brains, and it certainly is
a large sum to set down; he goes on from year to year
Until suddenly illness conies upon him, he is struck down
by a fit of apoplexy and is destroyed. While he enjoyed
that income he paid as much income-tax as the man who
had £5,000 a-year iu the funds or in land. Now, was that
just ? Then he would come to the small salaries ; and here
a greater injustice was perpetrated. Tho man who had
£l5O a-year was charged in the same propor-
tion. Compare :his case With the artisan. He had a
family, a wife and three or four children perhaps; lie
must live in a particular house, and maintain an appear-
ance; but in doing all this his salary disappears. Hew
then was he to pay the tax ? By stinting himself of many
articles of enjoyment which he can no longer afford ; and
in:that `case:the non-consumption of what would be indi-
rect taxation upon him was such that not a penny additional
found its way to the Treasury. (Hear.) He (Mr. Roe-
buck) knew.the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a piti-

able condition—that he was, as it were, living from hand
to mouth to arrange matters for the present year. But let
him :remember this injustice when considering the subject
neat year. He wanted him to draw a distinction between
the incomes of men of skill, of science and art, and those
who had fixed annuities from land, or otherwise. When
he (Mr. Roebuck) made an appeal to the right hon. gentle-
man on a previous occasion, he told him he had no answer
to give, but that he wanted the money. He believed th,at
if he adopted his suggestion he would be able to drawn an
equal sum of money in taxation from the country without
committing the injustice now perpetrated on a particular
class. The tax,fell with especial severity, not upon the ar-
tisan, but on the poor clerk, the poor gentleman, and the
poor clergyman, and he hoped, therefore, that some steps
would be taken as soon as possible to remove its dispropor-
tionate pressure from those classes. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman SALOMON S observed that nothing could
be more disagreeable than the ordeal to which small trades-
men were subjected when they appealed against the tax.
The baker had to account for his contracts with his miller
and his customers. The grocer also had to enter into
minute'cletails of his private transactions, while the word
of the great merchant or professional man was taken at
once.

Mr. P. URQUHART agreed with the hon. member for
Lamteth that persons whose incomes were less than £l5O
a-year were deserving of commiseration as regarded the
burden of the income tax. He hoped something would be
done as soon as possible to get rid of the inequalities com-
plained of. (Hear, hear.)
Sir FARQUHAR suggested that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would take into consideration the pro-
priety of adopting the scheme proposed by Sir Robert
Inglis some years ago, to the effect that if a person had £lO5
a-year, 1100 should be deducted, and he should be taxed
only on £5, and that the same rule should apply to other
incomes up to a certain amount. If that plan were adopted,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stopped at £5OO, it
would afford enormous relief. (Hear.)
Mr. SHERIDAN asked what difference it would make
in the revenue if the tax were remitted on incomes under
£l6O.

Mr. GLADSTONE said the Government were not in a
position to give a general view of what they would do with
respect to taxation in 1861. When the expenditure of the
country was in a stable and normal state, and when the
Government had no reason to anticipate any important
change, it might be done; but under existing circumstances
nothing could be more unreasonable than to make plans for
the future, or to attempt to make anything like a permanent
provision for supply. He admitted that there were great
inequalities in the income tax, but many- other taxes
were liable to the same objection. If they took schedule A
they would find great inequalities between the tax on house
property and! landed property, and also between different
kinds of house property—inequalities sometimes amounting
to a difference of from 25 to 30 per cent. The Government
were not prepared to propose any committee of inquiry on
the subject, inasmuch as they did not think it expedient to
subject a great and gigantic tax like this to the scrutiny of
a committee of the House of Commons, unless the Govern-
dent had been conscientiously persuaded that they could
make proposals to the committee, and lay plans before them
which would either remove er mitigate the evil. If they
could do so, nothing would be more desirable than to have
such a committee. The Government, however, did-not
think they could do so, and they thought it would be un-
worthy of them to obtain popularity by encouraging expec-
tatiens which could not be realised. There were in the
house many gentlemen of experience and ability, and
who represented large bodies of the people, and who
were more sanguine in their views with regard to
the re-construction of the income tax than the Ministers. of
the Crown happened to be, and if they desired to have such
an inquiry instituted, her Majesty's Government would not
give any opposition to the proposal. There were two great
questions involved in this matter, besides the inequality and
injustice of the income tax—one was the re-adjustment of
the schedules according to the nature of the incomes which
those schedules represented, and the other was whether the
tax should be imposed upon so low an income? The ques-
tion of the schedules would hardly come under the notice
of any such committee. The other subject had relation to
the question put by the hon. member for Lambeth, as to
whether incomes under £l5O should be exempt from the
tax. An hon. member had pertinently asked what diminu-
tion in the revenue would be caused by such a remission.
The difference in the receipts of the Exchequer which the
adoption of the amendment would cause, would amount to
between £500,000 and £600,000. The hon. member himself
was convinced that it was possible to make such reductions
in our expenditure as to permit of that reduction. He had
no doubt whatever that his hon. friend was fully convinced
in his own mind that this could be done, and very possibly
it might at some future time, but could that conviction be
imparted, to a majority of the house and carried into effect
this seesron ? That was the real question. He had no means
of ascertaining the exact amount of the difference; but he
could estimate what it would come to upon Schedules D
and E, and judging by that, he feared that the sum would
be more than £600,000, so that if the amendment was
adopted there would bo no alternative but that which he
was almost afraid to mention; the imposition of another
penny in the pound on all incomes of £l5O and upwards.
(Hear, and laugh.) Ho confessed, however, that though
the amendment was not one which, at the present time, and
in its present form, could be adopted safely by the house,
it was not a matter to be disposed of by merely considering
temporary difficulties, for he fully , admitted that it was
fraught with many grave as well as painful considerations.
He hoped the house would not assent to the amendment
of his hon. friend. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI observed that the trumpet of the right
hon. gentleman seemed to give but an uncertain sound.
The right hen. gentleman was not prepared to inquire into
the character of the income tax. Some ten years ago,
when the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was First Lord of
the Treasury, a committee had been proposed and carried
to inquire into the tax. It was very true that the income
tax had been then some ten years in operation, but the feel-
ing in the country was exceedingly strong against it. The
Government of that day assented to the appointment of the
committee to inquire into the principle and operation of the
tax. That committee was formed of some of the. most
eminent men of that day, and its proceedings were con-
ducted by the late Mr. Hume, who had great experience in
all financial subjects. Mr, Mill, the eminent political
economist, •and Mr. Newmarsh, the actuary, were, with
many other men of science and distinguished ability,
examined before it. Soon after there was a change of Go-
vernment, and there was a public feeling against the tax
which no Government could pass by with indifference.
That Government of which he (Mr. Disraeli) was a mem-
ber determined to make an absolute difference between the
assessments of Schedule D and A on condition that there
should be an end to all remissions and exemptions, and
that they should make the income tax as low as they could
with a fair hope of collecting it. Where was the man who
could draw the line between income received from wages
and property, or who could define what was manual labour ?
Was the clerk who got £l5O ayear for driving a quill all day
long to be placed in the category of property ; and 'was the
man who earned the same amount by the spade, or as an
auxiliary to a machine, to be exempted ? The policy of
that Government was opposed with the greatest ability and
success by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
right hon. gentleman declared that the income tax was an
immoral tax, that it was meant only for an emergency, and
upon occasions when all men ought to be ready to make
sacrifices for their country. It was not for a moment, ac-
cording to the right hon, gentleman's statement, to be
thought of as a permanent source of taxation. The tax
must be put an end to. Well, the Government of 1852 was
turned out because it did not deal with the income-tax in a
scientific and satisfactory manner. Since the oration of De -
mosthenes de corona there had been nothing more success.
fal ; it gained for the orator a celebrity that had actually
lasted him for seven years. (Laughter.) The history of
scarcely any public man showed a destiny so much to be en-
vied as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The bottle
conjuror was successful for 48 hours in duping his auditory
into the belief that he would jump into a pint bottle, but the
right hon. gentleman had managed to keep up his repute-
WM fur seven years—it certainly deserved a favour able
place in the category of human achievements, (Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
seid that altered circumstances had released him from his
former pledges—opinions which had made the right hon,
gentleman for seven year's the idol of an admiring nation.
(A laugh.) Well, the Minister was the creature, often the
sdavo of events, but every hour during which the tax existed
in 1860, must, according to, the former statement of the
right hon. gentleman, tend to sap the morality of the coun-
try, and to undermine iteeresources. But the Chancellor of
the Exchequer entered into a special contract with the
country itself. He told them that in 1860 terminable an -
unities would fall in to the amount of £2,100,006, and that
that was a fund on which they might rely as furnishing the
means by which his policy could be carried out. But this
year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ostentatiously
appropriated the £2,000,000 to another. object. He never
heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the
moments not of insolent but of triumphant rhetoric,
or on those occasions when he tried to persuade them
that the income-taX was the beet tax in the world—lee
never heard from him any explanation on the subject.
But to-night, instead of referring to the, income-tax as
an immoral tax, he said there was a good deal to be
said against it, but then there was a good deal to be said
z4,-ainst every tax. Contrast with that those invectives
which he used against the tax during the seven years that
the country was expecting the fulfilment of the expecta-
tions raised by him. Eut he was not doing justice to the
right hen. gentleman. Did hon. gentlemen remember the
speech of the right hon. gentleman in 1847. He told them
that circumstances had occurred which prevented the ful-
'fitment of his promise. lie would not stop to show that a
great deal of the increase of the debt was owing to the po-
licy of the Cabinet of which the right hon. gentleman was
himself a member. In 1857 the budget was brought forward
by the present Secretary for the Home Department (Sir G.
C. Lewis). It was listened to with great respect; but the
right hon. "gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
who then sat below the gangway, could not contain his in-
dignation. He denounced fill the principles of taxation
laid down in it; but he did more, he repealed the policy of
1853; and successfully conveyed to the helm, and he be-

lieved to the country, that if he presided ever the finances
in 1860, which at that time did not appear likely, he was
prepared to carry out that policy which in 1853 he had laid
down.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made
an observation across the table which did not reach the
gallery, but which was understood to be a denial of what
Mr. Disraeli was stating.
Mr. DISRAELI said that facts were stubborn things,
and were not to be got over by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer informing him that he had made a mistake. He
made that statement on his recollection, on the records of
the house, and he believed on the recollection of every
gentleman who sat in the house at the time. Now,
they were told it was an inconvenient thing to deal
with a tax of these gigantic propoi tions. Who had made
it a tax of these gigantic proportions ? (Hear, hear.) There
was a Minister once who said it was a tax so intolerable, so
immoral, so injurious to the domestic character, so fatal to
the private spirit Qf the country, that it could not be
tolerated in an emergency in peace, and that immediate
steps should be taken for its gradual and certain abolition,
and an act of Parliament had been passed for that purpose.
Was it to be believed that that Minister, who took care that
2d. or 3d. of this tax should be taken off every year until
it was altogether abolished, should come forward in 1860
and propose that the tax should be renewed ? Would he tell
them, as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs told them every
-night, that the country was in danger, and that we were on
the eve of a great conjuncture ? On the contrary, he told
them that he could not feel justified in making the proposi-
tion if ho thought the tax was to be permameht. Well, then,
what was the result at which they had arrived ? They must
believe either that the right hon. gentleman, in 1853, had
not sufficiently considered this question, or his conduct
must have been what it was impossible it could have been,
it must have partaken of the immoral nature which the tax
partook of. That was totally impossible, and, therefore, he
could only suppose that in that eager moment, and that
memorable occasion, in 1853, when the right hon. gentle-
man laid down this principle respecting this impost he had
not considered the subject sufficiently. He could only sup-
pose that the right hon. gentleman, after the experience
which he had had, found it his duty now to come forward
and prepare the country for that which he denounced be-
fore, which he (Mr. Disraeli) himself believed to be most
unwise, viz., that he should throw off himself and the Go-
vernment the responsibility of imposing this tax, and ask
the committee of the House of Commons to adopt a respon-
sibility from which no Minister, and much less the right
hon. gentleman, should seek to be relieved. (Hear.)
The house then divided--
For the amendment
Against it 174

Majority -150

The bill was then ordered to be read a third time to-mor•
row (this day).

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered.
Mr. BENTINCK proposed :to omit clause 17, which
was intended to repeal the act of Sir J. Barnard, which
was passed in the 7th year of the reign of George 11., in
order to prohihit time bargains.
Mr. E. JAMES said the clause under consideration was
not worth the paper on which it was written, for it repealed
the act of the 7th Geo. 11., which repealed itself, having
been passed for three years only, but it did not make the
least reference to the 10th Geo. 11., which made Sir J. Bar-
nard's Act perpetual. - (Hear, hear.) A more absurb sec-
tion, therefore, could not exist. (Hear, hear.) But be-
sides this there was the act of the 7th and Bth Victoria
known as the Wagering Act,'which applied to all wagers,
and defeated all transactions of that kind. The Wagering
Act, therefore, was a sufficient remedy against all gambling
transactions. He would only say, further, that it was an
inconvenient and a bad system of legislation to repeal an
act of Parliament by a bye-clause in a stamp act. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his hon. and learned
friend made the most of his notable discovery, but as he
could not deny that the circumstances, as stated by his hon.
and learned friend, were correct, he could only say that
if he had proposed this 17th clause he should have made
express reference to the perpetuating act of the 10th of
Geo. 11. But whether an act expressly repealing the act
of the 7th of Geo. 11. would be a dead letter he was not at
that moment prepared to say. He would not take upon
himself to assent to that proposition. Any defect of the
kind painted out might be remedied on a future occasion.
With regard to the proposition of the hon. member for
Norfolk, his arguments did not seem to him to be well
founded. The act of the 7th of George 11. began with
a very vituperative preamble against " the wicked, perni-
cious, 'and destructive practice of stock-jobbing." The
first section applied to the practice itself, and as far as
putting an end to it was concerned, it proved utterly in-
efficaciou)3. He supposed the hon. gentleman did not de-
sire to see the class of persons who were engaged on the
Stock Exchange put an end to. His observations rather
applied to the second provision of the first section of the
act,:which provided for avoiding all wagers and con-
tracts in the nature of wagers. It provided a most cum-
brous machinery through the Court of Chancery of putting
the act into operation; but for the last 100 years there was
no practical, or at least no successful application of its pro-
visions. With regard to the object which the hon. gentle-
man aimed at, there was au act of a much more recent date
which was not a dead letter—the 7th and Bth of Victoria,t
and which rendered all contracts or agreements, whether
in writing or without writing, by way of wagering, abso-
lutely void. The present clause proposed to repeal the spe-
cial act relating to stockbrokers, but it left the act relating
to wagers generally in full operation.
Sir H. CAIRNS said that any one was liable to mistake,
but ho had certainly been amused to hear the Solicitor-
General argue that a clause which repealed an act that had
come to an end 100 years ago could be stretched so as to re-
peal a wholly different act, which had made that act perpe-
tual. The question was one that was not argueable. He
agreed with Mr. James that the clause now under consi-
deration would be a perfectly dead letter. But the question
had assumed a new shape after the Solicitor-General had ad-
dressed the house. The Chancelliar 'of the Exchequer had
proposed, as part of his financial scheme, to impose a tax
upon contracts for the sale of stock. Thereupon the gen-
tlemen of the Stook Exchange had expressed their readi-
ness to submit to this tax, provided they were relieved from
the difficulty they had hitherto been under owing to Sir
John Barnard's Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had acceded to that proposition. He said he thought Sir
John Barnard's Act was unwise, and that he was prepared
to repeal it. Accordingly the clause now under considera-
tion declared that the provisions of that act were an unne-
cessary restriction on the making of contracts. But the
solicitor-General now told them that it was a delusion to
suppose that time-bargains or wagering contracts were to
be made legal, and that the only object was to remove from
the statute-book that offensive preamble to Sir J. Bar-
nerd's Act, which spoke of stockbrokers as a disgraceful
set of people. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that that would
satisfy the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange ; but he feared
that they had been in a fool's paradise in supposing that
time-bargains were to be legalised. The Solicitor-General
told them that some very recent legislation—not one of the
old acts against forestalling and regrating, but the act of 8
Victoria—provided that all contracts 'of agreements, in pa-
role or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering, should
be null and void; and he said they had been most careful
not to touch that act. Accepting that explanation of the
law, how did the case stand ? The clause now under dis-
cussion did not repeal or alter any existing act, but merely
purged the statute-book of an offensive preamble. He had
never known that use made of a stamp act before. (A
laugh.) They were told that the law was not going to be
altered at all, but that the sensitive minds of the stock-
jobbers were to be relieved from the imputation that had

been cast upon them by Sir John Barnard's Act. The re•
suit was that time ;bargains would be as legal as before
and ho was much relieved to hear that there was no at
tempt to make them legal.
_ _

Mr. HUBBARD thought Sir John Barnard's Act a dis-
grace to the stathte-book. His impression was that nothing
tended more to pcsrms.nently maintain the monetary trans-
actions in this country than those which:were carried out
on the Stock Exchange. As an illustration there was a
speech delivered in this house the other evening, affecting
'in some measure a near neighbour of theirs on the other
side of the water, and he remembered that, on the next
morning, a friend of his asked him whether the funds had
not fallen in consequence of the formidable tone of that
speech—but they had not, and the great safety of the pui)-
lie in such transactions was that they were carried on by a
large body of men who had a deep interest in tl4em. Those
bargains werb not in themselves usually fraudulent; but
there was a disability affecting them under the operation of
Sir J. BUrnard's act; and he thought her Majesty's Go-
vernment ought to take steps to remove from the statute-
book an aet which was fraught with so much evil, and not
to pass the proposed clause in the manner which it was
proposed.

Mr. ISAAC BUTT said he for one should oppose this
act. They should take care not to send the bill to the
House of Lords with a clause in it which was disfiguring,
and which was open to great objection. It therefore occured
to him that, entirely independent of Sir John Barnard's
Act, they ought not to pass this clause, and ho hoped the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would withdraw it.

The eIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in expla-
nation, said there was no demand made by the members of
the Stock Exchange for the repeal of the act known as the
" Wagering Act," but they did communicate to him that
they thought it would be but just that they should be re-
lieved from the operation of an act which placed great re
strictions upon them, now that it was proposed to impose a
stamp upon all transactions in contract notes. He admitted
the force of what had been suggested by the hon. and learned
gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Isaac Butt), and yielding
to it, he would withdraw the clause altogether—(hear,
hear)—and b e would to-morrow (this day) give notice of
his intention to bring in a bill on the subject.
Mr. uIENLEY understood the Solicitor-General to say
tbnt if Sir John Barnard's Act were repealed, time bargains
would be still left where they were, inasmuch as they would
come under the denomination of gambling transactions,
and be punishable under the " Wagers Act" of the Queen
He thought the house had a right not to be left in the dark
upon the point, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ought to explain more fully what it was he really meant,