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

of the bill, I will now speak of the form, and I think there
is not a noble lord present who will suggest that the form is
not perfectly constitutional. In 1787 Mr. Pitt introduced a
measure which repealed Med imposed taxes basednpon3,soo
resolutions, and the bill included a schedule of 61 pages.
The bill was obje ed to in this house and a great debate arose,
but in the en i it was agreed to. Again, in 1808, Mr. Pitt pur-
sued the same course, and with the same result. A measure of
the same kind was passed in every year from 1809 to 1822 ;
therefore as to the course now followed being a constitutional
mode of dealing with the subject of finance there can be no
doubt whatever. This being the case, I will now remindyour
lordships of what passed last year. Your lordships rejected
the bill. whether wisely or not I will not now attempt to
argue, and the reasons for doing so were of a very unusual
character. No doubt there was some excitement created in
the other house, but upon the whole, the conduct of the
other house last year was singularly moderate, and nobody
can deny that that was in consequence of the proposal of
the Government to refer the matter to a select committee.
That committee was appointed ; and Mr. Walpole, who was
Home Secretary in the Government of the noble earl oppo-
site, was selected for chairman. The report of the com-
mittee showed that the House of Commons has the power
of instituting a tax for any period of time, and that they
have the power to combine in one bill several taxes or mat-
ters relating to finance. This bill, therefore, is framed
strictly in accordance with the recommendations of
that select committee, which recommendations were em
bodied in certain resolutions, and were proposed by the
Prime Minister in the other house, and unanimously agreed
to. (Hear, hear.) The Government thought the only re-
spectful course for the House of Commons to take would be
to act in pursuance with the recommendations of that com-
mittee. The bill is not framed or brought forward with the
idea that it would be disrespectful to the House of Lords,
or with a view of showing insult to this house. At the same
time it was thought respectful to the House of Commons
that their position to repeal or maintain taxes should be
clearly defined. I believe your lordships will see that it is
more respectful to present the measure in this form than to
have brought up a bill for the repeal of the paper duties
singly, when the house had rejected the repeal of that tax
last year. Whether this house has a right in particular
cases and in times of great emergency to deal with the
finances proposed by the other house is a question of great
importance; but at any rate, even admitting that, it will
be more convenient that we should have before us the com-
plete and whole financial arrangements at one time, than
that we should have in various bills the great financial
scheme of the year. Whatever may be the result of this
debate it will leave the position of both houses the same as
last year, and this house will have the right to reject a
money bill, but not to alter it. (Hear, hear.) This house
is in a position to reject a money bill in times of great emer-
gency, and in that case to leave the country to saywhether
the taxes should be imposed or repealed. I hope the noble
duke will withdraw his amendment—at any rate that, if he
persists in moving it, it will not receive the sanction of your
lordships. By passing this measure their lordships CH
attain three great objects : we shall be able to complete
that commercial legislation which has been so universally,
useful in developing the industry and unshackling the en-
terprise of this country, thereby increasing to an incredible
degree the sources of both indirect and direct taxation which
have afforded very large sums for meeting an increased
public expenditure. (Hear, hear.) In the second, we shall
take away the only question which remains between the
two houses, and which was likely to engender a bad feeling
between them. (Hear, hear.) And, thirdly, by passing
this bill we shall obtain a reduction of the income tax and
the repeal of the paper duties. (Hear.) But in doing that
it will not show an intention on the part of the Legislature
to increase the direct taxes for the means of carrying on the
expenditure of the country. For these reasons I beg leave
to nrove the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) [The
noble earl was throughout his speech very indistinctly
heard in the gallery.]
The Duke of RUTLAND, on rising to move the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, viz., that this bill be
read a second time this day six months, said he must throw
himself upon the indulgence of their lordships—an indul-
gence which was never refused. He had put this amend-
ment on the notice paper because he found no other motion
for negativing this bill—one which he.believed if passed
would inflict very great injury upon the country. He
thought a longer notice ought to have been given by the
Government before proposing the second reading of a bill
of such vast importance, politically and financially, and
constitutionally. His objections to this bill were three-
fold. In the first place, he ventured to doubt whether
there would be a real and substantial surplus.
(Hear, hear.) Secondly, if there were a surplus, he
believed a majority of the other house and'of their lordships
and the country were of opinion that there were other taxes
which if repealed would confer a greater benefit on the peo-
ple than taking the taxes off paper—(hear)—and thirdly,
the bill was in a shape which would paralyze their lord-
ships' action, and prevent their giving an attentive consi-
deration to a bill of this nature. His objections were greatly
strengthened by the very doubtful and hesitating manner in
which the noble earl had referred to a surplus revenue.
Since the budget had been introduced they had already di-
minished the surplus by £175,000; £150,000 in respect of
the Stade Dues, and £25,000 for increased interest on Ex-
chequer Bonds. Last year the calculations of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer were not sound, and some such
catastrophe as occurred last year might happen again. He
hoped the harvest would be better this year, but who could
say that it would be more abundant than in 1860 ? (Hear.)
Supposing there was a surplus, would any man of fair and
impartial spirit not admit that the labouring classes world
not be more benefited by taking off the extra tea duty than
by repealing the paper duty ? He felt persuaded the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer agreed with him on that point, be-
cause last year when he introduced his budget he expressed
the difficulty of his position in reference to it. (Hear.)
But with that boldness for which he was so remarkable,
and that ingenuity which no man could surpass, the right
hon. gentleman found out that the labouring classes wou'd
be benefited by a repeal of the paper duties, because all their
tea and sugar was wrapped in paper. (Hear.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer now came forward and recom-
mended this repeal on other grounds; and he had disco-
vered that in the reduction of a duty the consumer did not
get all the benefit to which he was entitled, and he said
there would be a great extension of commerce by the repeal
of the paper duties, but all must feel that there would be a
greater increase to commerce by a reduction of the tea and
super duties. (Hear.) If the price of tea were lowered it
'would be brought more within the reach of the labouring
classes, and therefore that duty ought to be first diminished.
But he would ask at what time were they asked to take o ff
those duties? Was the political horizon rnclouded? Were
they quite certain that there would not be war ? Let them
look abroad and across the Atlantic, and what would they
see ? A nation plunged in cisil war, and cannon already
sounded and reverberated upon these shores. They knew
not whether this country would not be drawn into this quer.
rel, and they knew not what demands would be made upon
this country. This was not a time then to give up without
the slightest necessity li million of revenue. If they looked
at Italy—lately emerged from revolution—what did they
behold ? Monarchies destroyed and a country almost with-
out any settled form of Government. There was a generous
and an exciteable people given up alternately as a prey to a
victoriors army—to disbanded soldiers and desperate bri-
gands. (Hear.) And it was only yesterday that their lord-.
ships heard with the deepest regret—however much they
might have differed from his views—that the great man who
had kept together the elements of that divided and unhappy
country had passed away. (Hear, hear.) How could they
now tell what the future of that country would be ? If they
looked nearer home, to the country which, as Mr. Cobden
had happily expressed it, was united to us by a few miles of
sea, what did they find ? Why, on the one hand they were
signing a treaty of commerce, and on the other both France
and England were grasping the hilts of their swords. Mr.
Cobden had lately returned from Paris, and his words were
looked at with the greatest possible interest ; and it was only
yesterday that gentleman said he looked with the greatest
alarm at the naval preparations going on in France and Eng-
land ; and at the conclusion of his speech in the City said, it
would be better to prepare for peace than to prepare for war.
He did not think there was one of their lordships who
would say, when France was the initiator of great arma-
ments, that it was possible for this country not to keep
pace with her. (Hear, hear.) While upon this part of the
subject perhaps he might be allowed to express his admira-
tion at the patriotic and spirited reply recently given by the
noble lord at the head of the Government, in the other
house, in the debate on the navy estimates. The noble lord's
words would thrill through every patriotic breast in e
country. He aame now to the constitutional part ofthe
ethipsesn weret
up
pqlueeeestdionbyanthdethmtahneneprosioitiwonhiienhwthhiiechbilti hheiordtn b
to this house in one bill, by, he would not say the House of
Commons, or by her Majesty's Government, but he would
say by that overruling and powerful mind which seemed to
giiide both the one and the other. The noble earl said they
in a very different position this year to what
theywere pwerelac placed
last year. Then the bill was sent up to repeal the
duty which their lordships decided, not in consequence of
its merits, but in consequence of there then being no surplus
to reject. They now had, he said, a surplus, and he hoped
they would not divide. He wanted to know why the bill
was not sent up as a separate measure, so that their lord-
ships might pass a deliberate judgment on it. It must have
been the thought that their lordships would throw out the
bill that induced them to take an underhand step, tacking
it on to another bill and sending it to their lordships in such
a state that they were almost powerless to resist it, and that
they were unable to alter it, or it would be only optional to
adopt the course he (the Duke of Rutland) had proposed,
and reject it entirely. Among the precedents as to tacking
bills Lord Macaulay had been quoted, and it was observed
that he was in favour of tacking bills. The noble lord had
quoted a passage from Macaulay's " History" to the effect
that he was of opinion that the greatest Was occurred to a
country where a system of tacking bills existed. The noble
dyke proceeded to say, he would call their lordships' atten-
tion for one moment to the position which the noble earl
asked them to occupy, and not to divide upon it. But what
was the use of a debate which was to have no practical end,
if the thing was already settled before the House of Com-
mons had sent up a bill which you cannot alter or amend.
He asked what was the use of his occupying their time in
addressing them. They were placed in more difficulty by
the course which had been pursued than any other
body of men; for they were told that they werq not com-
petent to have an opinion, and if any of them ventured to
express their views as the noble earl below him did at the
Mansion-house, they were told that they should wait till
the bill was before them before offering even an opinion in
reference to it. He would briefly call attention to the
views that were entertained by the people of France in re-
gard to retrospecave debates. The noble duke here
quoted a letter of the Paris correspondent of the
Times on the subject, and went on to say, such was the
opin:Lon of the people of France on these retrospective de-
bates which took place in their own country. He had 10__
briefly—though he feared very inefficiently—laid his feea _
sons before them ter the course he had taken, to shnowantl?
that this was not a bill that ought to become
_21,e1
Parliament. He had only taken the lord he h a tal`
move an amendment, as he thought thisnd of the country at
cause he could not find any other noble
biwwasassog
aoidnvgertsoe
to the interests of their lordships
tan
to enter his protest
that this bill be read
large that he ventured at all evoevned
against its passing. He nowp?
a second time, this day six months.
The Earl of DERim—No one who had the pleasure and
the honour of a personas acquaintance with my noble friend
can, for a single
moment, doubt that the step he takes is
dictated by the most conscientious motives, and wisothinuthche
best intentions; and no one can fail to see from the manner
in which he has moved this amendment, with
moderation and ability, that we must regret he does not
more frequently take an active part in our proceedings and
join in our debates. But, my lard., 1 twat preface the few
observations T em about to offer by saying, in the first
instance, that notwithstanding the high respect which I
entertain, and which I believe your lordships all entertain,
of the opinions and character of my noble friend, notwith-
standing the able wawa is %job, lie boa brought this