The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-03 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 1,`17

Another adjournment of the interminable
debate in the House of Commons upon the Chi•
nese Difficulty ! A Lengthened Dullness "lrlnr,
drawn out !" Literally, this, for we cannot
call to our recollection any discussion of late years
upon a really Great Question—a question involv
ing in its solution a probable recombination of
Parties and a possible reorganisation of Govern-
ment—less strikingly illustrated by oratorical dis-
plays either on the side of the Cabinet or on that
of the Opposition. As we intimated on Satur-
day, to our thinking incomparably the ablest
speech yet delivered in the House of Commons on
behalf of the Ministerial branch of the argument
was, beyond all manner of doubt, the eminently
lu*lth and logical oration of the Lord Alvocate.
An opinion
we were gratified to hear corroborated
in the House last
evening by the authoritative
voice of Sir PREDMIICK TIIESIGER. A distin-
guished rhetorician and debater, who—while
awarding the_ palm to that
night Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, fad/4 .
Pnnceps "the " up-
holder of the cause of the Administration—him-
self acquired the glory (such as it is) of altogether
and argumen-
tative in oratorical fervour
tative acumen, all the honourable and right
honourable gentlemen who have yet spoken
in favour of the motion of the meta_
her for the West Riding of Yorkshire ; or, in other
words, in support of the views sustained by the
whole strength of the present motley and hetero-
Iggneous Opposition. Arguing, as he did yester-
day, to our mind, entirely upon the wrong side—
Sir FREDERICK TIIESIGER nevertheless, from the
first sentence of his exordium to the closing sYl-
lable of his peroration, fixed the attention of the
Nome, and commanded its admiration. His
analysis of the legal part of the Ministerial arEpi-
mentr, as advanced by the Hon. and Learned
Attorney-General, was masterly throughout.
His felicitous revival of Sergeant MayNann's
memorable reply to a pragmatic person taunting
him with ignorance of the law,—" Sir, I have
forgotten more law than you ever knew" 1

—his complimentary reminiscence of this re-
nowned retort, suggestive of its falling anew from
the lips of Lord LYNDHURST, constituted an eulo-
-
gium upon that Noble and Learned Lord, as telling
in is delivery, as it was eminently adroit arid de-
served in its application. Nothing, again, could
have been happier in its way than his sarcastic
encomium upon Sir J. BOWRING, as one of so
astute and subtle an intellect that he might have
been 'aptly designat3d, in the days of the old
schoolmen, as one of the old Casuists was in point
of fact designated—" The Irrefragable Doctor !"
Capital, too, inimitable in their way, were the
crowning phrases of his comment upon the already
minutely dissected oration of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury,
to the effect that precisely when it might have
been conjectured that the dignus vindice nodes
h:td arrived, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
having ostensibly descended into the lists for the pur-
pose, as it appeared, of dissipating all doubt, he only

"exhibited there a few feats of legal legerdemain,
and disappeared in a cloud of authorities !" Sir
FREDERICK THESIGER'S allusion subsequently to
his own personal recollections of another bom-
bardment (a rather more formidable and terrible
bombardment, by the way, than the recent bom-
bardment of Canton), namely, that of Copen-
hagen, was—let us say it at once distinctly and
positively—a magnificent piece of forensic and
parliamentary clap-trap ! It was only to be
deplored—listening to the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, as the House could not fail to do last
night, with unflagging interest and unstinted
admiration—it was only to be deplored that the
gifted Advocate was unfortunately constrained by
circumstances to hold his brief upon the wrong
side, and to squander all his genius as a Debater
in the futile endeavour to prove black white, and
light darkness.
During the course of last night's discussion,
when it became observable that from ten to
fifteen Honourable Members endeavoured to catch
the Speaker's eye simultaneously, the debate long
before midnight seemed to threaten another ad-
journment. A. threat ultimately fulfilled, as we
have seen, upon the motion of the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman the member for Plymouth.
To-night, however, it may be confidently relied
upon, in spite of all the verbosity and garrulity
of the more talkative of the popular represen-
tatives, that the Ides of March, will, indeed, have
at length arrived—to decide the Hopes of
the Opposition and the Fate of the Govern-
ment. Neither of the two confronting Leaders
of the House of Commons have as yet ex-
pressed their views in the matter of this
Chinese Controversy. Neither, for that matter,
has the Grand Intermediate below the gangway,
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
TJniversity of Oxford 1 Something may be said,
too, upon the now t)lerably hackneyed subject
under discussion by the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Nineveh, as he has been happily
entitled, as well as by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for the City of Manchester.
When these, and some few of the iroXXot of the
!louse, shall have unburdened their hearts (and
Memories 0 in the hearing of the Reporters, then,
et length, we may hope that to-night, and net
later, by a single adjournment more, wo may ar-
rive at the final test of the long-looked-for and
anxiously-awaited division. Mr. Speaker sum-
ming up the whole of this protracted Chinese con-
troversy by putting the Query from the Chair (let
us say) thus significantly :
YETI or Nay ?

Public attention has been partially diverted by
the Chinese discussion from the consideration of
the financial scheme. Having obtained a hetero-
geneous majority against Mr. DISRAELI'S motion
—a majority which seemed to consider the mere
financial merits of the question of comparative
unimportance—the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will now have to enter into details on the different
points where, under the specious pretext of
granting considerable reductions, he is really im-
posing additional taxation, which ho would not
ho authorised to levy under the existing law.
The subjects on which contests must take place
are the Income Tax and the additional duties on
tea and sugar ; and it is right that the people
should thoroughly understand the actual state of
the case on each subject, so that they may know
Low to deal with those who vote contrary to their
professions when claiming a renewal of the confi-
dence they have violated.
Ist. As to the Income Tax, Sir G. C. LEWIS
takes vast credit to himself for refusing to avail
himself of the "pettifogging quibble" which he
declared in the House to have arisen through a
pure accident ; although, if we recollect rigl.tly,
he took very different ground when receiving the
Anti-Income-tax Association, contending that it
was "no mistake," but the legitimate and proper
form in which the enactment should be framed.
Here, by a strict adhesion to the letter, to the
total disregard of the spirit of the law, he might
have maintained the 16d. tax until April, 1853.
But he had good and sufficient reasons for
not resorting to a course so objectionable in
every respect. The public indignation had
been thoroughly excit?.d in every district
throughout the length and breadth of the land.
It was clearly perceived that the nation would
not stand the " disreput able quibble." Sir G.
C. LEWIS maintained a total and unbroken silence,
until the last moment, and it was not until se-
veral independent members had given notices of
motion ou the subject, and Mr. DISRAELI one
for the repeal of the Act of 1855, which would
have reduced the duty to sd. in the pound, that
he yielded with a very indifferent grace, follow.
ing the precedent established by the intrusive
dog, who left the room when he saw unequivocal
indications of an intention to kick him down
stairs. He, however, clung with desperate tenacity
to a portion of the plunder. By a strange mis-
take, 9d. in the pound was represented as the
war portion of the tax in place of lid., and Sir
G. C. LEWIS hastened to avail himself of the error.
He stated that he was giving up 9d. in the pound,
or nine millions of taxation when he was really
demanding 2d. in the pound, or two millions per.
annum, for three years. Nor was this all. He
declared his intention of abiding by the war duty
on spirits, bringing in 1,500,000/. according to
his own estimate, and stimulating the illicit trade
to the highest degree ; and, at the same time, in
order to prevent the Teetotallers from gaining a
triumph, he proposed additional duties for the
next three years on " the cup that cheers without
inebriating," and on "the corn of the tropics."
He would thus practically obtain far more than
h" pettifogging tatsi givinggaing up, even if be could abide by the
quinbebxlet"yeaanr.d retain the 16d. in
the pound for the
He has thua stated the case himself. He
would, under the existing law, have received
in the three years from the Income Tax
26,000,0001., namely, 16,000,000/. in 1857 and
1858, and '5,000,000/. in each of the fellow.
ing yov. In place of this he would receive
7,000,000/, each year, or 21,000,000/. in all.
The 7cl. in the pound will, however, be more
productive during the latter years in proportion
to its amount, the reduction of 9d. will add to

the incomes of the industrious classes—and thus I
give a very considerable addition to the amount
brought within the operation of the impost. The
total loss will therefore not be more than from
three ti four millions., and that, to say nothing of
the increased spirit duties, will be more than made
up by the additional duties on tea and sugar,
which were manifestly never thought of by Sir
G. C. LEWIS until he found himself compelled to
surrender what has been erroneously termed the
war 9d. He now endeavours under the pretext
of that surrender to retain the tax without
revision or modification, with all its acknow-
ledged, unequal, and oppressive characteristics.
We have shown that he neither can nor will relin-
quish in 1860, or at any other time, a source of
revenue so productive. There is, therefore, no-
thing to prevent the immediate modification of
the impost so as to render its apportionment more
equitable, and its collection less inquisitorial and
oppressive. The battle must be fought sooner or
later. Under such circumstances, procrastination
is always "injudicious." It is peculiarly so on
the present occasion, when the revision of the
entire fiscal system must depend on what takes
place with respect to the Income Tax. Every
sincere and consistent Reformer will press for a
speedy decision. The faineants will, on the other
hand, endeavour to evade the duty, and to cast
it on the next Parliament, to be decided in 1860,
in place of 1857.

The enhanced Tea and Sugar Duties may be
regarded as the inauguration of a retrograde
policy, repudiating the doctrines of free trade, and
determined that so far as he is concerned the
principle shall receive no further development. He
is the first Minister who for Vi years has ven-
tured to give expression to such opinions, and
who has diametrically opposed, that which has
been the chief object of the Liberal party to effect,
and so intent has he been on this scheme that he
has not hesitated to break faith with the impor-
ters and dealers in tea. We trust that the House
will refuse to stultify itself by reversing the legis-
lation of the last 16 years, that the professing
Liberals will decline to follow the crab-like move-
ment of the Right Honourable Baronet.
They cannot do so without bringing shame
and disgrace upon themselves—without prov-
ing that there is a total absence of
consistency and sincerity in their composition.
Tergiversation of any description is at all timeF
abhorrent to every honest and true-hearted man ;
but it would be doubly so under existing circum
stances, when the welfare and prosperity of the
nation for a long succession of years depend on
the conduct of those who obtained their seats on
the filth of promises totally opposed to the plans
now promulgated by Sir G. C. Lewis. Let the
House, then, refuse to sanction any alteration in
the existing law—or, if something is to be granted
from tea, in order to prevent the modification of
the Income Tax—for that is the real question
—let the amount be given in such a manner that
it may really benefit the consumers, and stimu-
late consumption, in place of all going into the
pockets of the retailers. By a fixed rate
of Is. 4,1. per lb. for three years, the re-
venue would lose but little, while the importers
could conduct these operations with some degree
of security, and the people would obtain a real
benefit from the change. We therefore earnestly
desire the success of Mr. GLADSTONE'S motion,
which prevents any tampering with this important
article. But, should that be rejected, Lord
Jour,' RUSSELL'S compromise will bs a vast im-
provement on the original proposition of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.