The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-30 00:00:00

Tfib' SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1861:

venture to tell the right hon. gentleman that if he ventures
to look for precedents he will find that, no longer age than
1801, 1802, and 1803, the House of Commons repeatedly—
nay, almost constantly—took that course; and in February,
1801, the House of Commons ordered a bill to be prepared
and brought in pursuant to resolutions of the house—no
fewer than 143 in number—resolutions referring to the duties
on tea, on paper, upon stained paper, upon books and maps,
the drawbacks on books imported, the Excise Ilion linen
stuffs, the drawback on the exportation, and other matters;
so that the house is now only asked to do what, at one time
in its history, it was in the constant habit of doing. (Hear.)
If, however, the right hon. gentleman is alarmed, let me
refer him to the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge, who was chairman of the com-
mittee on precedent last year. That right hon. gentleman
certainly showed no disposition to be hostile to the House of
Lords, but he prepared the draft of a report for the commit-
tee in which occurred the paragraph. He said in one of
those paragraphs that the power of the House of Commons
in matters of supply was very much weakened by the man-
ner in which the bill was founded upon resolutions of the
house. Now I will undertake to say that although those
paragraphs were not printed in the report of the committee,
the members of that committee, I believe, unanimously con-
curred in the spirit of them. That is my answer to the right
hon. gentleman, so far as I am concerned, to discuss the
question at present, I must say, with all respect for the
right hon. gentleman, that he is not a man I would like to
take advice from on a matter of that sort. Listen to his
speech to-night. Has he not crowded into it every possible
horror over the affairs of Europe,

(Hear, hear.) For the I;tst eighteen years the Budgets have
been mine, inasmuch as I have given them ray support.
What reason have I, or the majority 'of PirliamPnl, to be
ashamed of the course we took. One of the most respected of
*he county members who had resolutely opposed free trade,
said.to me, ° How much good you have done us, but we
did not know it " (Laughter.) The hon. member for
Huntingdon. referred to the state of Turkey,'Austria, and
Italy, as warning us how we shall proceed. It is true that
political convulsions,rend the air, and that political earth-
quakes shake the ground. But in this country you are in
secure enjoyment of your estates. If the Queen can wield
her sceptre over a peaceful realm—if Great Britain can hold
its course with all the majesty it ever did—l ask you if all
this is not to be attributed to the Budgets of the last few
years--Budge is which 1 have always supported, and which
you, unfortunately for your reputation, have always op-
posed. (Loud cheers.) I have no objection to party con-
tests, when for a public good. If I Loa to be remembered
hereafter, it is for having had my name associated with
measures which I conscientiously felt it was just for Par-
liament to pass, and beneficial for the country to receive.
(Cheers.) I have looked at the Budget with, I believe, an
impartial and honest eye, and it is one which it will be bene-
ficial for Parliament to pass and for the people to accept, I
shall give it my hearty support. (Loud cheers.)
Sir .1, FERGUSSON said that the hon. member for
Birmingham had hardly done justice to the motives of those
who opposed the Budget. He would call their attention to
some observations of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) in 1857, on the Budget of the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the present Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall
Lewis), who did not propose the remission of the paper
duty, entending that to call it a tax upon knowledge was
illusory, inasmuch as it pressed more heavily on other
articles than on paper used for printing, and that it would
not afford any advantage to the ordinary purchaser of
newspapers and books. For those reasons the right hon.
baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) postponed the repeal of the paper
duty to a more convenient season, and similarly rejected
the proposal to remit the duty on fire insurance. He (Sir
G. C. Lewis) quoted a declaration which, though laughed
at at the ;time by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer
(Mr. Gladstone), had certainly not been shown to be erro-
neous, that taxation was less oppressive when spread over
a number of articles, than when by the process called sim-
plicity it was made to press on a particular interest. (Cheers
from the Opposition.) He proposed reductions to the
extent of nearly £12,000,000, including a reduction both of
the income aim and also of the tea-duty. The hon.member for
Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) took exception to this on the ground
that it would, in subsequent years, leave the Treasury in
want of funds, and it remained for the house to consider
whether that prediction was sound or not. But the right
hon. gentleman, Mr. Gladstone, took a different and much
more violent view. While it had been the fashion very
much to quote the past convictions of the right hon. gen-
tleman, he thought somewhat vainly, he still believed there
would be some advantage in considering the grounds on
which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had op-
posed that Budget. He first of all objected to its general
features, and denounced the surplus as illusory, and the
entire measure as showing a tendency to depart from sound
principles of taxation. He denied the reality of the remis-
sions, and laid down the remarkable doctrine, that as ac-
cording to past plans, of which he was the author, in 1853,
these taxes would have partially expired in that year, the
so-called deduction was, in point of fact, a re• imposition.
The hon. gentleman proceeded to quote at considerable
length from Mr. Gladstone's speech of 1857, laying especial
weight on the declaration that the change of circumstances
since 1853 did not release the house from the promises then
made, and the expectations then raised, to which he (Mr.
Gladstone) was especially pledged ; and on the prediction
that in 1861-2 the deficiency would amount to above eight
millions. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was
now carrying to the extreme the policy which he then de-
nounced. As these taxes would expire in the present year,
their continuance was not a remission, but a reimposition ;
and even what was called the " unnecessary penny" was

imposed in order to relieve a wealthy interest. The righ
hon. gentleman had had the face to lay on the table las
year an estimate for the China war of £500,000, the same
sum which Sir R, Peel had given for a war of less than one-
fifth its magnitude, and he now counted on a sum of be-
tween £400,000 and £500,000, contingent on' the payment
of an indemnity which by all prospects would net be paid
this year. He asked the house whether it was not their
duty to adjust rightly the balance of taxation for the year,
and whether they were not wilfully falling into error if,
with the experience of last year before them, they aban-
doned sources of revenue which might be absolutely
needed hereafter. The President of the Board of Trade
had spoken of prospective finance, but the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had dealt more than any other man in pro-
phecies which had been more unfulfilled than was ever
prophecy before, and was now most singularly turning
his back on his policy of former years. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for the bad
harvest, but he was responsible for the excess in the ex-
penditure in the Chinese war, which, with his experience of
1854, he ought more than any other man to have foreseen.
To make up the deficiencies of last year he had anticipated
future years, by taking more than £4,000,000 from the- ca-
pital of the Country. The President of the Board of Trade
had not answered the question put to him by an hon. mem-
ber with respect to that emiloaa item, repayment and ad-
vances, which looked very like a further encroachment on
capital. A very slight difference on the price of tea and
sugar pressed heavily on the poor, an assertion he was pre-
pared to stand by at the risk of imputation of motives. If
it.were not that, it .was beneath contempt to attribute to
gentlemen advocating the interests of a large class of the
community motives by which he could not conceive it pos-
sible they could be influenced, the imputation might be re-
torted by the observation that there might be newspapers
which did not pay their expenses set up in the interest of a
certain party, and that except such an interest, he did not
tee who would be benefitted by the repeal of the paper
duties. If the question were submitted to a jury of working
men, he was sure they would laugh at the proposition that
they could'be benefitted by the repeal of the paper duty at
the -cost of continuing the tea and sugar duties at their pre-
sent rate. The hon. gentleman might, if he chose, have
reduced the duty on tea by 4d. per lb., and no fairer issue
could be raised than the question which of the two taxes it
was better for the poor to remit ? He wished to call atten-
tion to a pamphlet recently issued by Mr. Bohn, the pub-
lisher, who would be generally admitted to be an authority
on the subject. The hon. member proceeded to quote ar-
guments from the pamphlet alluded to, and a statement of
the amount of the paper duty on several works. There was
no doubt that- the paper trade, so far from being crippled
by taxation, was being greatly extended, and Mr. Glad-
stone contended last year that English paper makers could
compete successfully in foreign markets, even when at a
disadvantage in taxation. The wholesale price of the cheap
papers was id., and the amount of paper duty on each
copy was about half a farthing ; so it was not likely the
public would get any advantage from the reduction, besides
which, it was well known that they were not supported by
any profit on sale, but by the advertisements. The whole
advantage would fall into the hands of the printer and pub-
lisher. Considering the budget as a whole, he did not won-
an artful moan of preventing the Lords from exercising
der that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had taken
the right of supervision—not that he thought the Lords
would think of rejecting it if sent up a second time by the
Commons—the insult was gratuitous—but there never was
a budget more unfit for supervision. It looked as if it had
been prepared by two different authors—one of whom had
prepared the estimates, the other the ways and means. The
estimates for the army and navy certainly bore the con-
struction put upon them by the hon. member for Stroud.
They were prepared with a view to the safety of the coun-
try in case of war, while the revenue seemed calculated in
the expectation of the most piping times of peace. The re-
peal of the paper tax, and the falling off of other sauces of
revenue, would leave nothing but the income-tax to fall
back upon for any emergency of war ; and this tax, unwill-
ingly granted in time of war, was being made the main
source of revenue in times of peace. He approved of the
foreign policy of the Government, who had rightly inter,
preted the feelings of the country in that policy, and espe-
cially in the Syrian question, in which they had acted on a
bold and manly policy, which became them as English
Ministers—(cheers)—but in fiscal matteis they were taking
a course opposed to the tradition of their own party, and to
their policy in former times. He regretted that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer should use the great talents which
had raised him to a position, perhaps unknown in the case
of any man of his generatton, to carry out a policy opposed
to his former pledges and conviction, (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.)
Mr. GREGSON was ready to take the Chancellor of the
Exchequer at his word that there was a surplus, and had
no desire to force on him money which he said he did not
require. (A. laugh.) He would rather keep the hon.
gentleman " short," in order that he might be more
anxious to carry out the economy which he had declared to
be necessary. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) At the same
time he thought the reduction of the tea duty would
have been preferable to that of the duty on paper.
He would have preferred to have seen a reduction on tea
and sugar, but when he considered what would be the con-
sequence of a refusal to adopt the present proposals of the
Government, he felt it his duty to give a reluctant support
to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. B. CO CHR A.NE regarded the present as an impor-
tant epoch in finance, and declining to discuss in detail
the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proceeded
at some length to compare the revenue and expenditure
during the last 30 years, Pointing out the enormous in-
crease which had taken ph ce during that period, and more
especially since the year 1837. It was to meet the great
deficiency of revenue which Sir R. Peel had inherited as a
legacy from the Government of Lord Melbourne, that the
income tax was proposed, and if ever such an impost was
justifiable it was upon that
occasion, and for such a pur-
pose. But at that time thee
noble lord was at the head of
the Government, and several of his colleagues were to be
found among the strongest opponents of that tax. The
hon. member proceeded to quote from the speeches of Lord
Palmerston, Lord T. Russell, Sir George Grey, and others,
passages condemnatory of the policy and justice of impos-
ing the income tax. If, he
said, those members of the
Government then entertained such opinions, how could
they reconcile them with the fact of their now supporting
an income tax at Po high a rate as ea, izz the retuvi ?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated in his
financial matters a desire to diminish the amount of indi-
rect taxation and increase the direct taxes, and the wry-
ing out of that policy he proposed to hand over to a new
reformed Pas liament, which would more completely re-
present the wishes and opinions of the people, and
there was no doubt that the expression of such wish
had tended very much to prevent the passing of the Re,-
form Bill last year. On the present occasion the same prin-
ciple had been expressed, and direct taxation was about to
be imposed for the purpose of taking off indirect taxes. An
income tax of Sd. in the pound, according to the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer's own statement, would give a surplus
of £lBO,OOO, and he could not understand on what prin-
ciple the tax was to be levied at 9d., merely for the pur-
pose of abolishing an indirect tax on paper, which could
not be reimposed, while an income tax of Sd would produce
an adequate surplus for the financial year. (Hear.)
Mr. O'BRTEN said that if there was one feature more
than another which he admired in the progress of the de-
bate, it was the freedom and ability with which some hon.
gentlemen, who seldom ventured upon public attention,
came forward and expressed their opinions on the present
occasion. Into the question of the paper duty he should
not enter at length, because it had been frequently discussed
with ability. There was no doubt that that duty seriously
interfered with the due dissemination of knowledge. Lord
Brougham, when examined before a Committee of the
House of Commons in 1834, said that a sound system of
government required that the people should inform them-
selves of the system of legislation ; that they could only be
well informed by having recourse to useful publications;
and that the danger lay, not in the people learning too
much, but in knowing too little. (Hear.) He (Mr. O'Brien)
thought that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would do well, while repealing the paper
duty and reducing the income tax, to bear in mind that his
anticipations regarding the spirit duties in Ireland had not
been realised, that illicit distillation was on the increase in
many parts of that country, and that' in some of the large
towns great quantities of spirits were being sold at prices
I ess than the actual revenue derived by the Exchequer. if
that were so—and he believed his information upon the
subject was substantially correct—then was it high time for
his right hon. friend to_retrace his steps on the subject of
the spirit duties. Still he believed that the right hon. gen-
tleman was carrying out in every way the principles of Sir
Robert Peel, because, while in the first place he had as-
sisted in repealing the duty on corn, he was now leading
the way to liberate paper from taxation ; and upon that ac-
count, he for one would give the budget his cordial support.
Mr. LIDDELL said grave doubts had been thrown on
the accuracy of the surplus ; but with regard to that he
could not say anything, but he wished to refer to the pro-
mise of the harvest during the present year. It was beyond
the wildest speculation to look forward, however favourable
the season might be, to a large crop of wheat. The result
would, therefore, be a large importation of wheat, the gene-
ral effect of which was to interfere with trade. '1 hen as re-
garded America, war was declared, and the Americans had
never conceded the right of privateering, and that might
lead to various difficulties. It, seemed impossible that our
ships should escape collision with American privateers, and
that was a subject worthy of the highest consideration. He
believed that if for one night the ballot-box could be intro-
duced into the house, a large Majority would vote in favour
of the retention of the tax. (Hear.) He trusted that an op-
portunity would be afforded to those who shared his opinion
to record them on this subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise
at the close of rather a long debate, not very much concert-

trated, but rather diffused in its purpose, to address, I am
afraid, an exhausted house—(" No, no") —and what is worse
than all, to address them—bad under any circumstances—
in a defensive speech. I think it my duty, in the remarks
I shall have to make, to deal principally with those state-
ments which appear to me to be, of all portions of the pre-
sent discussion, the most deserving of detailed notice—l
mean those statements which impugn the particulars of the
figures which I have laid before the house. There are many
matters that have been importel into this debate which I
will venture to pass over. All that relates to myself per -
sonally, all that relates to the danger which may arise from
a conflict between a British merchant ship and an American
or other privateer, all that relates to more general and
vague political aspects in which the question has been re-
garded—all that I will pretermit, not because I presume
to say they are insignificant, but because I feel it my duty
to address myself to those points of the debate which
touch most directly and most practically on the matter
4 hand. (Hear, hear.) At the same time I cannot help
Observing for a moment on the strange constitutional
novelty in the duty which has been assumed by the Op-
position on this occasion. The Government having com-
puted the expenditure and revenue of the year ask the re-
presentatives of the people for £70,000,000 of taxes, and they
show that if all the laws which were enacted during the last
financial year should be re-enacted, the produce of those

taxes would probably amount to 72 millions, and they pro-
posed to sarrender outof the surplus what in round numbers
amounts to 2 millions—they propose to surrender 1 million
in the repeal of taxes ; and strange to say, it is against this
proposal a large number of the representatives rise up in
arms. Now, sir, I must say that, according to the doctrine
of the constitution, and according, if I may presume so to
speak in addressing gentlemen opposite, to the wisdom and
the practice of our ancestors, it is the duty of the euvern-
ment to see that not too little is asked for the public service
and it is the duty of those who oppose the Government in
particular, and of the entire House of Commons, to see that
they do not grant too much. But the fear of granting too
much has become a motive singularly operative among a
large portion of those who are opposite to me. While, on
the other hand, there appeared, by the state of nervous and
feverish expression, a fear of possibly granting too little.
Now, I must confess, without looking into the details of
this matter—without looking into the strictness of this
course—a difficulty in finding a precedent to sustain it. I
must observe that I think very little good is, under the cir-
cumstances, to be anticipated to the country from an ex-
change of duties between the Government and Opposition.
But then, sir, after the debate, I think any impartial spec-
tator cannot but notice that there isa singular want of unity
in the sentiments of those who have entered into this debate
on the opposite side of the house. The ground that most
have asserted is that there is not a surplus. If there is any
one proposition which appears to be agreed on it is that, but
there are many most important dissentients to that proposi-
tion. The hon. member for Huntingdon has not asserted
that there is not a surplus, but he has said, in speaking of
the great estimates of the year—l mean the estimates of the
customs and excise, of those estimates which are deemed to
be the greatest sources of revenue—he said he believed if the
circumstances of the year should be ordinary circumstances,
those estimates are fair and moderate. The hon. member
for Stamford has said the same thing in substance, but he
has questioned, and he was justified in questioning, from
his position and views, certain accounts, and scrutinising
important items which 1 placed to the credit side of the ac-
count ; but those are two gentlemen, who, without dispa-
ragement to others, I may call the most considerable
financial authorities on that side of the house, and one of
whom introduced the diamuadon adverse fa the Government
—neither 'of those gentlemen asserts or insinuates that
which all the rest seem to be agreed upon, namely, that.
there will not bo a probable surplus of revenue over ex-
penditure. But though they are not agreed on the ques-
tion of whether there will or will not be a surplus, still
there is a greater disagreement as to the mode of disposing
of it. Undoubtedly amongst a number of rival claims, the
tea duty appears to be the favourite. There are some gen-
tlemen of such large generosity, and unrestrained by to
rules of arithmetic, that they propose, in lieu of the paper
duty, to bring the tea and sugar duties to a peace levy.
(Hear.) That is to say, when it is proposed to dispose of a
fund amounting to between £600,000 and £700,000 a year,
their plan of good husbandry is to lay it out by making a
remission which will cost the country 2i millions. (Cries
of " No, no.") No doubt gentlemen made that proposal.
(Cries of " Name.") The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Stroud did to-night. (Hear, hear.) He asked that
the sugar duty should be placed in the position of the paper
duty. Tea, I grant, was the general favourite, but there
was a party of gentlemen for a reduction of the income
tax ; and the hon. gentleman the member Mr North Lin-
colnshire (Mr. B. Stanhope) made a speech which I had
great pleasure in listening to, as others, and he spoke
strongly for a remission of the income tax. The hon. mem-
ber for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) spoke as earnestly and
energetically for a remission or a diminution of the malt
tax ; and a forlorn hope was led on behalf of the distillers
of spirits by the hon. and learned member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin. Well, under these circumstances, perhaps
it is not wonderful that there has been a certain tardiness,
at any rate, on the part of the leaders of the powerful body
of gentlemen opposite in putting their views and sentiments
in an amendment which might be submitted to the house.
But I am bound to say, while I speak of the opinions of
those who differ from me, that more than one gentleman
on ,the opposite aide have recognised the spirit in which
the proposal of the Government has been made, and
have declared their opinion that this is a fair
proposal and that they will support it. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it is very difficult for a minister who is principally re-
sponsible—it is very difficult in a debate of this kind to seem
to pay due respect to the speeches and arguments so ad-
verse as those which have marked the opposition to the
financial plan of the Government, and at the same time not
to weary the house. If I seem to omit any matter of im-
portance I trust it will be believed that it is only from my
desire not ) render absolutely intolerable the trespass which
I have to make on the attention of the house. I will confine
myself therefore to the two main questions : first, is there
a surplus; and secondly, how it should be used. But
there are certain questions to which I must briefiyolludo in
the first instance, because of the largeness and comprehen-
siveness of their views some gentlemen opposite have referred
to the matter as if they thought it of great importance that
the transactions of last year of a financial character, and not
at the same time immediately connected with the taxation of
last year, were an experiment. I refer particularly to my
hon. friend the member for Stamford. He referred to the
mode in which the deficiency of last year had been met.
And sir, I am bound to say he did not fall into the egregious
error which characterised the speech of the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Stroud, who, to the perfect astonishment
of all who knew anything of the matter, but without the
slightest consciousness of what he was about, and in a simple
child-like belief that 14 4f41 wade a grot cligovery which