The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-10 00:00:00

NEWSPAPER-
__
- ,
4
, P.T
In

ativdii
vo,te
otrfinl
iae.ndr
net
adoev i
77
discussionbmt ietahshkiased.
seuincoci,
ces
r,, es
dpi,c;ieratitati:goTiinid
Afettteii
,:j.-1.-,
„,-_,.:-,-„, wt. .: ,i6(.1 :.. ;
by the noble lord the member fdr '4l:llgiii. eXt;;1111
VW
toek into consideration all the reasons f )r-Ereie interven
regard
of tt oh i Chinascin est i
flizze
ateb poru:shetntit;
bbeuttte inr
re-
ference t:71:11ucliell" thS '
to the treaty with America, he ceuld only sty
be did not admire the concassi'oh drawn by the noble
ehfit,al obGeeova Government. He Hfrlreaidt t.hnetcrnenasety.
lordthat
aa
nt the
assertion head
conse-
quence in
et
nh newspapersneenft the
e proceedings with great : e
thet is a t
Governmenti on wed ,
in. regrettedre ehr.
ictotnee.tivipiagprit
approve
id utes, approval
lie di
lesnlcaendtooCf ennturaatlan to America.iio
of the controversy which bad raised the question.
noble lord had referred to this treaty as a sort of s
men of the policy of the Government, and had reminded
the house of these points, upon which he challenged the
approbation of the house. All hon. gentlemen would
have the oppartunityin meeting their constituents of de-
fining their opinions upon all these questions, and h
would hope they would do so mentally and with satisfac-
tion to themselves. The right hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Disraeli) said he did not intend to make any mo-
tion for the purpose of obstructing this bill, and he (Mr.
Gladstone) wished to state very briefly his objection to
the measure. He considered that this matter had been
best described by thalami, and learned member for Waiting-
lord (Mr. Malins) at the cenrnencement of the session,
when he said that he protested against their standing
upon the legal advantage which they had acquired of levy-
ing the 16d. income tax. He asked the Government to
surrender the war tax, and to come to the house with the
necessary estimates for the public service, which he felt
sure the house would agree to. He (Ur. Gladstone)
placed the question upon that short speech as being the
only sure and solid ground upon which to proceed ; but
nei, her the Government nor the house had taken the
advice of the hon. and learned member. They had not
blinded their estimates upon tbe wants of the country,
for the house did not know what they were. They wer
voting the ways and means before going into any cone
deration of the public expenses. Against tbe whole of
these proceedings he would,enter his protest. His own
ideas of financial proceedings were opposed to the present
course, but he felt no disposition to declaim against the
views and feelings of the house. (Hear.) The hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Newcastle said that
the only way to keep the tax under contrcl would
be to vote it from year to year ; but be did not agree
with the hon. and learned gentleman, as he thought it
would be far better not to encourage transitions in taxa-
tion by voting taxes for very short periods. When the
tax was voted in 1842 for three years, and again, in
1846, for three years more, it was sanctioned by Parlia•
ment in order that it afght become an instrument o
great utility in effecting beneficial oaanges in the com-
mercial system of the country ; but if Parliament were
now to reverse the made of voting the tax, by sanction.
ing it for one year oily, it would be disassociating the
tax from those great social and commercial improve-
ments, and would be converting it into one of the ordi-
nary means of raising the revenue of the country. He
was consequently opposed to the proposition for voting
the tax from year to year. The bill now under discus-
sion he considered as proposed entirely and exclusively
upon the responsibility of the Government. The right
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had given notice
easily in the session of his intention to move the re-
duction of the war ninepence, but that circumstance
did not diminish the responsibility of the Government.
He did not find fault with the Government for not re-
pealing more than the war 9d., but his complaint was
that the Government had taken off the war 9d. before
the house had been put in a position to ascertain in com-
mittee of supply what was-ta be the standard of the na-
tional expenditure. The hon. gentleman the member
for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had referred to tin recon-
struction of the income tax. The hon. gentleman and •
others had spoken at the hustings and elsewhere upon
the practicability of devising some scheme by which the
tax might be reconstructed ; but in his (Mr. Gladstonea)
opinion, those speecaes, although deiivered in all sin-
cerity, had operated as a dtlusion upon the country ;
for the tax had been voted again and again, and no
Government bad proposed its reconstruction, and no
member had felt himself justified in proposing any
scheme for the purpose likely to meet with any (naJu-
ragememt in the house. In fact, the house itself bad de-
clined to entertain the question. L,stead of following
this will-0% the- xisp of reconstruction, he wished the.
people. of this country would seriously consider whether
they wished to have a uniform and perpetual income tax,
for it seemed to him that things were rapidly drifting in
that direction. He was, however, convinced that it was
still practicable to bring the income tax to a close, but if
it were to be reconstructed, it would be necessary to go
into the consideration of - the public expenditure in a
stricter temper than heretofore. The moment for Leaking
this change practicable was rapi ,ly passing away, fir he
feared that in two or three years it would be mere waste
of time to debate the subject, as the relations between
the demandsof theeervice and the provisions for meeting
them would leave no room for reconstruction or adjust-
ment, even if possible.

Mr. MALINS was glad there was no opposition to
this bill. Though he derived all his own income
from precarious sources, he was convinced it was
impossible to reconstruct the tax so as to make a
distinction between permanent and precarious incomes.
They might as well insist upon making a distinc-
tion between permanent and. „precarious incomes
with regard to the asso,sed taxeq, or the house tax, or
even the tea duties. But this only made him the more
anxious to remove it altogether. With respect to our
foreign politics he hoped that in future we would either
not interfere at all, or' would interfere with effect.

Mr. V. SMITH said it was a very convenient practice
to bring forward unexpectedly the important queations
which had been discussed by hon. members up in the
second reading of the Income Tax Bill, and particularly
so on the present occasion, when' some hon. members
hoped to be sent back to the house, and others, in the
anticipation that they never would, were making their
best efforts before the dissolution took place. Bat he rose
to answer the statement which had been made by the right
hon. gentleman opposite with regard to Persia. The right
hon, gentleman did not fairly represent the fact when he
said that the noble lord at the head of the Government

threw out a challenge to the house to discuss his Per-
sian policy. The challenge was really thrown out
by the right hon. gentleman himself (Kr. Disraeli) when
be characterised that policy as a turbulent and aggres-
sive policy. Would it have been fitting for the Prime
Minister to have sat still, and not repudiate the charge
implied by those epithets I The right hon. gentleman
also said the Persian war had been undertaken for a
shameful cause. Waa the march of the Persians upon
Herat a shameful cause ? He (Mr. V. Smith) believed
that every person who was at all acquainted with the East
would admit that there never was a jester cause than that
for commencing such a war. But the right hon. gentleman
went on to say, or rather appeared to insinuate, that the
Government shrank from the discussion of the question.
They had no intention to shrink from it ; and, as far as
he (Mr. V. Smith) was concerned, he was most anxious
and desirous to meet any charges which might be made
on the subject. It had been the intention of the Go-
vernment to lay the Persian papers before the house
when it met, and those papers were in preparation
when negotiations with Persia began at Paris ;
and there appearing to be some probability of a
settlement, the Government wisely and discreetly ab-
stained from producing any papers which might inter
fere with the progress of those negotiations. When the
bon. member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) asked if the
papers would be produced, he told him that the ordi-
nary, usual, and constant practice of Parliament was not
to produce them until the negotiations had terminated ;
and it was quite clear that it was very unadvisable to
have in this country discussions .which might affect the
Power with whom they were treating. It was impos-
sible to argue the Persian question without entering into
details, or without there being accusations and recrimi-
nations on the one side and the other • and therefore in
declining to produce the papers they Wad followed a pre-
cedent which was a most proper one,.and prevented
not sent out
further misunderstanding with foreign States with
which we were in negotiation. Tee right honourable
gentleman also said that due deference was not
shown to Parliament in the conduct of these pro-
ceedingsatph: leeriloiowetal
at which period Parliamenrteverr
genethseurwaTaonneead
stood the againstelsse I,"Terhseia, e
xbpye d the
tion Government.w a
sitting. The proclamation of war in India was made on
the Ist Oct., and reached England in the middle of De
until 26th Sept.,
to
ha Parliamentvenail called
itd btoe
on such a question would have- been meet
oAttFtehba.t, taimnda
because the meeting of Parliament in the re inexpedient,
only attended by what Le would now put a recess was not
per-
sonal inconvenieece to members, but causedside,
viz.,
alarm throughout the country—the
funds
considerable
funds fell, trade was
affected, and much greater e • xcltement prevailed than was
sometimes justified by the cause. With
regard to wars i t
India, it was utterly impossible to consult Parliament
before entering upon them. To call Parliament together
for that purpose was to give notice to the enemy, and woo
equivalent to a declaration of war, for the fact would be
conveyed by telegraph to Penis, and would reach that
country long before the expedition could be sent out.
lie therefore considered that it would be prejudicialinv to
the public service to take such a course
sureretxhaele of very
eggravated or alarming cases ; and o that category
Persian war could not be said to.
be
egthe house would
He did not believe that a 1111..011Y of h f I
ear arose from a she
11
be found to say that the nor
j or egg
lieved, war. He be-
cause, or that it was
etehat when the house knew all
lieved, on the coo,
it would be perfectly satisfied that it
the circumstances
was as just and defensible a war as was ever undertaken,
and he rejoiced at the result of it. He was not sorry that
made in the E tand 33, that it
that demonstration was
Was known that such an expedition as that tothe Persian
Gulf could be
undertaken, planned, and executed by the
d
• • of India, an that they were prepared for
authorities
energy as they had displayed. If the noble lord
ouch
would allow
him he would say it had done much for °al-
prestige in the East, and he was not sorry it had been
Undertaken. He had risen merely to make a denial of the
statements of the right hon. gentleman as regarded the
production of papers on the discussion of the mat-
ter in that house, as though Government were un-
willing to submit the subject to Parliament. On the con-
trary, they had gone further than other Governments
had gone, for they hid submitted a vote for part of the
expenses to Parliament, and bad thereby submitted the
matter to the judgment of the house, partly on the score
of the justice of their case, and partly on the ground that
they were prepared for the discussion that might foil ive
on the subject. The case of Naples, with regard to which