The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

country, not even that raised by permanent taxation, can
be applied to the purposes for which they are destined with-
out an appropriation act which must originate in the House
of Commons, and which receives as le matter of course the
sanction of your lordships, to carry into effect the engage-
ments previously entered into by the House of Commons.
(Hear.) The control of the other House of Parliament over
the finances of the country consists, first, in the necessity
by an annual vote to provide for all the great services of the
country ; and next, that no step can be taken for the appli-
cation of the money voted without the introduction of all
the items into an appropriation act. But let us suppose that
this privilege of the House of Commons is carried to the
utmost, and that they do away with the whole of the per-
manent taxation of the country, and observe that if thispre-
cedent is to be followed, and that the supply for the
year is to be purchased by the abolition of some permanent
duty, then gradually the permanent taxation of the country
will be reduced to a minimum, and if the permanent taxa-
tion be reduced to a minimum then all the great services of
the country will be compelled to be provide for by the an-
nual vote of Parliament. Then if all the taxes affecting
trade are required to be provided for and made dependent
upon the annual votes—if permanent taxation, which alone
can give security for the interest of the national debt, and
for the maintenance of the credit of the country, is to be
done away with, most serious and ruinous consequences
must be the result. Therefore, while Ido not say that in
the present case I am disposed to object to the exercise of
the discretion of the House of Commons, I do say that it is
a serious question, not only for your lordships' considera-
tion, but for the consideration of the members of the House
of Commons, and I hope of the great majority of those who
value the permanence of the institutions of the country,
and I warn thorn to beware of any attempt to substitute
annual for permanent taxation, and thereby to unsettle the
whole relations of commerce, checking its credit and faith,
and introducing into all financial matters an uncertainty
which min t be prejudicial to the highest and best interests
of the country. (Hear.) It is in my recollection when the
sugar duties used to be an annual vote, and se great was
the inconvenience found to result, and such the paralysation
of trade that took place from the uncertainty whether the
duty would bo left unaltered, reduced, or increased in the
course of each successive year, that it was found absolutely
necessary to continue that which had been annual and to
make it a permanent duty. And if it is this that the right
hon. baronet of whom I have spoken complains of, as an
infraction of the privileges of the House of Commons it was
a concession by the House of Commons not of its privileges,
but of that which was felt to be absolutely essential for the
commercial and mercantile interests of the country. (Hear.)
Therefore I do earnestly hope that this question of substitut-
ing annual for permanent taxation will be carefully weigheu
by this and the other House of Parliament before the sys-
tem is allowed to proceed to that extent which must be
adverse to the best interests of the country. From what
I have already said, your lordships will infer that it is not
my wish or desire to recommend to your lordships to inter-
fere with the exercise of the discretion of the House of
Commons so far as relates to the abolition of the paper duty.
(Hear, hear.) I think myself that it is an imprudent and
improvident course in the face of the future difficulties;
but it is a measure that has been determined upon twice in
succession by the other House of Parliament ; it is a purely
financial measure, and we are to suppose it has been decided
upon by the House of Commons upon purely financial
grounds, and that being so I should be sorry to see your
lordships set yourselves at variance with the House of
Commons upon a matter purely of their own privileges.
But there is a question that remains. The question has
been raised as to the power of the House of Lords ; not, in-
deed, to debate the motion of my noble friend, and reject
the bill, involving the rejection of the whole of the supplies
of the year, not to put ourselves in opposition to the vote of
the House of Commons, but to take a step which we cer-
tainly have the power to take, and which is quite constitu-
tional, namely, to divide this bill into two, and send the
two bills down to the House of Commons, for them to ac-
cept or reject. I must say that the course of proceeding is
one that has much to recommend it in point of principle,
but in point of prudence I very much doubt whether it is a
desirable course for your lordships to take. (Cheers.)
The noble earl opposite (Earl Granville) has repeated to-
night what was said elsewhei e, that in sending the bill up
to your lordships' house in this form the Government were
taking a measure of -the most conciliatory character, and
were actuated by the most conciliatory intentions towards
this house. It is certainly a strange way of conciliating,
when this house has already refused to accept the proposi-
tion, simply to send it back and say, " Accept it now or re-
ject it now, but it you do not accept it you will expose the
country to considerable inconvenience; but we send it up
in such a form that it is practically impossible for you to
exercise your own judgment upon it." The noble earl
protested the good intentions of her Majesty's Government ;
but when they talk of the conciliatory character of the
proposition, I regret that I cannot concur with them in my
view of its nature ; and, moreover, I am very strongly in-
clined to the opinion, that if her Majesty's Government
denied as a body that this should be a conciliatory
measure, this was not a view which was shared by the
right honourable gentleman who was supposed to be its
principal author. (Hear, hear.) I cannot but believe that
the right hon. gentleman, unfortunately I think for his own
reputation, allowed himself to be influenced by a feeling of
mortification at the rejection of a bill last year in which he
took great interest, and has unhappily adopted a mode of
showing that feeling which is not altogether consistent with
the right hon. gentleman's high character and high posi-
tion. (Cheers.) But the question is, if the House of Com-
mons, having bent up the bill in this form, and if we, with-
out placing ourselves in the slightest degree financially in
opposition to the House of Commons, should make the alte-
ration which we have certainly the power of doing, we leave
to the House of Commons only the rejection or adoption of
the whole. But we have the remedy in our own hands.
We can, if we please, vindicate the privileges we possess ;
and in any case, where the magnitude of the interest in-
volved appears to justify that extreme course, I hope your
lordships will not be slow in vindicating your privileges, if
you think it essential for the interests of the country that
you should do so. But in exercising that power upon the
present occasion, we should be following the exampla which
we so earnestly deprecate, and taking a course calculated to
promote a feeling of animosity on the part of the House of
Commons, and we should render ourselves liable to have it
said, "You have no objection to the proposition we make,
but you send it down in a manner which makes it a chal-
lenge and a defiance to the House of Commons." Therefore,
while I protest, in the first place, against the policy of the
measure now introduced, and while I deprecate making
sacrifices of permanent revenue secured by permanent Acts
of Parliament, at a time when you require all the available
resources of the country—at a time when, as my noble
friend behind me has pointed out, the state of affairs
abroad is too critical to allow us to tamper with
the finances of the country, to place us in a posi-
tion in which we cannot at once put forward all
our resources, instead of relying upon ordinary means
to meet extraordinary occasions—l consider this policy
improvident and unwise; and while I think the form of
the bill is not such as the noble earl told us her Majesty's
Government intended it to be, namely, of a conciliatory
character to this house, I do not advise your lordships to
incur the responsibility either of rejecting the bill as a
whole or sending it down in such a form as to render
necessary the re-introduction and re-discussion of the whole
question, and the re-introduction of those feelings on the
part of the House of Commons, which I should be the last
man to excite, but which I am most earnest to allay, and
which might make us open to the suspicion of tampering
with the privileges of the other house. I yield to no man in
the desire to maintain to the Commons House its privileges,
and I hope my noble friend will not call upon your lord-
ships to divide upon the question before us. (Cheers.) I
earnestly hope that no proposition will be made in the sub-
sequent stage of the measure for its amendment, or such a
division of it as I have mentioned. I think such a course
would be most unfortunate ; I think it would place the c
un-
try in a great difficulty, and that it would expose us in some
degree to well-merited censure. I concur with my noble
friend in many of his objections, but I hope, with me, while
I am very unwilling to say content to the second reading,
he will at once consent to let the bill pass without recording
his dissent, and leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and the Government the responsibility, which I think very
heavy, of having dealt in the manner they have done with
the finances of the country, and with having made great
sacrifices for apparently insi emificant results, and deprived
the country of resources which may be required in an un-
expected hour, and God knows how soon it may come when
we may be threatened by foreign dangers. (Loud cheers.)
The Duke of ARGYLL could not agree with the noble
duke who moved the rejection of the bill, that debates in
that house were of little value unless they were followed
by a division. He thought the feeling in the house was one
of relief and gratification that they had really come to the
close of this controversy with regard to the paper duty, and
that in the speech of the noble earl they had heard the last
accents of a party contest, the strangest that had happened
in Parliament of recent years. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, having an estimated surplus of £2,000,000, proposed
to divide it between the reduction of the income tax and
the removal of an Excise duty ; but in this they had been
met with violent, and he must say, fanatical opposition.
He confessed that he was surprised that opposition was
made to the abolition of the paper duty, which was the
rlraeespgleaoarfldeadt:o andfamilye
deficitto th e
ef
last advantage
year,o f
the t h e
Chancellorc ut ry.
of Wittheh
Exchequer had rather over-estimated than under-estimated
the expenditure of the year, and there had been a saving in
the estimates for the ina war of £BOO,OOO, which went to
the reduction of the deficit. The noble earl had complained
of the basis of the right len. gentleman's calculations, but
it was quite legitimate that he should take one basis one
year and another another,crovided that the House of Corn
mons distinctly understood principle upon which the
hwoeusreembyadhie.B
calculations,
aolale earl had himself ham-
deficitbe calculationsozl
e d
the
e
port aealbelts, for he estimated the
of not calculating upon
at £10,000,000, u
expiring- taxes, whereas, if that basal wts taken, the deficit
mwoemulbdehreavweebueldenm£a2k2e,oaofor,aollloc. wouldstalttemet be interesting if
tstea beginning of
a session to admit how far their predientica,
realised, but the noble earl had braved outn his had
yenbCieens
in this respect in the boldest manner. The noble earl last
year predicted a deficit of £2,800,000, and as there was an
actual estimated surplus of £2,000,000 sterling there would
have been a deficit of £4,000,000 and deducting the ex-
penses of the China war the error of the noble lord would
amount to £2,000,000 sterling, or 1,200,000 at the very
least, which was the whole amount of the paper duty upon
which the discussion was then going on. Ttie noble earl
assumed that tt c expenditure of last year would have been
much greater.
xenpelaeinoefdthtehacthhinieseecawlcaurl.ations were
ofthatwar.haidhaes
fouEnadreld oofn DthEeict(BmYt in tei
o hd
ae
rDi
guhkt et
oof c
allut
lGa
tY: Lo
nL
the— S
tuern 1
ntahtei
on Government
rwinadsucthede
with which their lordships wereyieetetth,eies
argument i
event proved that they were right; and
to reject the bill. With respect to the tea
tdouateieese,dethtoe
Government would last year have been ready
a proposal for their reduction, but this year they had pre-
ferred the paper duties, because they thought their repeal
would be more generally beneficial to the country. Other
reasons had, however, been attributed to the Govern-
went. They had been accused of a wish to cast an undue
burthen on the contributors to direct taxation, whilst the
tea duties were persistently referred to as war duties.
What were the facts ? In 1851 they stood at 2s. 2d. a lb.,
iEtni
oxnac
Exchequer
eoarflplporrmoo,pefodosuentdod peace. In 1853 the Chancellor of the
ilsg.lonot withstand -
at whichd.aggoradonualforredouncetioynee,
ra,nd that reduc-
tion
the war. In 1855 Sir G. C. Lewis increased it to
iandt
hadt h ereymeaerinaefdterevtehre
137
nacre! t
Twhasetretdeutechededto ls .
nothingd. ,
whatever to do with war expenditure, but it was neverthe-
less his opinion that all expenses connected with the mili-
tary
in a greamvta!expenditure of the country should be borne
ture was still £
sian war. With reit
£6,000,000 be,
whole community. That expendi-
objected to give
it t tobteli;PaajTel7d4U;47tastrebraeoronrres titenesw-
tlinhetrrYe B;uphboauusltdbhbeieeng part of the permanent reve-
nopuierdoefuththeacto
(the Duke of Argyll) was of
mnutzi.3inotmlreedconsistencypaper
we
(Hear.).between
o the
language of public me%wh,
1854 a resolution Wad

in the House of Commons, and that resolution was, slightly
altered, accepted by the noble earl's Government, and his
then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) interpo-
lated an addition to the resolution of Mr. M. Gibson, de-
claring that the paper duty was a tax which ought to be
abolished. (Hear, hear.) Surely, after such a declaration
it was hardly consistent with his former acts for the noble
attributed
to
earlh emnuoewt
alludeoppose
tto
the
the
personal Government
motives bil Before
whichh he seadt down
were was
attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the noble
thatearl in discussing
scusssurinely, if
gth empeordseeninalwmhiecthivtehee bill
se
any minister the accusation should be made in the house of
which the accused minister was a member, and surely, if it ,
were thought that an insult were intended to the House of
Lords, the Lords should have found defenders in the Con-
servative party in the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.)
And yet when on a recent occasion a member of that party
proposed a method of saving the House of Lords from in-
sult, the rush of the whole party from the house was so tre-
mendous that the door was blocked up for several minutes.
(Laughter.) The paper duty was the last of those protective
duties which had been removed successively by Mr. Hies-
kisson' Sir R. Peel, and now by Mr. Gladstone. Without
those taxes they had last year 69 millions of revenue. Surely
this was a great and triumphant result, and in spite of the
solemn adjurations of the noble earl he could only say that
all the ability and all the eloquence the noble earl had
shown was only another proof that eloquence and ability
could be wasted in resisting the most salutary reform, and
in defending a bad, but which he rejoiced to think was in
' this case a losing cause. (Cheers.)
Earl GREY said, though he trusted there would be no di-
vision, for ho had no doubt the noble duke would follow the
advice given to him by thenoble earl near him,yet he should
take the liberty of making some observations upon the
conduct of the other house of parliament, and the speech of
the noble duke who had just sat down. He thought he
ought to congratulate their lordshipsupon the course which
they adopted last year—(hear, hear)—although they all
'knew how their conduct was condemned by certain persons
and papers. It was argued that this house had no right
to throw out a bill in which the House of Commons had
repealed a tax, but the wisdom of the course pursued
last year was shown by the fact that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not intend to repeal the paper duties
before October next. (Hear, hear.) If the arguments ad-
vanced were allowed they would apply to all bills relating
to the appropriation of money, and that great principle of
the constitution which was now recognised would be at an
end. Fortunately, however, that principle was not in
danger, for it had been clearly admitted that this houstehad
a right to exercise a judgment upon all bills brought before
them, whether they referred to matters of taxation, appro-
priation, or anything else. While contending that they had
this right, he admitted that it ought to be exercised with
judgment and discretion, and no man would say
that, except in extreme eases, they ought to inter•
fere with the financial arrangements of the House of
Commons. (Hear, hear.) He could not say that he saw in
the bill that desire for conciliation which his noble friend
had referred to. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he thought
he observed traces of a mortified feeling, and a sense of
having been in the wrong. (Hear, hear.) As to the form
of the bill, there could be no doubt that the House of
Commons had a righi to pass it in that shape, and he could
not help saying that he saw some advantage in having the
bill in this form. (Hear, hear.) Of this he felt sure, that
if the Government had confined the whole of their finan-
cial arrangements in one bill last year, their lordships
would not have been called upon to exercise their power,
for the reason that the small majority of nine in the House
of Commons would have been converted into a minority.
The great good achieved last year was that it
had placed the right of the House of Lords in a sound posi-
tion, and their right would not be contested again. (Hear.)
The noble duke said the noble earl opposite was in error in
his statement as to the reasons for rejecting the bill for the
repeal of the -paper duty last year, and he added that if
there had not been a bad harvest the proposals of the Go-
vernment would have been fully borne out by the result.
Now let them consider how far that was true. The decision
of their lordships last year was quite independent of con-
siderations in reference to the harvest, for they had infor-
mation before them which clearly proved that if they re-
pealed the paper duties there would not be the means of ad-
justing the balances at the end of the year. The house came
to the vote on the paper duties on the 21st May, and inless
than two months—viz., on the 16th July—the Chancellor
of the Exchequer brought forward a supplemental budget,
and in that budget he was obliged to state that he required
£3,300,000 more than he had made provision for. At that
time there was nothing said about the harvest, and in the
month of June the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that
his expectations had been fully satisfied, notwithstanding
that there was a deficiency to a large amount in the revenue.
The extra expenses, no doubt, arose in consequence of the
China war. But from returns which were moved for by Sir
J. Pakington it appeared that all the most important orders
in reference to that war ranged from September and Octo-
ber, 1859, to March, 1860, and therefore the expenses of the
expedition had at that time been incurred. There was a de-
spatch from India which showed that the whole of the
forces to be employed in China were collected and ready for
action early in the year, and that they were only waiting
for the French troops, and perhaps their lordships would re-
member that before commencing the discussion on the
paper duties he (Earl Grey) asked whether it was true that
certain Indian troops would not in China be entitled to
extra pay and allowance, and, if so, whether any provision
had been made for the amount which would be required.
The noble earl in answer said it was true that they
would be so entitled, and that no provision had been
made for the expense. Then he (Earl Grey) said there
were orders given before the end of the year which sub-
stantially involved the whole expenses of the China
war, and therefore it was clear that asking for
the sum of £500,000 for the expenses of that army,
included in the army estimates of the year, while the gov-
ernment had the means of knowing that a larger sum
would be required, was absolutely ludicrous for the
purposes for which it was intended. (Hear, hear.) Conse-
quently the government proposed to repeal these duties at
a time when they knew they would be absolutely necessary
for the purposes of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had no
doubt the revenue was seriously affected by the bad harvest.
Well, they all remembered that the sowing time of 1859 was
not propitious, that the growing crops never looked flou-
rishing. and censequently the env prnm ought to neee
calculated on a loss from that cause. (Hear, hear.) It
appeared, however, that no less a sum than £BOO,OOO had
been received from the customs duties on corn. (Hear,
hear.) But it should be remembered that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the 16th July last year not only ap-
plied for the sum of £3,300,000, but he imposed
new taxes he increased the duty on spirits,
which he calculated would produce £1,000,000 sterling.
The result was that in spite of this additional £1,000,000
imposed in July, and in spite of their lordships having re-•
tained the paper duties, the govermeent admitted that there
was a deficiency on the year of 2 millions—in fact, as
money had been applied for the purposes of the year which
did net fairly belong to revenue, the financial situation of
the country was 31 millions worse at the end of the year
than at the beginning. It appeared to him that in these
circumstances the right and wise rule in forming the
financial scheme for this year would have been to adopt
the worse view so far as revenue was concerned,
and to have expected an increased expenditure. He
would ask, whether, upon the showing of the government,
this was the character of the present question, and of the
budget now before them? In his opinion it was a highly
speculative budget. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, could
any man look at the present state of America without fear-
ing that there would be an augmented price on cotton ?
If he had not been misinformed—supposing there would be
no less produced in America—the price would be much in-
creased, for the freight had risen from id. to 21d. a lb. to
Liverpool. An increased price would lead to a slack trade,
and with deficient employment there would be a diminished
revenue. Then, as to the next harvest. They all knew
that last autumn was not favourable for sowing grain, and
he was sorry to say the crops in the north were not very
promising. (Hear.) Then, again, they were not certain
of receiving the indemnity from China,upon which so much
stress bad been laid in the other houtt, and even if it was
received he was afraid the expenses for keeping up a force
in China would have to be paid out of the money. Again,
he could not find that in the calculations of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer he had made any allowance for the ex-
penses of the war which was now raging in New Zealand.
Now, in the face of all the information which the Govern-
menepossessed, or might have possessed, the extraordinary
expenses of the China war were kept out of sight from Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) All these were considerations
which prevented him from placing confidence in the finan-
cial policy of her Majesty's Government, and he could not
look upon it as a whole without seeing that it was one
which appeared to rest upon no principles which were
steadily adhered to or deliberately considered. (Hear,hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said he should not detain their
lordships many moments. An estimate of the deficiency
made by him had been alluded to in the course of the de-
bate ; but that estimate was formed on the supposition that
good faith would be kept with the public, and that the in •
come tax and the tea and sugar duties would be reduced.
(Hear, hear.) He confessed that the estimates of revenue
and the realisation of those estimates of late years were not
calculated to inspire him with much confidence. The in-
come tax would have produced £3,928,000; under the
altered circumstances in which it was introduced by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, it produced £10,930,000. The
malt duty, which would have produced £5,77100, pro-
duced £6,374,000. The hop duty was a loss. But in all
these cases you were living by anticipation last year, and
you were doing the same now. (Hear, hear.) The budget
of the year was, therefore, as objectionable in his opinion as
those of former years.
The Duke of RUTLAND intimated that it was not his
intention to press the amendment.
Earl GRANVILLE was glad the noble duke had ac-
ceded to the appeal made from both sides of the house, and
had withdrawn his amendment. The embarrassment which
he (Earl Granville) felt in addressing the house upon a
question of such importance was increased by the fear of
offending the critical ear of the noble earl opposite. The
noble earl on the present occasion complained that he used
the pronounciation "wrap," where ho should have used
" wrap"—(a laugh)—but this was only a peculiarity of pro-
nunciation,adneadhhtefulassweertteddihtnis
trihgehwt,aays
wanhiEehngeleisehmmed best
to pronounce
to himself. (Laughter.) Before, however, he would consent
to use "wrap" instead of ewrop " he must know upon what
grounds the capital of the Midland county was called
satisfied with the course the.
" Darby" instead of Derby. (Laughter.) (dLeahuagt
eh t
hader.) Ha
taken,
nf felt very yi t well
waa
ntht beudet.
taken place the measure would satisfactory to know that
upon the
with the assent of
the short debate that had
superior claims of surplusthe tea and
The points upon which
were
their lordships' house. The eard now all that could
thebe
s against
ence of
at
surplus,
p
the noble duke chiefly relied in opposing
es e
sugar duties to the paper duty for repeal, aofd
which the bill had been introduced into the and the mode in
ith
regard to the surplus, the noble earl opposite said thatNtr t
expenditure, in making his calculations, should always bee
placed at the highest, and the income at the lowest, by the
Chancellor of tee Exchequer. The word "honest,. which
the noble earl made frequent use of in his speech, could
hardly be applied to such a principle of calculation, and
such a corst must involve the Government in an unplea-
sant opposition with the country. With regard to the tea
and sugar duties, their abolition would havediminished the
would be by the repeal of the duty
surplus still more
.than it
e te the constitutional question—the
on paper. Reeardine,
in which the bill was brought up—it was satisfactory to
who consi-
dered that the noble duke was the only personthe 1 offensive to the house, and contrary to
admitted
I opposite had
consti-
tutional practice. The noble ear
that the m
a and t
measure was perfectly constitution l
,
one a step fur-
he
noble earl near him (Earl Grey) had even g
ther, and had said that the House of Commons were
eater art of
jus-
tified in the course they had taken. The gr
_p &
was
the argument of the noble baron (Lord lelonteagl )
directed not against the present budget or the present bill,
but against the financial proceedings of last year, and