The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-03 00:00:00

city was inconsistent with free trade, cheered
them more loudly still when they declared that free
trade was founded onreciprocity. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He founc himself unable to follow the
Government or their party in that course of apos-
trophizing. On the first occasion they spoke the
language of truth ; or the second that of expediency.
[A Voice.—" Ain't that your own picture ?"]
(Laughter.) And what was that expediency ?
There was an impression in the House of Com-
mons that it was the noble lord's pledge with re-
gard to the Reform Bill that caused the conversion
of members to the treaty. It was supposed to have
been found that the Reform Ministry was about to
be brought to an untimely end by its own inability
to grapple with Relorm ; for when, in the recess,
the Cabinet assembled to frame their measure,such
ardent Reformers vere they that it was said the
15 members of the Council had no less than 15 dif-
ferent opinions on Reform, and that such unflinching
and uncompromisin; Reformers were they that they
did not agree on a single principle, and they differed
upon every detail until the fragmentary bill became
a confused mass of useless statistics. (Laughter.)
But, then, something must be done to continue to
the country the blessings of a Reform Ministry
even without the blessing of Reform. It was stated
that-the wiles of secret diplomacy were set to work,
and it was discovered that, although the most
ardent Reformers were sincere and determined on
Reform, they were much more ardent worshippers
of peace and of commerce as a blessed instrument
of peace, and it was advised that if a bad Reform
Bill could be supplemented by a good French
treaty the Government might still ligo on and the
Liberal copartnery be kept out of the Gazette.
(riaughter.) The treaty was rapidly negotiated,
and they could say,—
" We struck in time, the bargain was agreed,
We still have shifts against a time of need.
The rats that always trust to one poor hole,
They never can bo rata of any soul."
(Laughter.) As he had been no party to the
Reform pledge, neither had he any motive to
escape from it by supporting the treaty. He
cheered the Minister as loudly as any man when the
Minister solemnly declared that black was black ;
but he declined to cheer when the Minister said
equally solemnly that black was white. (Oh, oh,
and groans.) [A Voice—" This is a wholesale
abuse of the Liberal party."] He was merely
stating facts. (Hear.) Facts were truths, and
truths ought to work conviction. If the facts were
not palatable, he was not responsible for them.
(Laughter.) He stated at the time that the treaty,
so far as related to bringing about a policy of peace,
would prove a delusion. Was he wrong there ?
(Yes.) Why the ink was hardly dry on the treaty
before Lord I. Russell declared the alliance to be
at an end—that he was seeking for other alliances
on the continent as against France; and in the
very last week of the session Lord Palmerston
spoke of the Emperor of the French in language
more personally offensive than was ever before in
a time of peace employed by a Prime Minister to-
wards the ally of his Sovereign. (Hear.) These
were two facts. He would mention another in con-
nexion with the treaty. At the beginning of the
session the treaty was announced in the Queen's
Speech as a matter of immense importance, and
especiallyintended to strengthen our relations with
France. That language was repeated in the middle
of the session in the reply to the Address. But at
the close of the session, when the Queen prorogued
Parliament, the treaty was never mentioned at all.
And why was that ? It had been found a concession
barren of results. Every insignificant measure that
had been passed was pressed into the service in
order to swell out the Speech ; but instead of tak-
ing credit for the treaty the Ministers were afraid,
they were ashamed to mention it. (Oh, oh, and
Hear, hear.) His opinion respecting that treaty
remained unchanged, or if it had changed at all, he
was only the more strongly convinced of his first
opinions. He had watched the progress of Mr.
Cobden's negotiations, had perused the proceedings
of the various Chambers of Commerce, and had
studied the new tariff; and the very qualified
guarded approval by which the Chambers of Com-
merce endeavoured to conceal their disappointment
fully convinced him that the Ministers of England
were not justified iu sacrificing a very large amount
of revenue and imposing on our own people a very
large additional taxation in order to bribe the
French nation to benefit themselves by becoming
freetraders—(Oh, oh, and hisses)—especially when
the Emperor was a freetrader already, and, as
every one knew, had ample means for the conver-
sion of his people. (Laughter.) These were his
objections to the treaty. The Emperor must in
two or three years have granted a more free com-
mercial intercourse, and we had paid him 20 mil-
lions of money to induce him to do that which he
would have done without any. (Cries of " No, no
—you're wrong in your reckoning.") But he had a
still stronger objection to the treaty. It was a
humiliating triumph of the peace-at-any-price
party, and he would state how it was achieved.
There was a middle•class party—happily a very
small portion of intelligent and moral and sound-
hearted—(Oh, oh, and hisses)—English middle
class—so small that he hoped it had no disciples
in Stroud—whose principle of action is trade at
any price—(Oh, oh):;—and there was enthroned in
high places a more aristocratic party, whose prin-
ciple had been place and patronage at any price.
(Laughter.) Now these two parties had nothing
in common except an inability to see or hear any.
thing that did not tell in favour of their own views,
He believed that they despised each other most
cordially, but they assisted each other most effectu-
ally. He would not place them on the same level,
for Mr. Cobden, tr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bright
had this very high title to our respect. We might
deem them unsound in opinion, illogical in their
conclusions, but we felt them to be strong because
they were known to be sincere, and at times even
fanatical in their belief, He would not degrade
them by a comparison with mere purse-worshipping
politicianswho posessed neither the fire of patriotism
nor the pride of statesmanship—men who made
merchandise of the constitution and safety of
England by sudden conversions, not veiled
even in the decent hypocrisy of converted
sinners, but rather exhibiting the profligate auda-
city of some cool, calculating, skilful gamester
whose character is so well known that he surprises
nobody, while he sticks at nothing. (Oh, oh, and
uproar.) Next in importance to the treaty was the
budget. Now, the faults of the budget were on all
sides universally acknowledged. It was the first
principle of a budget that the income should balance
the expenditure, but the budget of last year did no
such thing. It professed to find an income of
£71,000,000 to balance an expenditure of
£71,000,000, but they managed to do this by
borrowing £4,000,000 from the income of 1861,
creating a deficiency to that extent. Besides that
they took an insufficient estimate for the Chinese
war, and nothing at all for our new fortifications.
With this unusual deficit they proposed to repeal
the paper duty, and make up that deficiency by
adding to the income-tax. To that proposal he
objected on two grounds—first, that the revenue
could not spare the paper duty, and next, that i
was a less objectionable tax than the income-tax

And he should be surprised if his constituents did
not agree with him in that conclusion. (No, no.)
On the first point there could be no difference of

opinion. Taxes ought to be repealed when there

was a surplus, but that there was none was proved

by the fact that the Government had to impose new

taxes, and also to raise a loan. It was obvious, then,
that the revenue could not bear the repeal of the

paper duty. Now with respect to the second point.
It was said that the paper duty was a more objec-
tionable tax than the income-tax. To that he en-
tirely objected, and on a ground also that interested
his constituents. Putting aside the moral and

constitutional grounds, he would assert that
merely upon a fiscal comparison of their merits
the income-tax was much more odious, oppres-

sive, and objectionable than the paper duty.
(Hear, hear.) It Was said that the income-tax was

a direct tax, and that, as all direct taxes fell
on the rich, the income-tax ought to be a popular
tax. Now, there never was a greater financial

fallacy. The returns which had been published

showed that the tax fell with a cruel and crushing

weight upon the poor ragn whose income was £l5Ol

while the person who paid on an income of f.551!',,000
a year hardly felt the pressure at all. The nr imber
of persons who paid on £l,OOO per annum w' as 845,
while the number who paid on £l5O was L 45,694,
—not less than 172 times as many. Th e inc ome of
those at £l,OOO a year was put down at £7B 6,000,
while the incomes of the poor class was clarged on
£13,667,357. The amount actually paid by those
assessed at £l,OOO was £22,950, while the amount
paid by the lower classes was £318,795. But, com-
paring the pressure on incomes of £l5O a year with
incomes over £lOO,OOO the result was still more
remarkable, for 51 individuals PM re paying on that
amount, while 145,694 were payin,q; on £l5O, the
sum paid on in one case being £5,0,16,000, and in
the other £13,667,357. These facts „showed that
the tax was to be jcdged of not by th e amount
paid, but by the severity of its effect on the Payer,
and this especially affected the poorer classeh'• (A
Voice—" What have you done to relieve them 2")
Voted against the income-tax last session, and, bad
always done so. (Hear, hear.) If any of these
come-tax philanthropists, whose bowels were always
yearning for the poor, said that the repeal of the
paper tax—which, in reality, would principally
benefit the papermakers, the booksellers, and the
newspaper proprietors—was' a boon to the poor and
the struggling class, he would tell them that they
were experimenting on the credulity of their
auditors to an extent that their intelligence
would detect and"defeat. But before leaving that
point, he wished to make one more remark.
There were some persons who thought they were
doing the public good service by setting class
against class, and exciting the poor against the
rich, stating that the upper classes are the natural
enemies of the poor, and meaning by the " upper
classes" the landed gentry. But the returns to
which he had referred showed that there were
150 individuals of the commercial class who, by
their own endeavours, had raised incomes averag-
ing close upon £lOO,OOO. Now, there were not
50 noblemen who had that, or half that income.
Would any one tell him that these commercial
magnates were not a portion of the upper classes ?
There was an aristocracy of millowners, as well as
an aristocracy of landowners. They were equally
eligible to be raised to distinction, and it was only
the other day that the Queen raised to the peerage
the son of a poor shepherd. (Hear, hear.) [The
right hon. gentleman then proceeded at consider-
able length to answer the charges of inconsistency
which had been brought against him by Mr. Ber-
nard, in having expressed opinions since his elec-
tion for Stroud in direct opposition to those whiel
he enunciated when he represented Cockermouth,
and in his own justification cited several passages
from his former speeches, pointing out certain por-
tions which had been imperfectly quoted, and men-
tioning one instance in which a passage contained
in a private letter had been represented as part of
a speech delivered by him in the House of Com-
mons.] Those who had read and attended to his
speeches would tell them that he never had be-
longed to that political school to which they were
attached. (A Voice—" What school is that ?")
They would tell them that in 1835 he braved un-
popularity in refusing to give any pledge through
which he could not see his way about the exten-
sion of the suffrage, and he said that he would
not be a party to any claptrap plan unless it would
have the effect intended. (Laughter.) When he
first entered Parliament the Radical party had
leaders of whom any party might be proud.
They were men of high character, great emi-
nence, and vast political knowledge, with most of
whom he was very well acquainted. They had
their councils and their organisation, but he
never was directly or indirectly associated with
them, and for this reason—that there were from
the first differences of principle between them and
him. They were for organic change as an instru-
ment of improved administrative government ;
whereas from the first day he entered Parliament he
avowed his principle to be improved administra-
tive government in every department as the best
means of effecting organic change. Whether in
the army, the navy, the church, or the law—colo-
nial or foreign administration at home or abroad, he
had voted in favour of those improvements, what-
ever might be the Ministry. There was not a
single question in which he had not been in advance
of the Liberal Government themselves when they
were out of office. He had always protested against
that blind and suicidal policy of the Whigs by which
they refused concession after concession, until they
had disgusted and broken up their party. They
aimed at resuscitating and reconstructing them-
selves in office by promising a Reform Bill. Then
with regard to the question of national defences.
Last year it was charged against him that he had
submitted a proposal to the Government which
shocked the friends of economy as well as the
sincere advocates of peace. When he said that the
Emperor might mean invasion it was said it was a
provocation to war. When he stated that the
expenditure for the defence of the country would
be £8,000,000 it was said that he was extravagant.
When he went further, and said the sum should be
raised by loan, some persons thought he was labour-
ing under insanity. It was upon that occasion that
Lord Palmerston sneered at what he called " the rifle
fever." During the recess the rifle fever began to
spread. The Prime Minister caught it, and became
a rifleman and the vice-president of a rifle asso-
ciation. Next session the Queen congratulated
Parliament on the progress of the rifle fever,
and a few months afterwards reviewed some 22,000
rifle patients. (Hear, hear.) But, to crown all, in
July, 1859, his proposition having been defeated,
Lord Palmerston, in July, 1860, came forward,
reproduced his (Mr. Horsman's) arguments and
his proposal, pointed to the Emperor of the French
much more strongly than he (Mr. Horsman) had
done, took the sum of £10,000,000, and even the
most novel and boldest part of his scheme, namely,
that the sum should be raised by way of loan.
(Cheers.) Of course, a large majority having fol-
lowed Lord Palmerston into the lobby when he
opposed his (Mr. Horsman's) plan, a still larger
majority followed him when he accepted it.
(Laughter.) With respect to foreign affairs they
knew how often he had ventured to warn them as
to the dangers into which they might run from
their special alliance with France, and last session,
when the eyes of the Government were opened to
the aggressive policy of France, he suggested that
they should withdraw from that exclusive and spe-
cial alliance and cultivate a better understanding
for their common security with all the other Cabi-
nets of Europe. He was blamed for the boldness
of his counsel on that occasion, but a very little
time afterwards, Lord john Russell said the Govern-
ment had adopted those views, and, amid the
plaudits of the House of Commons, added that Eng-
land was seeking other alliances and was once more

prepared, if the necessity should arise, to lead
Europe against any further aggression. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman next referred to the six
great questions which were brought under the con-
sideration of Parliament last session, and proceeded
to ask if it was possible to point out one on which

he had any cause to regret the course he had
adopted. (A voice, " Yee, you have—upon every
one," and laughter.) There was not one of those
questions on which at the commencement of the
discussion he was not at issue, and at painful issue,
with the Government and the Liberal party, but
there was not one of these questions on which the
Government and the Liberal party before the close

of the discussion did not come round to his

views. (Laughter.) There was no vote, or senti

ment, or speech of which he had the smallest

cause to feel regret. He was sensible of the gene

ral kindness and courtesy he experienced from his

constituents, and, although he knew that some of
them differed from him, and he was afraid would
always. do so, yet they were frank and manly op•
ponents. He did not ask any one for their cle-
mency, mercy, or even for their forbearance. lie

stood there for justice, and not to him alone, but

lustice to themselves.

They had sent him to Par-

liament to represent their principles. (Derisive
cheering, and great laughter.) He would ask them
to which of the principles they sent him to repre-

sent had he ever- proved himself false ? (Cries of
"To every one," laughter, and interruption.) He
hoped he should not be met by an evasion like

t44t, but thus they would tell whicla PpeciAc prin.