The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-24 00:00:00

~t.. 4 41,_1i *V iISAY - 0 4

and thiViiy, ha htipad that the irobraa tai wouhl mt 1).3
raised to 7d. in the pound until they know that the expen-
diture of the country indispensably required that such an
addition should ha made. Such was the practical good
which he believed would arise from that discussion. On
Friday I:st the Chancellor of the ExArequer said that it
would be impossible for them to bind themselves to the
Nssibility or probability even, of Parliament limiting the
income tax to 1860. Those were alarming words, and the
house ought to take the earliest opportunity of dispersing
that alarm by adopting the resolution of his right hon.
friend. Unless the compact of 1853 wore adhered to, the
confidence of the people of this country in that house would
he materially shaken if not destroyed. It was under those
circumstances. and feeling strongly that they needed some
assurance with reference to the financial arrangements that
the engagements entered into in 1853 should he carrie i out,
~hat he supported the resolution of his right hon. friend.
fie supported that resolution because in effect it amounted
to an instruction to the committee of ways and means that
oo budget would be satisfactory to that house and the
country unless it !secured by proper a, ljustment of the
revenue and the expenditure, the fulfilment of the pledge
so solemnly given, and which could not be departed from
without a breach of faith, and a violation of all the prin-

ciples of honour.
Mr. CARDWELL could not reconcile the speeches
which had been delivered by the right hon. gentleman op-
posite with the conclusions to which they came. This
showed that the resolution had not been well considered.as
it secured no plain and intelligible result. When they
talked about a probable deficiency, or a surplus in a frame
year, they must bear in mind that that must depend on
the expenditure. The question was, did they mean re-
trenchment or not? The right hon. gentleman who had
just sat down said that their first object was the reduction
of the war 93. Why, that would be secured by going into
committee ; because, having removed the war tax thereby,
they could then proceed advantageously with the expendi-
ture. Unless they could bring down the military expendi-
ture of the country to between 17,000,000/. and 18,000,0001.,
they must be in a deficiency. Had they a fair prospect
of accomplishing that object ? Lord Melbourne's esti-
mates were fourteen millions and a half. Sir Robert
Peel's when our relations with France were not satisfac-
tory, and when the Oregon question caused much anxiety,
were 17 millions. Lord Derby's were 16, and the expendi-
ture under Lord Aberdeen's, the last year of peace, swelled
by anticipation of the comit, war, barely exceeded 16
millions. Was it then hopeless at a time of profound
peace to reduce the military expenditure. Lot those who
thought so vote for an increased tax. If they could as-
sume a reduction for 1858-9, he could not see why they
could not effect such reduction this year, when the expen-
diture was entirely under their control. It was a true
maxim that of all plans the best was to spend little, and
the best of all taxes was that which was the smallest.
They had the experience of the late war to show that it
was not great military establishments which made the
strength of a country. We had a small establishment,
France and Russia had large ones • yet, in the crisis of the
war, Russia was impoverished, and France even suffering,
while England :rose with the occasion. What a moral
lesson we might learn from this 1 For these reasons he
should vote for going into committee of ways and means.
Mr. M. GIBSON expressed his concurrence generally in
the sentiments of the noble lord the member for the city of
London, and supposed his suggestions might be taken in the
light of a friendly communication to the Government to in-
duce them to alter their policy. But the noble lord finished his
speech by recommending the house to vote for that policy.
And what was the question the house was called upon
to decide ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished the
house to go into committee of ways and means, in order
to impose an income tax of 7d. for the next three years—
to increase the duties upon tea and sugar—for the purpose
' of providing fends for defraying the expenditure for the
public service during the current year. The right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) objected to follow the
course marked out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and submitted a resolution, by way of amendment. Now,
Lefore the house consented to go into the matter suggested
in that resolution, it must first express an opinion, aye or
no, as to the financial scheme of the Government. If the
house should decide against that scheme, it might then be
fairly called upon to express an opinion upon the substitute
proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He would put the
matter into the smallest possible compass. He conceived
that those gentlemen who were favourable to adding
4,000,000/. to the estimates for the army and navy beyond
the amount in the year preceding the war—those gentle-
men who were in favour of increasing the duties on tea and
on sugar—those gentlemen who were in favour of a seven-
penny income tax for the next three years—would vote
for going into committee of ways and means. (Hear, hear.)
Those, on the contrary, who considered the estimates too
high —who thought the taxes on tea and sugar ought not to
be increased, and doubted whether sevenpence should be
placed on income—would vote against going into commit-
tee. That was the obvious parliamentary way of expres-
sing an opinion on the financial scheme:of a government as
a whole. If hon. gentlemen wanted to see a practical re-
sult, they would not accede to the suggestions thrown out
by the noble lord the member for the City of London and
the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth (Sir
F. Baring.) He had never seen any successful effort at re-
ductions except by leaving to the government the respon-
sibility of proposing such reductions, and informing them
generally that their scheme of expenditure and taxation
did not meet the approval of parliament. Now came the
question, was he so much opposed to the plan of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer as to be justified in recording his
vote against it ? On the whole, ho conscientiously be-
lieved the speech of the right hon. gentleman had a retro-
grade and reactionary complexion about it. (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman talked of the prosperity of the coun-
try, of the increased exports and imports, in order to show
that the burden about to be imposed could be borne with•
out much pressure' The right hon. gentleman boasted of
the foreign trade, but be said not a word of the condition
of the home trade and of the great body of the labouring
classes. And that was a remarkable omission, because by
his financial scheme he proposed to draw a great portion of
his increased revenue from the labouring classes, for tea and.
sugar were the two art'sees of consumption next I • the very
necessaries of life. Although the resources of the country
wore vast, and although it had been able to speed 76,000,000/.
in carrying on the war, he believed that at the present mo-
ment a great body of the agricultural labourers and me-
hanics had but little means, after purchasing the necessaries
of life, of purchasing those articles which were subjected to
the customs duties. He had been told of an agricultural
labourer with a wife and five children residing in thecounty
of Suffolk who was unable to purchase more than an ounce
of tea per week, and yet the right hoe. gentleman proposed
to add to the price of that poor man's tea. The mechanic
earning 11, per week would, under the present scale of
duties, have to pay from 3e. to 4s. per week. ( Hear.) These
were tho classes on which the right hon. gentleman pro-
posed to lay additional burdens, and whom in the course of
his speech he had omitted altogether to mention. But the
right hon. gentleman had introduced other matters wholly
irrelevant. Was it necessary for the right hon. gentleman
to say anything about the paper duty ? The fire isurance
duty—or the duties on wine ? With respect to the paper
duty he thought the right hon. gentleman had taken a mere
exciseman's view of the question. The right hon. gentleman's
opinion
was that books at a high price would not be mate-
rially reduced, referring probably to 3-volume works, or
works like R`Culloch's Dictionary. When Sir R. Peel pro-
posed the repeal of the excise duties on glass, it -was said that
decanters and glasses could not be obtained at lower prices.
But the mere reduction in the price of particular books was
not the only view taken by advocates of the repeal of the ex-
cise duty on paper any more than it was the view taken with
respect to glass. They wished for the repeal of the duties be-
cause they believed they stood in the way of the extension of
important manufactures because,lurpreventedemploymeut
and tended to increase pauperism and crime. And al-
though the right hon. gentleman would sneer at the paper
duty being a tax on kuowledge, a duty amounting to 30
per cent. on an ordinary school book or copy book, was in
rea!ity a tax -on knowledge, and was inconsistent with the
efforts that were made to promote education. (Hear.) Ile
now carne to consider the right hon gentleman's resolution.
He went some way with him, but he contended that if
they sanctioned the scheme proposed they would be laying
the foundation of a deficiency in future years. They
should remember that they were settling what should be
the peace expenditure. It was quite clear the Government
did not contemplate any great reduction in the military
expenditure of the country. It had always been the prac-
tice at the conclusion of a war.to endeavour to increase the
military establishments beyond what they stood at pre-
vious to the war, and beyond what the necessities of a
peace establishment required. That attempt was made in
the present instance; but if the house did its duty, as it
had done on former occasions, they would compel the Go-
vernment to bring down the expenditure to a peace stand-
ard. They might talk of implied compacts, but, they could
not bind future Parliaments ; and if they wore to lay down
any arrangement of that kind, they had so lost their
character with the public that their promises for
the future would not be believed. (Hear, hear, hear.)
But it was quite clear that if they sanctioned the present
scale of expenditure, that sanction should b 3 quoted by the
Government against them when the attempt was made to
enforce reduction. In 1816 the great Whig party did not
wait for two or three years after the war before theycallod
upon the Minister to bring down the expenditure to the
requirements of peace. The noble lord (Palmerston) was
then Secretary at War ; and the noble lord" the present
member for London, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Brougham,
Sir J. Macintosh, and all the leaders of the Whigs urged
upon him the very year after the close of the French war
to bring down at once the expenditure to the altered cir-
cumstances of the country. The Government answered,
as they did now, " We cannot immediately go back to a
peace establishment after a groat war." That reason, how-
ever, the house refused to accept—nor could he (Mr. M.
Gibson) accept it now. He believed, if the Government
were pressed, they would find that the sa -no military est ab-
lishments that were sufficient before theßussian war would
be sufficient now that the war was over. (Hoar, hear.)
He thought the right hon. gentleman had clearly made out
his case, that if they were to acquiesce in the scale of ex-
penditure now proposed by the Goarernruent, as that which
should be adhered to during the ensuing years, it would be
necessary in 1858 and 1859 to vote increased taxes ; and,
as the right hon. member for Oxford had said, they would
then see a gradual reversal of that policy which was com-
menced in 1842 by the late Sir R. Peel. (" Oh, oh," from
the Treasury benches.) The right hon. gentleman said,
" place it in the power of the Government in 1860 to carry
out the mpact of 1853, and remit the income tax." Ho
believed that by no arrangement they could make between
this and 1850 calculated to promote the true interests of
the Country, could they hope to accomplish that object.
(Haar, hear.) They might re-adjust the tax to make it
more equal in its application, bat in his view it would be a
great financial blunder to abandon that portion of our
ho thought, was more than the affluent
taxes, which,
classes ought to contribute to the requirements of the
state. He did not say they should continue an exorbi-
tant income tax, but he would maintain a mode-
rate income tax as the very keystone of our commercial
prosperity, and as essential to the interests of the pro
peered as well as of the labouring classes. He, tlierefore,
refused to bind himself by any compact in reference to the
removal of the tax in I.Beo, and would much rather, if the
amount could be dispensed with, remit an equivalent sum
of the indirect taxes than part with the income tax. He
objected to holding out to the country expectations which
he knew would never be fulfilled, and he still more ob-
jected to be the advocate of a policy which he believed to
be prejudicial to the best interests of the community.
Though he should vote with the right hon. member for
Buckinghamshire against the Speaker leaving the chair, he
could not go with him in the other proposition. (" Oh,
oh," and laughter.) There was nothing inconsistent in
in this—for there were in fact two distinct propositions
involved, and, holding the opinions he did, what other
course could he take than to vote against the Speaker
leaving the chair, and afterwards, when the right hoe.
gentleman's motion was put as a substantive motion,
voting against it? (" Oh," and laughter from the Treasury
benches.) Hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches might
think this somewhat peculiar in him, but it often hap-
pened, he believed, that even they found themselves sepa-
rated in the division lobby from their political friends, as
was the case the other evening when the noble lord the
member for Tiverton found himself with some thirteen or
fourteen of his most ardent supporters voting with bon.

04. lib
mayi,bell ea the Wiwi al4 %pivot ht c.va lwaty On the
hon. member for East Surrey's motion. (floor, bear, and
laughter.) He had great confidence in the pliability of the
noble lord. Ho believed he was like those trees that wea-
thered the gale by bending to the storm, and if the house
.vas firm in reference to the present proposal, he had no
doubt that the Government would re-consider their budget
and re-introduce it hereafter in an altered form, with largely
decreaied estin ates of expenditure, and omitting alto-
gether that part of their scheme which contemplated auy
addition to the scale of duties already fixed by Parliament
on tea and sugar.
Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that it was not the duty
of Parliament to proceed upon speculation. What they
ought to do was to ascertain first what amount of expendi-
ture the requirements of the State demanded, and then find
the means of providing it. (Rear, hear.) The war 9d.
must undoubtedly be repealed--(hear, hear)—about that
there wag no question—(hear, hear)—but he objected to
the Government propositions because, instead of confining
themselves simply to the remission of the war portion of
the income tax, they attempted to bind the house to an
expenditure extending over the next three years. He de-
nied that, any of the precedents which had been quoted ap-
plied. Ho was not for cuttini, down expenses beyond what
was necessary, and-ho believed that in some instances the
old peace standard of our naval and military establish-
ments must be increased ; but they ought to have the op-
portunity of examining the estimates of expenditure be-
fore they were called upon to decide upon the income, and
certainly they had no right to be called upon to make pro-
vision for 1838.9 and 1859-60 before they know what the
requirements of those years might be. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD said it was quite true the right hon.
gentleman who had just sat down hal stated the usual
Parliamentary practice. It was not of their own free will
that Government adopted the course that had been pur-
sued, but in deference to the general wish of the house.
Mr. DISRAE —No.
Sir C. WOOD—I bog the right hon. gentleman's par-
don.

Mr. DISRAELI remarked that he never expressed any
wish of the kind. He was quite astonished at the course
Government bad taken. He was not aware that any gentle-
man on that side of the house had suggested such a course,
and ho entirely disapproved of it.
Sir C. WOOD said then of course he must beg the right
hon. gentleman's pardon. The right hon. member for the
University of Oxford suggested it. [Mr. Gladstone was un-
derstood to express his dissent from this statement.] There
seemed to be,a general concurrence on the subject, and his
noble friend (Lord J. Russell) got up and said they would
postpone going into committee of supply. That being so he
thought they were bound to adhere to the course they had
taken. Having listened with some attention to the whole of
the debate, he must say he never heard a motion the
grounds for which were so feeble. He congratulated his
right hon friend on the vote of the right hon. member for
Manchester, who plainly told them he disentangled the
vote from the merits of the question. If the object of the
motion were to bring the hon. member for Bucks and the
right hon. member for the University into office together,
he could understand it, but if it had any other object it
seemed to him to be nothing in the world but a simple hin-
drance of business. In committee of ways and means the
expenditure might be settled, and the taxes a lapted to
meet it, but instead of that, the house was wasting time
in the discussion of abstract resolutions. It was said that
the benefit of the discussion had been shown in the altered
tone of the Government upon the subject of the estimates.
But he could not see how they could have changed their
tone when they had never expressed an opinion on the
subject. The member for the University of Oxford bad
suggested that the Government bad changed and diminish-
ed the estimates, since the beginning of the session. That
was not the fact, Those estimates as they now appeared
on the table were ready a week before the meeting of Par-
liament, and could have been distributed, if the forms of
the house had allowed, two or three days before the meet-
ing of Parliament. He believed that it would be found
that they bad been prepared so as to combine economy
with efficiency. He must say that he was astonished at the
excitement of manner displayed by the right hon. gentle.
man the member for Oxford University on a former occa-
sion. He had used language to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that it was hardly decent for one gentleman to use
towards another. He had lectured his old colleagues, and
he had said that be would not allow the house to go into
committee without being fettered by an abstract resolu-
tion which would prevent them giving a free and Imre-
stricted consideration of the subject then to be dis-
cussed. He did trust, however, that the house would re-
ject both this resolution and that of the right honourable
gentleman ; that they would vindicate their inde-
pendence, and that they would refuse to be fettered
in the exercise of their discretion and their judgment. The
Government were accused by the right hon. gentleman of
deserting the budget of 1853. He fully approved of that
budget, and he admitted that at the time it was introduced
there was a reasonable ground for the reduction of taxes
that it contained, and the hope of abolishing the income
tax which it held out. But was it possible that any bind-
ing compact could exist in such a matter altogether irre-
spective of circumstances that might intervene between the
pledge and the time for its fulfilment ? It was clear that
one Parliament could not bind its successors to follow a
particular course altogether without regard to the circum-
stances which might arise. The right hon. gentleman him-
self, in introducing the budget of 1853, had expressly
guarded himself against it being supposed that either Par-
liament or Government would be bound, irrespective of
circumstances, to repeal the income tax in 1860. All that,
he proposed to do, he said, was to place Parliament in such
a situation that it might in 1560 take off the tax if it
thought fit. So he said then, and so he said now ; and so
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was now doing
nothing to render it difficult or impossible to take off the
tax in 1860. All the difficulty, if there was any, Was in-
terposed by the resolution of the right hon. gentleman op-
posite. The proposal which the Government was abeat to
make in committee was to pay off a portion in this year of
the Treasury bonds, and every portion they paid off would
put them in a better position to put an end to the income
tax in 1860. (Hear, hear.) It was therefore incorrect to
say that what the Government wore doing was in the
slightest degree to perpetuate the income tax. He replied
to the statement of the right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Oxford as to the economy of Parlia-
ment during the last 13 years, and said that during that
period taxation had increased 31 millions. The right hon.
gentleman when in office provided for the war expenses,
partly by direct and partly by indirect taxation, viz., income
tax, malt, tea, sugar, and coffee, and it was on two of those
that an increase was now proposed. It was a wise discre-
tion on the part of the right hon. gentleman not to place
the whole expenses of the war on direct taxation, and it
was in pursuance of that policy that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had quoted Arthur Young, on whose principles
the right hon. gentleman the member for the University
of Oxford had acted to a greater extent than the Chancellor
of the Exchequer; and yet ho had told the house that the
policy of the Government was a retrograde one, an 1 that it
was a departure from the budget of 1853! The house was
told that on a return to peace the country should come
b tek to her income as settled in 1853 ; but then how were
they to make up the deficiencies of the war expenses to be
paid in this year. In 1853 tbo right hon. gentleman the
member for the University of Oxford estimated the succes-
sion duties at 2 millions, but they had only produced half
a million, and the deficiency of 14 million had to be made
up on spirit duties, so that so far fl ore the arrangement of
1853 being binding, there had been a deficiency to a large
extent on that one item; besides which there had been a
deficiency of 2A millions on the expenditure to be provided.
(Hear, hear.) They had now to provide for the repayment
of Eechequer bonds, a war charge to the amount of 3i
millions; and in order to meet it, it was proposed to de-
fray it out of those of the war taxes, precisely as the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford
on a similar occasion defrayed the war expenditure in
November. Could it, therefore, be said that the Govern-
ment, in the course they had proposed, were departing
from the budget of 1853 one jot more than the right hon.
gentleman did in 1854 ? The right hon: baronet, at great
length, defended the conduct of the Government, and de-
nied that it was a " quibble" between imposing and
taking off taxes, and that if the house went into com-
mittee the whole of the estimates could be properly
considered, and explained, and adjusted to the re-
quirements of .the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon-
ourable baronet also defended his own conduct, as well
as the Chancell r of the Exchequer, from the remarks that
had been made by the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Oxford, in the course of which he charged
the right hon. gentleman with having used language to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to his assertions being
contrary to fact, and likely to mislead the house and the
countrsuc
_weaesunb°eemigliennge gentleman to an-
other—(hear,of acrimony such
as was rarely witnessed in that house ( Hear, hear, an I
country—such
as
hear)—and e with a fee
cries of divide.) The right hon. baronet, amidst cries of
divide, defended his own conduct from the charge that had
been made against it by the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber fer the University of Oxford, that he (Sir C. Wood)
wished to perpetuate the income tax, and he read extracts
from his speeches relative to the question made on former
occasions. The right hoe. gentleman the member for the
University of Oxford had objected to everything, and pro-
posed nothing- in return, except an increase on fire insur-
ance duties, on the paper duties, aed on wine. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer by his proposition did not pledge
the Government to abolish the income tax in 1860, but to
put the finances of the country in such a position as to
render it possible. The most painful task for a Government
was to reduce the estimates. And the same difficulty at-
tended reducing the establishments from war to peace as
there were to properly and efficiently increase them from
peace to war. The estimates for the year depended on the
circumstances of the time, and if the house went into com-
mittee the Government would endeavour to justify them.
It was the desire and object of the Government to pro-
duce the estimates as low as was consistent with economy
and a due regard to the efficiency of the service. (Hear,
hear, and cries of divide.) He repudiated any contract
or agreement on the part of the Government as to the
abolition of the income tax in 1860; but the l roposals
of the Government, it followed, were likely to render
its being e accomplished both probable and easy. (Hear,
hear.) Ye called on the house to reject the two pro-
positions before them, and to enable the house to go into
committee on the estimates.
Mr. GLADSTONE explained. He had no desire to use
language to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which one
gentleman ought not to use to another, and if he had, he
was very sorry for it. He reiterated his former statement,
that the Chancellorof the Exchequer was in error when he
said, he proposed to reduce taxation to the amount of
11,970,0001., and quoted the passage in the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's reported speech in confirmation of hie
statement. The statement he said contained very serious
errors on matters of fact, and were likely to.sproduce erro-
neous impressions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the language used on a former occasion by the right hon.
gentleman
did convey to his (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's} wind in direct telm
s that he had. in order to
sepport his argument and obtain an undue advantageto the
reputation of the Government, laid before the house a
statement that was incorrect. Oa looking at the report of
the words which he used on that occasion he found nothing
that was not consistent with truth in them, except the ex-
pression that he presumed hehad stated inadvertently that
be proposed to remove," instead of stating that " the
following taxation would be removed." (Laughter.) From
the length at which he addressed the house on the occasion
referred to, and his desire not to address them loner than
was necessary, he might have erred in not being es'i •
su ciently
explicit. (Laughter.) What he meant to say was th
re-
mission of taxes to the amountnamed would be fur thee en-
suing year, whereas his right hon. friend had
with saying that remission would take place in the year.
He assured the house he had, no desire to take credit for

the n=3651411 of tailiatii U kje %Tat 00464, a it.%
it false impregsion in the mind of the house anti the publiel
The qutstion was then pot that the debate be adjourned.
and the house divided. The numbers were :
Against the adjournment 477
For the adjournment 25
Majority —452
•
The house then divided upon th© original motion. The
numbers were—.
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
The house then went into committee
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if the resolutions were likely to demand discussion he
would be willing to move that the Chairman report V*o'
gr iv, but if not he should move that they be agreed to,
Mr. DISRAELI said he should object to proceed 31,
that time as the resolutions would lead to something more
than discussion. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon.'
gentleman would not then press the resolution upon the
house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented,
and the house resumed.
The Commons Inclosure Bill passed through committee.
The lonian Subjects Commission Bill was read a third
time.
The Public Health Supplemental Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bin
was road a second time.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

235
... 206

Lord PALMERSTON moved that the following men;
hers be on this committee :—Lord John Russell, Mr. War
pole, Mr. Solicitor• General, Mr. Cobden, the Lord Aar.'
cate, Mr. Barrow, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Berkeley, MT,'
Deedes, Mr. George Butt, Mr. George Alexander Haw"'
ton, Mr. Ingham, Mr. Ker Seymour, Sir William Sower
ville, and Mr. Tite.
Mr. O'BRIEN objected that there was only one Wok
man on the committee.
Mr. M'CANN said he thought the committee was Tel
properly named, for Irishmen had no money to bribe with,
and knew nothing about the subject to be inquired into'
Ho was only sorry to see an Irishman upon it. at all.
The motion was then agreed to, and the hsuse adjourned
at one o'illook.