The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1861.

have never denied the surplus—(Ministerial cheering)—
and I have counselled a remission of taxation upon that
surplus. But if I wanted authority for at the same time
denying a surplus and yet recommending a remission of
taxation, I could find very high authorities, and it does not
become the occupants of the Treasury bench to indulge in
taunts of this kind. I shall not enter largely into that sub-
ject now, because my purpose at this moment is not to in-
dulge in any recrimination of that character, but to place
clearly before the house the course which we on this side
intend to pursue; but I remember that in the year 1857
the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary, who was
then charged with the care of the finances, taunted
one of the most distinguished members of this house,
then in Opposition, with denying the surplus and
at the same time recommending a reduction of taxation,
and he received from that distinguished member a
most vigorous and able reply. If any one likes to read it—
because I will not load these few observations with extracts
from Hansard—he can refer to a speech delivered by the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1857.
Having said this much in vindication, not merely of myself
and my friends, but of the House of Commons, from the
charge brought against us by the Minister of wasting public
time, because we performed two of the most important func-
tions of members of this house—those of scrutinising the
data on which a surplus was estimated, and examining mi-
nutely whether our proceeding was justified, regard being
had to the privileges of the other house and our own, I
will proceed now, merely reminding hon. members that I
myself have never for a moment disputed the existence of
a surplus, to state the principles on which I myself think
that surplus ought to be apportioned. I lay it down as a
principle of our financial system which ought invariably
to be pursued, that in the remission of taxation, war taxes
should have the preference. (Cheers.) That is a sound and
a popular doctrine—(hear)—and it is popular, I think,
because it is sound. lam led to that opinion by considera-
tions of high policy. If, in an emergency—and war is the
greatest of emergencies—you apply to the people to bear ex-
traordinary imposts, it is of the highest essence of policy
that when that emergency is past you should free the people
from these extraordinary imposts as quickly as the state of
the public revenue will permit. (Cheers.) And for this
unanswerable reason, should the emergency recur, and you
have again to appeal to the patriotism and high spirit of the
people, you will apply to them with much less chance
of success to bear extraordinary imposts, if they can
turn round to you and say,—" A serious addition has
already been made to our taxation, and this in a great
emergency we cheerfully incurred ; but the emergency has
passed away, and you have remitted, reduced, and repealed
other taxes in preference to those extraordinary imposts
which, under the circumstances, you appealed to us to
bear." (Cheers.) I say, if that be your policy you cripple
the energies of the country, and you diminish the power of
the Minister in appealing in future to the spirit of the
country, and you do this totally irrespective of the con-
siderations of finance and political economy which should

. exercise paramount influence over the Minister in entering
I into public contracts with the nation, and which, when en-
tered into on solemn occasions such as that to which I have
, referred should be rigorously and rigidly fulfilled. (Cheers.)
Now, assuming as 1 assume and maintain it to be a princi-
ple of our financial policy that in the remission of taxation
war taxesshonld have the preference let us apply that prin-
ciple to the surplus claimed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and to the circumstances in which we now find
ourselves. Although the income-tax was introduced into
our modern system of finance merely as an instrument to
accomplish the reform of the tariff, I do not think any
War Minister should hesitate to look on the income-tax as
essentially a war tax. The existence of such a resource, not
drawn upon, in the possession of our Sovereign, is a greater
security for the maintenance of peace than fleets and armies.
The very fact of the income-tax in what I may calla virgin
state among the resources of our country would govern the
decisions of foreign Cabinets and make them hesitate before
they took a course which might offend the pride—the
honourable pride, or endanger the interests of this country.
It should therefore be a point of policy to draw as little as
possible on such an instrument, to keep it at a very low
figure, or, if possible, not to trench at all on its resources.
Therefore, had her Majesty's ministers come forward with
this surplus of £2,000,000, and after providing as they
might think fit for the requirements of the country, pro-
posed to appropriate even the entire of this surplus to the
reduction of the income-tax—(hear, hear)—as it at present
exists, I should not have questioned the course which they
were taking. It ought to be borne in mind that there is
no tax the remission of which so greatly stimulates con-
sumption. (A cry of " Oh, oh 1" followed by loud cheer-
ing.) The hon. gentleman seems to be incredulous, but
I am sure the Louse has not forgotf-en that in 1857, when
we had a commercial and monetary crisis, when we had the
highest rate of money known for many years, our revenue
never decreased, but throughout the year was sustained en-
tirely owing to the remission of £9,000,000 of income-tax,
impossed to carry on the Russian War. (Hear, hear.) How-
ever, as there is at present no controversy among us as to
the apportionment of the entire surplus to the reduction of
the income-tax, it is unnecessary to pursue this point. I do
not pretend now to express any positive opinion with re-
gard to the relative advantages of remissions of direct and
indirect taxation : it is enough that her Majesty's Govern-
ment have considered that question. But assuming that a
portion of the surplus is to be appropriated to the relief of
indirect taxation, then I maintain that the principle which
I have ventured to lay down applies, and that regard ought
first to be had to those imposts which are absolutely or
effectually war taxes, and that relief ought to be granted
from those extraordinary imposts respectingwhich you vir-
tually entered into a contract with the people that they
should be relieves as soon as tho opportunity for doing so
should arise. I thought gentlemen, not merely on this, but
cn the opposite side of the house, were of opinion that in
dealing with indirect taxation by way of remission we ought
to fix on those indirect imposts which were war taxes, and
on due reflection the house was asked to come to a decision
on that question, and at the same time to declare whether
it was snore politic to repeal the indirect taxation on paper
or to reduce the indirect taxation upon tea. Totally irre-
spective of the first consideration, on which I need not
further dwell, the high policy of keeping your engagements
with the people, and of remitting when opportunity offers
the taxes whichunder extraordinary circumstances you have
placed on their articles of consumption—l say the considera-
tions which influenced us to propose the reduction of the
tea duty were such as deserved the attention, and, I think,
the acceptance of the house. The commercial considera-
Cons were of the highest character. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in the course of one of the debates, said that my
to t reduce
gdhut t
oi efs
noon-
ao
thingrn tl iycl evbsi
ueowtf t
hgo eef nmeroarlec financialob n
vs
luo change
"ne ,
interestswana ds
of the consumer. Sir,

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unjust
in these observations. I do not think the interest of the
consumer is one which ought in any way to be neglected.
A financial measure which greatly consults the interests
and advantages of the consumer has much to recommend
it. (Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
says that in all these remissions and reductions YOU
should look to the means by which you can occupy
the people, and that it was among those which afford in-
creased occupation to the people that the best measures are
to be found. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
Why, who doubts it ? And, reviewing what has taken
place in these debates, I would ask the house whether, by
reducing the duties upon tea, you are not contributing
more to the employment and occupation of the people than
by the mode which is recommended by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I do not despise the
benefits which must accrue to those who acquire occupa-
tion and employment by the abolition of any excise. Every-
body admits that the abolition of an excise, if you can
afford it, is an advantageous course. (Ministerial cheers.)
I myself have said so twenty times in this house, and the
hon. and learned gentleman has just read a speech of my
lamented friend Lord George Bentinck, which as strongly
as possible lays down the same principle. But, if
we look at the employment of the people of this country,
we must look at it on a largo scale—we must look at our
foreign trade ; and, in the present disordered and dis-
turbed state of the European and American markets, it is
in the highest degree expedient that we should study our
Position in reference to those great markets, including that
population of 400,000,000 whose commerce has been opened
to us by the skill of our diplomatists and the valour of our
troops. (Cheers.) And the employment of the great mass
of the people of this country will be much more assisted by
increasing our commerce with the empire of China than by
relieving a limited industry and trade from the interference
of the Excise. (Hear, hear.) At this moment we greatly
depend on the China trade. The subject engages the at-
tention of all commercial men who are carrying en large
transactions with the East. The fact is, that the consump-
tion of the great staple of China is at present fixed in this
country; it does not increase; and the obvious policy to
pursue would be by reducing its price to stimulate its con-
ac
suraption, and thus obtain a larger market for our manu-
factured goods. It appears to Inc perfectly idle to place in
competition the groat advantages the working classes of
this country would derive from a great impulse given to the
houseCrhon i
wasbo abolishing
trade with the limited advantage to be derived
f
nl
called
ot the e
to Excise
givea
thiHowever,s
question,the
and it decided not to reduce the duty on tea. But under
what circumstances was that decision taken ? It was cer-
tainly taken, not only in a very full, but almost a complete
house. But it does not follow
ow because this decisionwas
come to under these circumstances, that we should give up
every opportunity we may possess
of give up
urging on the house
the adoption of the policy we think ought to be
pursued.
Y
It does not in the slightest degree shake ni faith in the
principle that, if there is to be a remission of taxation,war
taxes ought to have the preference in that remission.
(Hear.) (Hear.) We have therefore to consider the position in
which we are now placed. The right hon. gentleman calls
on us to repeal the paper duty. I do not for a moment pre•
tend to say that the Excise on paper is not a disadvantage
to the paper trade. But I am not at all prepared to main-
tain that the Excise on paper is a greater disadvantage to
that trade than an Excise duty would be on any other manu-
facture. No argument I have heard in this discussion has
shaken my conviction as to the financial policy \VC have en-
deavoured to urge on the house on this subject. I do not
believe that with the present general aspect of circumstances
we can indulge in any dream of a speedy or considerable re-
d 11G 0 II of our expeAditAre, A iE3 Very easy to (MAW oa the

importance of such a reduction, and as a,question of popu-
larity and his own ease no man in the house is so interested
in effecting a reduction of expenditure as a Minister. But
I know no party in the house that at this moment would
recommend any great reduction in our military expenditure.
Then, in dealing with a remission of taxation we have to
consider whether it is wiser to reduce a duty on an article
of general consumption or repeal a duty of Excise. In one
case, if an emergency should arise, you can again appeal to
the same source of revenue; in the other case, you can only
substitute an equal amount of direct taxation. Now, this is
a grave question; it is not to be met by light arguments, or
stifled by taunts from the Ministerial bench. (Cheers.) It
is said we are precluded from offering any opposition to the
measure of the Government, because the house has, come to
a resolution on the subject. No one is more ready to regard
a resolution of the House of Commons with sincere respect
and defe:ence than myself. It is, at the same time, unwise
and indiscreet to mistake the character of a resolution of
either House of Parliament. A resolution of either house
—and especially of the House of Commons—is an expression
of opinion, and nothing more. Though it is an expression
of the opinion of an assembly well entitled to confidence,
yet like the expression of the opinion of an individual, it is
subject to the inexorable conditions of time, circumstances,
and maturity of thought. If time, if changes of circum-
stances, and mature reflection affect the opinion of indivi••
duals, so time, circumstances, and thought will influence
and change the opinion expressed by a resolution cf the
House of Commons. (Hear.) And it is unwise on the part
of the house to strain too much the character and influence
of its resolutions. We have seen within these few years—
I might almost say within a few months—the Sovereign
recommend from the Throne an important policy to the
house, and both houses passed addresses thanking her Ma-
jesty for that recommendation, and pledging themselves to
consider the measures necessary to carry that policy into
effect. Have not those measures been brought forward by
the Ministers, and have they not also been withdrawn by
the Ministers ? (Cheers.) And who blames them ?
(Cheers.) They were withdrawn because it was ascertained
that the general opinion disapproved that policy. After an
instance like this, on a question so important as the
distribution of the political power of the State, it is too
much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues
—it is too much for the men who felt justified, and, as I
think, were fully justified, in neglecting a pledge of such im-
portance—to rest the chief defence of the policy they are now
bringing forward upon a hesitating resolution, passed in a
languid House of Commons. (Cheers.) I can therefore
offer a sincere opposition to the clause before us. (Hear,
hear.) In doing so Ido not think it necessary to vindicate
myself and those I act with because we take this opportu-
nity of testing the opinion of the house on this subject.
Throughout the discussion of these measures, it has been
my most anxious desire, while wishing to consult the con-
venience of the Government as much as possible, b reserve
our right to oppose the measures of the Ministry. On every
occasion I have reserved that right; and I have done more
than it was necessary to do. I have repeated our intention
to oppose that policy; and I believe the occasion we have
have taken to oppose it is a legitimate one. Ido not wish
that course to be mistaken. There may be hon. gentlemen
who feel themselves justified in opposing the clause repeal-
ing the Paper Duty because they have no confidence in the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. 1 do not recede
from the ground I first tools on the question, and I pursue
a course that is perfectly consistent. lam not prepared,by
rejecting the clause, to place Ways end Means in the hands
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which he avows he
has no use. I oppose the clause that we may pursue the
policy we think advantageous to the country; that when
called on to remit a certain amount of taxation we should
remit war taxes in preference to any others, and maintain
our faith with the great body of the people. Ido so upon
high political as well as upon commercial and fiscal consi-
derations, and my purpose therefore cannot be mistaken. I
wish, if I possibly can, to carry into effect the financial
policy which was enunciated in 1858, which was then
adopted unanimousls by the house, and which was sanc-
tioned and supported by the Present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. (Hear, hear.) I wish to terminate, if possible,
and at all events to take every opportunity of reducing, the
income-tax, because I think its reduction, and, if possible,
its abolition, would add materially to the power of this coun-
try, totally irrespective of the great relief which would thus
be given to important classes. (Cheers.) But I acknowledge
at the same time that the claims of war duties which take
the form of indirect taxation are of so weighty a cha-
racter that they must in some degree divert us from the
great policy then recommended. I say, then, reaffirming
thepolicy which inlBsB was supported by an unanimous Par-
liament, that the first object which a Minister should have
in view in the reduction of taxation is the income-tax and
the war duties on tea and sugar; and when the hon. and
learned gentleman talks about this sleepy resolution come
to by the House of Commons upon the paper duty, can he
forget what, perhaps, it is convenient to forget, that the
house arrived at that conclusion a few days only after they
had unanimously affirmed the policy of reducing the war
duties on tea and sugar in preference to all others ? It is to
that policy I refer, and it is that policy which I am now
attempting to vindicate and strengthen in the course which
lam recommending. (Hear, hear.) I maintain that there
has been no other course for the house to pursue than the
one they are now debating. Hon. members who, perhaps,
do not even trouble themselves to read the bill have said to
me, " Why, the clauses upon tea and sugar are passed."
But when they read the bill they will find that if they wish
to renew the struggle for the reduction of the tea and sugar
duties—if they wish to originate an effort for the reduction
of the sugar duty —that opportunity, instead of having
passed, has not arrived. (Hear, hear.) All you have done
by passing the second clause is to agree to renew the tea and

• • • • VAL.• •-•
sugar duties, but the rates at which you will renew them
must be settled at a period subsequent to the clause which
we are now considering, and it is only when you come to
the schedule in the bill that you really can ask the opinion
of the house upon the question. (Hear.) This clause,
then, is an obstacle to the policy which I am recommend-
ing, and unless we can induce the house to reject the clause
they cannot act on the rule, which ought never to be de-
patted from, namely, that in all remissions of taxation war
duties should have the preference. It may be expedient to
ask the opinion of the house again upon the question of re-
ducing the tea duties, provided this clause is rejected. That.
is a grave question, but, following the course of Parliamen-
tary procedure, I think there has never been an instance yet
known where, after a great struggle on a question of taxa-
tion and after an important tax has been passed in one stage
by so slight a majority in so full a house, there has not been
a renewed effort to effect the purpose of the minority.
(Hear.) That is a question entirely for future discussion.
But there are some who object to this course. illlere are
gentlemen who say, "'We entirely agree with the principle
of the budget of 1858, that we ought to remit war duties,
but then the opinion of the house has been taken upon tea,
and that opinion ought to be definitive." But there are
other war duties upon which you have to decide. Is the war
duty on sugar not one of great importance ? Is it not a
most legitimate and proper subject of discussion whether
we should not do better to reduce the war duty on sugar
rather than remit the paper duty ? (Hear, hear.) These are
questions which I have no doubt will be brought before the
house if the opportunity be given, but no opportunity can
be given till this clause is rejected. (Hear, hear.) 'When,
therefore, we are charged with merely opposing the remis-
sion of a tax in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
may be embarrassed with ways and means for which he
has no use, I say there is no foundation for the charge, and
that we are acting now for a distinct object, which is to
establish and preserve the financial policy which we have
always upheld. (Cheers.) There is one subject to which I
would not have adverted had it not most unnecessarily been
imported into the debate by the hon. and learned gentle-
man, who, I apprehend, although he is not sitting on the
Treasury bench, represents the opinions of the Government,
upon this matter. The questions before us are of so grave a

nature—they are questions which touch so nearly the inte-
rests of ail classes in this country, and which may exert
hereafter such an influence upon the social condition of the
people, the principle upon which the taxation of the coun-
try is established being really the gravest question which
can be brought before the house—that, but for the remarks
of the hon. and learned gentleman, I should have
thought it unnecessary to mention this subject to
the committee, who have to. nigh a great duty to
perform, and who, I am sure, will discharge it with a
full sense of its importance. Whatever might be the ru-
mours I had heard in lobbies and in ante-chambers—
(laughter)--I did not think that from an hon. and learned
gentleman who had moved the adjournment of the house,
and who therefore spoke with all the advantage of due de-
liberation, we should have had insinuations founded upon
such miserable topics as he has introduced, as though the
opinion of the house and the conduct of a.gyeat party were
to be influenced by such considerations. (Cheers.) I under-
stand from the hon. and learned gentleman that in his
opinion this motion has been brought forward in conse-
quence of a Ministerial squabble upon some subject.
(Cheers and laughter.) That is the statement which the
hon. and learned gentleman after mature deliberation thinks
he is justified in making. All I can say is that our deter-

ruination to take the opinion of the house upon the policy
of the Government was announced weeks before this rumour
reached us. (Cheers.) Nor do I know that it was possible
for us to have asked the opinion of the house respecting
that policy on an earlier or a more convenient issue than
that now before us. I hope that the great party with which
I have the honour to be connected are as sensible of the re-

sponsibility of their position as those who sitoppositethein,
but nevertheless we are charged with being influenced by
those undignified considerations, and with taking a course
actuated by wholly unworthy motives. I find statements

made of my having had interviews with individuals deeply
interested in these enterprises, and of my having promised
them the support of the gentlemen who honour me with

their confidence. Sir, I have had no interviewwlth
(Hear.) It is an impudent fabrication—(hear)—and lam
bound to say, with regard to a most respectable gentleman
whose name has been mixed up with mina in these reports,
that he, unsolicited, stated to roe in the most solemn man-

ner that befitted a gentleman of his sacred calling, that he
had neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned such reports,
and that he had seen them with indignation. (Hear, hear.)
I know nothing of this question. When the papers respect-
ing it are placed before the house I shall read them, as sub.
jects of this kind deserve to be read, in a perfectly impartial
spirit, azid, notwithstanding the insinuations and charges

which have been made, I shall decide upon them in the
same spirit, with a due regard to the just claims of Ireland
and to the general welfare of the country. (Cheers.) I hope
I have now saced before the committee my views as to the
clear issue before us. It is one of no mean importance. It
involves in the policy which you pursue the question whether
you will maintain good faith with the public, who, in a
moment of generous confidence, trusted and supported you.
It involves another question of scarcely less importance—
namely, whether you will pursue a financial policy which,
in my opinion, will render it inevitable to substitute for in-
direct taxation an equal amount of direct taxation, thereby
disturbing what is already in danger,—that true balance be-
tween the two great sources of supply which should always
be maintained. With these views, and feeling that the
committee to-night will decide upon these great questions
alone, and not upon subjects which have been so improperly
mixes up with them, I shall certainly oppose the insertion
of the clause now in question. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.--Sir, before I enter on that which is
the immediate question before the house I feel bound to
advert to the last of the topics to which the right hon. gen.
tleman the member for Buckinghamshire has referred, and
upon which I do not enter for the purpose of making any
charge against the right hon. gentleman. I make no charge
whatever against him, because I have heard from common
rumour what I have no doubt is true—namely, that after
the last division on the subject of the Paper Duty the right
hon. gentleman said the majority was so scanty that he should
probably en some future occasion again take the sense of
the house on the question. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I
make no charge against him of bringing forward this ques-
tion for the purpose of obtaining the support of a certain
number of gentlemen who, it appears, are discontented with
a recent decision of the Government with regard to a local
matter. (Hear, hear.) But, Sir, it is necessary to vindi-
cate the honour of the Government to which I belong.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that my noble friend at the head of
the Government and the whole of the Cabinet stand per-
fectly free from imputation on this subject—(cheers)—but
imputations have been made. (Hear.) Those imputations
have been referred to in a newspaper which is universally
read, and therefore they cannot and ought not to be passed
over. (Hear.) Sir, the decision of the Government on this
subject was made and communicated to the parties interes•-
ted ; and my noble friend at the head of the Government
was asked by a person who seemed entitled to put the ques-
tion whether he would receive a deputation of Irish mem-
bers with reference to this matter on Monday morning last,
the day on which the proposition for the repeal of the paper
duty was to be brought forward in committee. My noble
friend absolutely refused to receive that deputation. (Hear.)
My noble friend saw at once what imputations, what mis-
conceptions, what false accusations might arise from the
deputation, though nominally on the subject of the Galway
Contract, and he absolutely refused to receive it. (Cheers.)
The company on whose behalf the reception of the deputa-
tion was sought have since made a long representation with
regard to their case. That representation will be answered
by the Postmaster-General or his Secretary, and the com-
munication will be laid before this house; but as to the
imputation that the Government intend to poapone for six
months their decision on the question, wit)* view of giving
the sum of £36,000, which has been mentioned, for the per-
formance of the postal service for six months, that imputa-
tion is totally devoid of foundation. (Loud cheering.) I
at once repudiate it as a calumny on the character of the
Government. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, in respect to an-
other question, with regard to which my noble friend was
asked a question before this debate was resumed this even-
ing, I have this observation to make—that, supposing this
contract to be at an end, and it was considered that there
ought to be a communication with America from the
nearest point of the United Kingdom, it would evidently
be unjust to Ireland to say tbat the question was to be
summarily concluded without a consideration of all the
circumstances affecting the case—affecting the public money,
affecting the trade of the country, and affecting the
convenience of the transport of the mails to America ; but
that is a totally different question from the question of the
Galway Contract, on which the Government will act coolly
and deliberately. (Hear.) And, sir, with reference to the
matter of the Galway Contract, 1 pay that rather then the
Government should make any concession on that question
in order to obtain votes to-night, it would be better that ten
Ministries should be defeated. (Great cheering.) It would
be better that ten Ministries should be defeated and that
the House of Commons should be ten times dissolved than
that such a stain should be cast on the Government of this
country. (Renewed cheering.) And when I say that it is
better that ten Ministries should be defeated, and the
House of Commons ten times dissolved, that is a conse

quence that would not be avoided ; on the contrary, it is a
consequence that would be brought on, if any Government
in this country were to act in so profligate a manner, be-

cause it is not to be supposed that this is a question in
which one part only of the United Kingdom is interested.
(Hear.) Galway contracts might spring up in other parts
of the kingdom, and if any 10 or 20 gentlemen in the di-
vided state of the house, or of the great parties which are
represented here, found that they had defeated one Minis-

try by this means, the new Ministry would soon experience
a similar attempt to make them stoop to this degradation ;
they in their turn would be defeated, and would be obliged
to resort to a dissolution. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say,
that whether we regard the honour and character of the
Government, or whether we look to the general advantage
of the country, it is quite iwpoisible that any proposals on
this subject can be looked to with a view to any division in
this house. (Cheers.) Sir, I repeat again, that 1 make no
imputation, no charge against the right hon. gentleman, or
against the great party to which he belongs—(hear, hear)

—but at the same time I think it is matter for tht mem

hers of that great party how far they should give any noun,
tenance or favour to—how far they should support even in-

directly—any attempt, such as that to which, allusion has
been made, to force the Government into an opinion
contrary to their convictions. (Hear, hear.) That, how-
ever, is a matter which I leave entirely to their own sense
of the public interests, and their own sense of that honour
which belongs to all public men. (Hear, hear.) I proceed
now to the general question raised in this debate, and upon
which the right hon. gentleman has thrown an entirely new
light. I confess that on Monday evening I thought wo were
discussing the question whether, there being no surplus,
the House of Commons might not very well refuse to repeal
the paper duty, and thereby enrich the public Treasury. It
appears, however, that the right hon. gentleman thinks
that there certainly is a surplus, but that there might be
some other way of disposing of it besides repealing the
paper duty. When my noble friend and my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of a
waste of public time, it was not of the time occupied in dis-
cussing the great measure of my right hon. friend. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to the house his
views with respect to the finances of the country; he has
made elaborate calculations; he has stated to the house
what were the results of lest year and what were his expec-
tations for next, and I think it became gentlemen who have
been in the service of the Crown, and more especially those
who have been connected with the finances of the country,
to consider the proposal of my right hon. friend. They might
have said, " You are very imprudent ; you have no surplus,
and you oughtnet to reduce the revenue of the country to
such an extent as you propose." That was one point. They
might, on the other hand, have said, " That there is a con •
siderable surplus has been proved to us, but your applica-
tion of it is unwise. We have a plan for a better
application of it, and we will propose it to the house."
Either of these courses would have been not only constitu-
tional, but perfectly proper; but what they have done is
this—for three nights they have discussed the question
whether there was a surplus or not, without coming to
any decision, evidently trying to catch what was the
opinion of the house as expressed in a vague and
desultory discussion. At last they came to the de-

cision that there was a surplus, and then they
said that the surplus ought to be applied to a reduction
of the tea duty. lam the last person who ought to find
fault with that proposition. It gave rise to a benevolent
struggle between two parties, the one endeavouring to re-
lieve the industry of the nation by removing a tax on an
article extensively manufactured in the United Kingdom,
and the other trying to obtain at a cheaper rate one of the
luxuries of the poor people of this country. When this
question was discussed and decided one would have thought
that it was nearly time to come to a final resolution as to
the manner in which the surplus was to be appropriated ;
but no ; another question -was raised ; and let me refer to
the manner in which it has been treated, for it is one of
great importance. The House of Lords having interposed
in an unusual manner, and rejected a bill sent up by this
house by which the industry of the country was to be re-
lieved from one of its burdens,we submitted it would be wise
this year to consider in one bill the whole of the financial
measures proposed by the Government, and to send them
up to the other house in that shape. Well, hon. gentlemen
have said that this is not a fair proceeding towards the
House of Lords; that it interferes with the privileges of
that house ; and that this was not the manner in which our
propositions ought to have been made; althongh the au-
thority of my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle,
that of the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and that of my right hon. friend the
member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote),
were in favour of the view taken by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. Nay, the right hon. gentleman himself last year said
that it was advisable that all the financial propositions should
be put into one bill. The question, however, was still open
for discussion, and the hon. member for North Warwick-
shire, with that honest directness of purpose which always
distinguished his conduct in this house—(hear)—deter-
mined to bring the question to an issue, and proposed that it
should be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill,

so that each tax should be embodied in a separate bill.
Nothing could be a clearer or a fairer mode of bringing the
question to an issue; but, instead of supporting it, the right
hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, who is one of
those who set up for us an entirely new Constitution, and
who proposed that the Loi ds should exercise a power:which
they have never exercised in the whole of our history, gave
some very good reasons why the motion should not be
entertained ; and when it came to a division those who
were to defend the privileges of the House of Lords against
our aggressions slunk out of the house—(cheers)—and the
hon. member for North Warwickshire WAR left with
only 34 members. One would have thought that there would
haae been an end of the constitutional question then, and
that those who did not yeature to support their opinion 137

Itheir votes, who.- ...1 shrunk from a decision by which they
might have been committed to "an opinion—would never
mention the constitutional question again.: But no ; we
had no sooner got into the discussion on the Paper Duty
than up jumped the constitutional question again—(hear,
hear)—and wo were told again that we were going to insult
the House of Lords. I must ask for one of two things—
either let gentlemen bring the question to a decision in any
form which they may think best, or let them refzain from
taunting the majority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen-
tleman opposite has alluded to the times when almost all
property belonged to the barons, and when what he called
an oligarchy established a Government in 1688. But in
those times, when the barons were so powerful, they yielded
to the House of Commons on this subject, and, though
frequent attempts were made to obtain .a control over the
taxes, yet on various occasions when it came to a contest
they yielded to the privileges of the liouzo of Commons.
And, as for this oligarchy, they submitted to a tack to a
money bill rather than not allow the privileges of the House
of Commons. How, then, can any one believe that at this
time of our Constitutionwe should introduce new practices,
that we should ask the House of Lords to be our partners in
the financial scheme of the year ? But be it observed in this
case that gentlemen like the hon. member foe the West
Riding, who have been so tender of the honour:of the House
of Lords, have asked for that house something which they
never asked for themselves. (Hear.) What they did last
year—unwisely, I think, but still it was a question for their
own discretion—was this :—A bill was sent up to them
which they had a right to reject, and they said, "You are
engaged in a war with China which may be extraordinarily
costly, and you ought not to part therefore with any means
by which this cost may be met," and they refused on that
ground to sanction the repeal of the Paper Duty. (Hear,
hear.) There is no such case at present. For what I
know, and for what anybody knows, the House of Lords
may be as much agreed that the Paper Duty should be
repealed as the Government themselves. But hon. gentle-
men say—and reallyl was astonished when I heard the lan-
guage of the hon. member for the West Riding the other

night—the Lords mly have an objection to repeal the
tax; they had an objection last year, and though that was
an exceptional case, and circumstances have since altered,
yet they may object again to repeal the paper duty, and we
must approach them, therefore, in such a way that it will
be no humiliation to them to agree to that repeal. (Hear.)
I can conceive the House of Lords saying that though last
year, when there was a China war, they did not think it
prudent to part with this tax, yet this year, as there was
no war, they would cheerfully give their consent to its re-
peal. I can understand that being the language of the
House of Lords, but whether it is or not, I submit to the
house that their ancient privileges oblige them to consider
what taxes shall be remitted and what kept on without any
reference to the previous consent of the House of Lords.
(Hear, hear.) It would be an utter absurdity to say that
the House of Lords shall be judges as to the amount of
taxes, and to say that they shall not be judges of the
amount of expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Every year we
send up to them an Appropriation Act, containing the
whole of your army, navy, and civil service expenditure,
in one bill, which they must take in a lump or reject in a
lump. (Hear, hear.) If you say that every tax is to go up
in a separate measure, then every brarich of the expenditure
must go up in a separate bill. (Hear, hear.) For all we
know there might be branches of the expenditure which the

louse of Lord; did not approve, and you would then ge.

your financial arrangements into a state of utter confusion,
and the present admirable provisions of our constitution
would be totally nullified by this attempt to make a new
constitution. (Hear, hear.) Having disposed of this con-
stitutional question by 190 to 34—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Horsman)—when it was brought forward in a constitu-
tional manner—because I say larding a speech about the
impropriety of repealing the paper duty and the state of
America with commentaries about the power of the House
of Lords is not the way to decide a great question. (Hear,
hear.) The way to decide a great question is to come down
with a resolution like the hon, member for North Warwick
shire, and take the sense of the house upon it. (Hear.)
That is what W 3 did. We-190—affirmed the power and
privileges of the House of Commons, and those who were
against the power and privileges of the house slunk away.
(Cheers.)
Mr. HORSMAN—I voted with the majority. (Hear.)
Sir J. RAMSDEN—The noble lord does not seem to be
aware that I also voted in the majority. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Then, that makes the matter more
extraordinary still. (Hear.) Having deeply considered both
last year and this year this question of the privileges of the
House of Commons and the power of the House of Lords and
having started certain new and startling theories which they
were convinced were improvements in our old Constitution
and the views of our forefathers when this question was sub-
mitted to the house in a substantial form they actually voted
against the opinions which they had advanced. (Hear, hear.)
I come now, however, to the main question before us. Last
year the Government had to consider, having a suar at their
disposal for the relief of the taxation of the people, in what
manner that sum could be best applied; they came to the
conclusion that the best mode would be to apply it to the
total repeal of the Paper Duty. Various motives have been
found for the Government, but I believe that the ground
on which their dcoision was come to was, that it would be
the remission which would give the greatest relief to the
country. If they had been of the opinion that the remission
of the tea duties or of the sugar duties was preferable, my
right hon. friend would no doubt have proposed it. The
Government decided in favour of a repeal of the Paper
Duty, and, having been defeated by the House of Lords last
year, they this year consistently ask again to have that duty
repealed as a relief to the industry of the country. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer is too well acquainted with the finances of
the country not to admit that the abolition of this tax will
be a relief to the industry of the country, and, for my own
part, I have never heard any argument which separates
this Excise duty from other Excise duties which, we have
repealed. It is, perhaps, not so onerous as those on salt,
leather, candles, and soap, which were Excise duties on the
necessaries of life; but it is one which interferes with the
employment of the people, and which increases the price of
an article of very general consumption. Those appear to
me to be quite sufficient reasons for its repeal, and the argu-
ment against it is stated in a very singular manner. It is
said, in the first instance, this is a tax which does not weigh
on the people at all ; and it is said, in the next, that if we
repeal this duty we shall never be able to re-impose it. I
should say that one or the other must be true. (Hear.) If
the tax is no burden on the people, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer will be able at any future time to say, " The
State is in want of money; the navy must be increased to
meet the contingency of war, but hero is a tax which is no
burden on the people, and, therefore, we propose to lay on

115 d. per pound on paper;" and to that the House of Com-
mons will universally assent. Or I can understand a per-
son saying, " This is a tax which does so affect the industry
of the people, and the abolition of it has given so much em-
ployment, that it is impossible to ask the House of Com-
mons to re-impose it." But then the other ground must
be abandoned, and those who say that the tax can never be
re-imposed must allow that it is a great benefit to take it
off, and that the feeling of benefit would in fact be the obstacle
to its being re-imposed. (Cheers.) I have looked to see
the general result, in a financial point of view, of 10 years'
experience of the repeal of taxes of a similar kind. In those
10 years wo took off the glass duty, £624,000 ; the brick
duty, £456,000; and the soap duty, £l,l26,ooo—total,
£2,206,000. There were certain Excise duties put on,
amounting to £1,764,000 ; so that the amount taken off
above the amount imposed was .£442,000. Therefore you
might expect that the revenue would be worse off by nearly
half a million. But what was the fact ? The whole amount
of the Excise in 1844 was £14,450,000, and the net amount
of the Excise in 1854 was £17,007,000, being an increase of
£2,557,000. (Hear, hear.) Even to the revenue the con-
sequence of taking off taxes which affect employment is to
increase the consumption of other exciseable articles, and
to increase the amount of revenue not only from the Excise
but from the Customs, upon which you could not otherwise
reckon. (Cheers.) A noble lord in the course of one of
these debates said that in France the increase of revenue
bad been as much or more, although they had not taken
off any of these taxes. But those who speak like that con-
sider that the relief to the people goes for nothing. (Hear,
hear.) But it is the duty of the house always to consider
the advantage of the people, and if they can find a less
burdensome system of taxation, though it produce not a
farthing more or a farthing less, it is their duty to adopt it.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman who spoke last
said that there are other taxes which we might take off with
greater advantage, and as I understood him, he seemed to
intimate that when we come to the schedules of this bill
we may take off something more from the income tax.
With regard to that, I think my right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair proposition
when he said, " a penny shall be taken off the income-tax
and the duty on paper shall be remitted. There is a direct
tax reduced, and an indirect tax abolished. There is a fair
dig ision."
Mr. DISRAELI—I did not intend to intimate that I
should move any remission of income-tax.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am
7g ltamadoowenint oesaraihewoena.i
torhyti.tut.hs
ee
dl3.
thoiranseullopoff-r
sup-
port of what my right hon. friend has donte
tax,
:4El'lB
there
part of a direct and the whole of an indihreec
1316, when
re-
mains in my memory what happeneddin
yearrepealt of the income
the Government of that day proposed
tax, and we of the Opposition,
majority. We were very
majo-
rities, obtained upon that ()was'
days afterwards, Lord Castlereagh
ies Exchequerrepor reported to
ofcma unitchehedP:wens Exchequer,et do,
tbhue t
Htawonuods ethoef CChomancellorlonindth,
made a statement that the Government were going to make
,f
the house thought
have anothersai"But reduction.w heLnotrdheCmasetmlebreearsgho
proper to relieve themselves—l do not use the expression in
any invidious sense, but because the income-tax is one which
affects more particularly the upper classes—then Ministers
found it necessary to make some change in their measures
for the relief of the people." And the change which Lord
Castlereagh proposed was a remission of £2,000,000 of the
excise duty on malt. I think it would be some reproach to
us in these days if wo were to say we agree to the remission
of a penny of income-tax, but we refuse the remission of a
tax which more especially affects the industry and employ-
ment of the people. (Cheers.) Everybody was glad to bear
in 1816 that the Government would make a further reduc-

[
91/1 Lore was certainly no surplus then ; but the Govern,