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

the consumer than where the duty removed is only 9 per cent

—(hear, hear)—and it is a fact clearly shown that the remis-
sion of part of the duty which took place long since on tea
has never yet reached the consumer. But the duty on paper
b •ing removed, increased competition will follow, and it is
quite certain the reduction will reach the persons inte-
rested in its consumption. There is one topic on which I
must address the house as to the removal of the duty on
paper; because of the very high flown doctrines of philan-
thropy preached by hon. gentlemen on the other sideof the
house, whose great regard for thelabouring classes has been
placed in contrast with that of those who desire the removal
of the duty off paper. That is a matter which requires
some little consideration from this house. As respects the
general question of the removal of the paper duty, it was
fairly stated on a former occasion by the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Bucks that different opinions might be
entertained as to duties upon advertisements and newspapers,
but there was no financial evil abstractedly greater than
the evil which was connected with an excise whereby, as in
the present instance, a physical and moral disadvantage was
created, and the right hon. member supported that state-
ment by the vote he gave at a period when the duty on tea
was not Is. sd. a pound, but 2s. id. per pound. (Hear.)
But this matter cuts rather deeper than is supposed into the
great principles on which this house has been engaged for
the last 20 years in reforming the commercial laws of the
country. We are told the first obligation of the house is to
reduce those taxes which are levied for the purpose of re-
venue on articles of popular consumption. If that is true,
it is not the principle on which former Parliaments or the
present Parliament have acted with regard to commercial
reform. It is not the principle which was carried out in
1811 by Lord Melbourne's Government. It is not the prin-
ciple acted on in 1842 by Sir R. Peel. The reduction of
duties upon articles of exclusive popular consumption was
not the first, but the last, of the objects which he had in
view—(hear)—because he knew, and the Parliament knew,
that in point of fact the true secret of improving the condi-
tion of the people was in the removal of duties, not the mere
reduction of price on this or that article, but the liberation
and extensioa of trade and the increase of it. (Cheers.) In
1842, when these reforms commenced, and when the income
tax was imposed, in order to make them practicable Sir R.
Peel declared the principle on which he should proceed.
That principle was to diminish or abolish protection, and to
do away with all prohibition, to repress smuggling, and to
liberate trade from its fetters ; and the mere fact of reducing
the price of articles of popular consumption was far behind
in importance. In 1842 we sacrificed £1,600,000 of duties,
nearly all of which consisted of differential duties ; £600,000
of it was for raw material—namely, timber. Those who
say the course now proposed is not a provident one
Will see that in 1815 a still larger sum was given

away, but there again not on a single article was- the
satrifiee made with a view to cheapening what was
consumed by the people, if he excepted the article of
sugar. £700,000 was given away on cotton. What an
improvident Parliament was that to assent to a mea-
sure which was not in the last recuperative. Now that pro-
tection is gone and cannot be openly recommended or de-
fended. Substitutes—and they are poor substitutes indeed
—are invented and palmed off on us, and we are told we are
not to abolish the duty because the proceedings would not
be recuperative. In the same year two other duties,equally
objectionable, were abolished—namely, the glass duty and
the auction duty. In 1846, £115,000 was given away, not
to cheapen any article of popular consumption, but for the
liberation of trade by the removal of differential duties. In
fact, the same principle has governed every budget pre-
sented to us, proposing extensive changes in the law, with
one exception only? and that exception was the budget of
the right hon, gentleman the member for Bucks in 1852.
Ile adopted the principle which he called unrestricted com-
petition, and did not touch any of the remaining differential
duties. What he did do was to propose a large reduction
of the duty on tea—(opposition cheers)—and with respect
to the excise he proposed to give away about two millions
on the malt duty by taking off half the excise ; but he left
the restraints upon trade in full vigour—(hear, hear)—and
I cannot complain now if the right hon. gentlemen con-
tinues to hold those principles, in opposition to the prin-
ciples which guided Sir R. Peel and the hon. members who
sit near me. But let it be understood who are the innova-
tors ; because when we are accused of a rash and desperate
policy, we aro only carrying out those principles which have
long received the assent of the British Parliament, and ob-
.

tained for it the respect of the world at large for the man

ner in which it has extended the trade and industry of the
country. We do not claim any originality on this subject.
I began as an humble labourer end disciple of Sir R. Peel,
and I only desire to continue to apply the principles on
which he always acted. (Hear, hear.) There are those in
the house who know that when her Majesty's Government
made this proposal to take off a penny from the income tax
and to repeal the paper duty, they were offering a measure
of conciliation to the minority in this house. It was by a
champion on the other side that the issue was raised last
year upon the point whether the house would
consent to ;emit the paper duty, or would forego the tenth
Penny on the income tax. The hon. member for Somerset-
shire moved a resolution to the effect that as the repeal of
the duty on paper would necessitate the imposition of an
additional penny on the income tax, its repeal at that time
was inexpedient. 'We understood those words to mean aim-
-ply and plainly what they expressed. We were not to sup-
pose from that resolution that the papa" duty was to be in-
definitely postponed. (Hear, hear.) The motion did not
suggest a doubt as to the expediency of the removal of the
duty, but only as to the price at which it was to be effected.
Surely there could be nothing more legitimate and natural
than that we, when we found ourselves in a position to do
so, should maintain the connection between the income tax
and the paper duty by proposing to repeal the latter and to
take the penny off the former—(hear)—and thus, as I think,
snake a proposal couched in the spirit of conciliation. In
asking the house to vote for that which closed the contro-
versy of 1860, and not to vote for that which will hand it
over from year to year, perhaps to be brought forward again
under circumstances of greater doubt, and difficulty, and
danger, we have done that which will be felt to be correct
by all those who bring a candid mind and independent view
to this question. I do not know whether there will be any,
or if any, how many divisions on these resolutions. We
thought when we submitted them that theywere very simple,
but though more than a fortnight has elapsed we have not
yet been permitted tor take a single step upon them. I hope
that if gentlemen really entertain the feelings which they
have described, we shall have some mode of ascertaining
the sentiments of the house. (Cheers.) Quite apart from the
(merest of any government or any party, I do not believe
Matthew long-drawn and aimless debates, with intervals
of two or three nights between them, supported by men of
fir taste, but hardly any two of them agreeing, even in
inme°,lolla of their arguments, and none of them willing3to
that the of conducting public business is favourable.
to that methodwaie
Parliament with tit© desire to maintain, viz., the credit of
we shall find those:
country.th (Cheers.). I am quite sure.
vise and
side as well as those on this
who are ready to take
w h comprehensive. view of the.
important considerations iT-e involved in our decision
over and above those
commercial and financial elements
which give to the plan itself a sufficient and conclusive
weight—(hear, hear)—and, further, I am convinced that
the house, when it examines in full the whole of the mo-
tives and arguments that bear on the proposition we now
make for liberating the last article of British manufacture
fromthe fetters of the excise—(cheers)—will be satisfied
that in making that proposition we are following in the
steps of those who have on former occasions given Wise
ad-
vice to Parliament, and the adoption of whose reeontraen-
dations at various intervals during the last 20 years has
done much to extend the fame and credit of the natiokwith
foreign lands, and established the Parliament andCrowilef
this countryin the affections of the people. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, 1 must repeat the surprise which
on the first night of this debate I ventured to express a. t
114 impatience which the Oovernment have evinced at tine

house discussing the important measures they have brought •
before us. (Hear, hear.) It is easy for the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to describe our discussions as aimless and
uninteresting ; but what I want to ask the house and the
Government is this—What other mode was there for this
house to express its opinion on the general scope and ten-
dency of the policy of the Ministry, and to ask that infor-
mation and those explanations which were necessary for us
before we could go with any profit into committee to con-
sider the propriety of passing the particular resolutions then
to be submitted to us ? (Hear.) When we reflect what an
elaborate,lengthened and complicated performance a financial
statement, especially in these days, necessarily is, it is impos-
sible that the Government can suppose that on the firstnight
of such a statement being made the house can arrive
at a
result upon the multifarious projects which solicit its con-
sideration. The Government must feel that for us to enter
in that manner, without thought or examination, uto Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, and devote our attention to the
particular resolutions must lead to the most desultory and
immature discussion, and perhaps to rash and precipitate
conclusions which both the house and Government may after-
wards have cause to regret. (Hear.) As a general principle,
therefore, I say it is expedient that when a budget has been
introduced to our notice, before we go into a committee of
Ways and Means, there should be a discussion on its general
tendency. But, Sir, I think there aro particular reasons
withrefcrence to this question, and with reference also to the
present Government, which render such a course in the highest
degree necessary; because I say that upon this subject last
session the House of Commons was kept in the dark. (Hear,
hear.) The House of Commons last year was summoned at
an earlier date than its usual period for assembling. Very
extensive financial propositions were then brought before
it. Those propositions were pressed upon our attention by
cogent circumstances connected with treaties with foreign
Powers. And when the house expressed ontmore than one
important subject the necessity of more information than
the Government were prepared to give, on both occasions
the house was not, in my opinion, treated with the candour
which it should at all times receive at the hands of a Mi-
nister. (Hear.) I don't want to make a grave charge, but
rather to illustrate the position I wish to put before the
house. I would refer to that China vote, the subject of so
much discussion in this debate. When last year the right
hon. gentleman brought forward his proposals in such ex-
traordinary circumstances of pressure the attention of the
house was naturally called to the vote he then proposed,
amounting, I believe, to £500,000 for carrying on the war
with China. A great many gentlemen on both sides of
the house expressed their apprehension that that was
not an adequate provision for such a purpose. There
was considerable incredulity felt upon both sides, but what
was the reply of the right hon. gentleman ? He scoffed at
that incredulity and those apprehensions, and he said that
the expense of the Chinese war was not be measured by
that single vote, but by the proportionate increase that
would be found in the naval and military estimates of the
country, and on that representation the proposals of the
right hon. gentleman were passed. Well, what happened ?
A few months afterwards the same Minister came down to
this house and proposed a vote of almost as many millions
as at the beginning of the year he had proposed hundreds
of thousands to carry on that war. At this moment no one
can suppose that the right hon. gentleman in February was
not as fully aware of the necessity for that vote as in May.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore, it shows that the house should
not be hurried into coming to a decision upon financial
subjects. Take another instance. When the house met
last year, and the financial propositions were put before us,
there was a great expectvtion in the country that a proposal
would be made by the Government to provide considerable
fortifications for the defence of these realms ; and there
were inquiries made from both sides of the house as to
whether any such proposal was contemplated by the Go-
vernment. The right hon. gentleman scoffed at all inqui-
ries. He rose and said that no proposal of the kind had
been before the Cabinet, and he would not listen to such a
suggestion. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an
observation.] I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon, I
heard him, I fully believe, make that observation. (Hear,
hear.) The consequence was that the whole of the finan-
cial propositions were passed, but a few months afterwards
the Ministry brought forward a most extensive scheme for
erecting these fortifications to the amount of some millions,
and then it turned out that these fortifications had been

resolved upon by the Government in consequence of
a report made by the Royal Commissioners which
was dated, I believe, before the meeting of Parliament, and
certainly was in the possession of Government when the
budget was brought forward. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I
say :under these circumstances it becomes the House
very cautiously to preceed when they are dealing with finan-
cial measures in the present day, and especially when those
financial measures are brought forward by the right hon.
gentleman. (Hear.) What has been the consequence of the
haste and precipitation of the house in passing the budget
of the right hon. gentleman last year ? The consequence
has been that there is a great deficiency. (Hear.) I ask the
house to consider how that deficiency has been supplied.
It has been supplied by increasing the liabilities and di-

miniabingthe resources of the country—by reducing the

balances in the -Exchequer and by increasing tho debt.
(Hear.) At this moment, although I have listened with the
utmost attention to the statement of the right hon. gentle •
man, I must say that I can make out no answer to the
statement of my hon. friend the member for Stamferd as to
the mode by which the deficiency of last year has been sup-
plied. (Hear.) Is there a gentleman in the house who has a
clear conception of it ? (Hear.) There was a sum of
£1,440,000 taken from the balances in the Exchequer and
an increase of the debt by the issue of Exchequer-bonds,
which ultimately arrived at the amount of £440,000; but
there is an item of £620,000 more of a very peculiar and
suspicious character, which in the figures in the official
papers recently laid upon the table appears as repayments of
advances, and my hon. friend the member for Stamford
naturally wished for some explanation. He could not un-
derstand exactly how repayments of advances paid into
the Exchequer to be re-issued could become revenue raised
within the year for the service of the year. (Hear.) But
what has been the answer of the right hon. gentleman ?
He:says the repayments for advances being due to the Con-
solidated Fund, he did not take them for the service of
the year, but, being due to the Consolidated Fund, they
became part of the balances of the Exchequer. (Hear,
hear.) If they were due to the Consolidated Fund, and
paid into the Exchequer, they must be re-issued in answer
to fresh demands, and it is quite clear that the right hon.
gentleman has availed himself of the repayment of moneys
not raised in the year for the service of the year in order to
contribute to his deficiency, and therefore, according to his
own statement, he has been taking out from the balances
not £1,440,000, but £2,000,000, and part of this sum was
repayments which ought again to be lent for the public
service. (Hear.) Ido not wish now to dwell much upon
this topic, as I have to call attention to more important
points, but it is a curious thing, remembering 1852, when
one of the predecessors of the right hon. gentleman proposel
as part of a scheme of great administrative reform, to take
repayments of £400,000 as balances in the Exchequer, the
right hon. gentleman then rose and made that the chief
ground for his celebrated attack—(hear)--and in the name
of outraged finance called upon Parliament to terminate the
existence of a Government who could be guilty of such acts
—(hear)—the only difference between the Government of
1852 and that of 1861 being that we ventured to propose to
do it with the consent of Parliament, and the right hon.
gentleman has done it without the consent of Parliament.

(Hear.) I will only touch for one moment upon the next
question—that of the Chinese indemnity. I take it for
granted that in some way or other the right hon. gentleman
will obtain that sum of money from China, probably at the
expense of our merchant-4, for that seems to be not only
acknowledged but to be vindicated. (Hear.) All I would
say in passing upon this topic, which is no doubt suscepti-
ble of much controversy, for which at this moment we have
not time is this—l do not clearly understand upon what
principle sci finance this financial purist proposes to take this
year and a half of the indemnity, which, in my mind, must
have been pledged to the Consolidated Fund, to occupy the
place of the balances which had already been abstracted--
upon what principle of finance he applies this year and a half
of the indemnity to the service of the year. It is not money
raised within the year for the service of the year, which
the right hon. gentleman has told us is the only legitimate
source of revenue. However, that is not a point upon which
it is necessary for me to dwell at present. I come to the
question of surplus, and upon that head I must say I am
perfectly astonished by the argument of the right hon. gen-
tleman. lie is surprised that anybody should doubt that he
is in possession of a surplus. (Hear, hear.) I must say I
think the indignation of the right hon. gentleman has some
foundation. I cannot believe that any person occupying the
position which ho does could, under any possible circum-
stances, any conceivable circumstances, offer to the house
estimates of the great branches of revenue which were not
perfectly sound, well matured, and founded upon the deep-
est investigation and deliberation. I entirely agree in the
opinion of the right hon. gentleman of the high character
of those individuals to whom the right hon. gentleman and
all who have at any time occupied the post he now fills must
feel indebted for invaluable services—l mean the heads of
the revenue branches and the heads of departments of the
Treasury connected with finanee, which have been at all
times represented by men of adequate ability, and which are
represented at the present day in a manner never before ex-
celled, or perhaps equalled, in knowledge of duties and faith-
ful and sagacious discharge of those duties. But I may be
allowed to say I cannot but regret that the right hon. gen-

tleman to-night, and the President of the Boa rd of Trade on
a former evening, thought fit to draw the names and autho •
rity of those distinguished men into our discussions in the
House of Commons. Whatever may be their abilities, what •
ever their character, however great may be the debt which
the country owes to them, it is the right hon. gentleman and
her Majesty's Ministers who are responsible for all these
estimates; and although I freely and entirely acquit the
right hon. gentleman of having any intention of diminish-
ing that responsibility, as I am sure he is the last man to seek
to do so, yet every one must feel that the inevitable ten-
dency of bringing the names and authority of those gen-
tlemen into this house is to diminish that responsibility
(hear, heart--to make. Parliaments look to the heads of de-
partments, and also has the tendency of diminishing the
freedom and independence with which those distinguished
in„ Ze now perform those important duties. (Hear, hear.)
saYs the right hon. gentleman, " I am met in a most
5P4 iroproptx ulawur by the Opposition. just