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

advertisement duty was likewise passed. I do not recol-
lect the fourth resolution. Probably it was not of such
great importance as the others, but I know that it passed,
and what is the consequence ? The object of the
measure of 1850 to free the press and take off the taxes on
knowledge has been attained. (Hear, hear.) We have
renny newspapers. The great object of those motions was
to have penny newspapers. You have them now swarming
over the country, and when a newspaper is set up it takes
that form. And has the existence of these newspapers dis-
appointed the expectations of those who were opposed to
the shackles of the press ? Where are better writing, more
fresh and authentic intelligence, or a more manly and pa-
triotic tone to be found—though, of course, each newspa-
per supports its own party ? Have these penny newspa-
pers realised or not the expect am of the member for Hert-
fordshire, that they would be of a Conservative character ?
There never were more penny newspapers, end never were
Conservative opinions more popularly advocated. (Hear,
and laughter) The Chancellor of the Exchequer has
quoted to-night another of those expressions of mine deli-
vered on one of those motions which I supported in 1853.
But what was the motion ? In 1853 the same subject-was
brought before the house. I then voted for taking off the
newspaper advertisement duty, and I stated that with the
repeal of the duty on advertisements and of the stamp on
newspapers we conceived that the great object which the
right hon. gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade)
sought to accomplish would be effected, as it is practically
proved to be so by the great change in respect to newspa-
pers; and that we then looked cn the question of the Ex-
cise on paper merely as a fiscal question. (Hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer made, I think, in his reference
to what I said in 1850 an observation almost as unfortunate
as the right hon. gentleman, for he stated that we were then
prepared to take off the tax on paper NI hilo the tea duty was
2s. 2d. a-pound. It is impossible that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer could have made a statement proving a result
more contrary to that which he wished to establish. Where
is the analogy between the tea duty then and the tea duty
at present ? There were then no war duties on tea, and the
government consequently had entered into an engagement
with respect to war duties. (Hear, hear.) And I want to
know, with our two-thirds of a million surplus, what possible
effect could we have produced on the tea duty, then being
at 2s. 23. a pound ? (Cheers) The tea duty at that rate
had been a stumbling-block to every financier, and no go-
vernment had ventured on grappling with it, but when we
had the opportunity the first thing we did was to gr:apple
with the tea duty, and we proposed a measure which, after
some gradual declines, would have left the tea duty at ls. a-
pound. (Cheers.) We believed that that measure would
net only have contributed immensely to the comfort of the
great body of the community, but would have given a great
stimulus to our Eastern trade. (Hear.) Though the Par-
Fament to which that policy was recommended did not
choose to support the Ministers who proposed it, still it is a
fact that the party which voted against us made it one of
the conditions for supporting our successors that our policy
respecting the tea duty should be adopted, (Cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman then wants to found his policy of re-
pealing the paper duty on what he calls a pledge of the
house in 1858, but I will show the house that no pledge at
all was given, and that that resolution of the President of
the Board of Trade was not carried, the house only express-
ing an opinion that the paper duty was one which under
favourable circumstances ought to remitted. Let me remind
the house under what circumstances the motion of the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade was brought forward. It was
made two days after the financial statement. On that occa-
sion I found a very large deficiency at the end of the finan-
cial year—somewhere about £3,500,000. It was a deficiency
of a peculiar nature, not- occasioned by our expenditure ex-
ceeding our revenue, but by unwise and improvident en-
gagements, into which the country had entered by establish-
ing a sinking fund, which the right hon. gentleman sup-
ported me in opposing, and £2,000,000 of Exchequer-bonds,
which represented a war expenditure during the Russian
campaign. New, observe, the revenue of the country was
equal to the expenditure. But what was the state of the
country in 1857 and 1853 ? There was a monetary crisis,
panic, and commercial embarrassment ; the rate of discount
was 10 and 8 per cent.—at S per cent. when the budget was
brought in. 'Was that a time to lay on new taxes in order to
carry out a ptoposal made by the Opposition ? (Hear.) Why
there could be no question as to the right conduct to pursue,
but whether it was right or whether it was wrong, it was
unanimously adopted 'by the house ; and men of high finan-
cial authority—the right hon. gentleman himself and the
hon. member for Portsmouth—: poke highly in the praise of
that policy and supported it. But we did something more
on that occasion than provide for the deficit, artificially
created. We laid down the principles that, in our opinion,
ought to guide the house in the remission of taxation.
What were those principles ? First, that the engagement
made by the right hon. gentleman with regard to thedimi-
nution and the ultimate remission of the income tax should
be carried out in its spirit. Next, that if an opportunity,
occurred we ought to fulfil the engagement of the Govern-
ment with the people to terminate the war duties on tea
and sugar, which they had been called on t) pay in order
to carry on the Crimean war. The house entirely approved
this principle, and I will show how completely it sanctioned
and adopted our financial policy by what occurred only two
days after, when this celebrated resolution on the paper
duty was proposed. Two members of the present Govern-
ment were then sitting on these benches—the noble lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for the
Home Department—one a great authority on finance, the
other a distinguished statesman. The noble lord (J. Rus-
sell) spoke in support of a remission of the paper duty when
circumstances should be favourable, but he said the first
thing the house had to consider was the duty on tea and
sugar. (Hear.) What said the Secretary for the Home De-
partment ? He was chary of his approbation of a repeal of
the paper duty under any circumstances, but one thing was
quite clear to him, that it could not be thought of till the
income tax was disposed of. (Hear.) This shows exactly
what was the policy the House of Commons at that time
adopted, in a very full house of 500 or 600 members, while
the resolution with regard to the parer duty was carried in
so thin a house that it was impossible for the Government
to divide against the worthless proposition. Who can doubt
then, what is the engagement of the House of Commons if
its decision‘on a question of finance has any consequence or
power ? (Hear.) That was the recognised policy of the Go-
vernment, and I believe it is still the popular wish of the
country. (Cheers.) Now, with regard to the income tax,
there are two points that deserve consideration ; one is the
effect of a remission in a financial, the other in a political
view. In 1857, the house will recollect there was a great
agitation in the financial mind of the country with respect
to a remission of the 93. war income tax. It was well un-
derstood that the Government, availing itself of the techni-
cal language of the act of Parliament, intended to levy the
additional 93. war tax—representing a sum of more than
£9,000,000—0n the country for the year utter the war ter •
I gave notice of a motion challenging that policy;
the opinion of the hon.., was so strong, and the feeling in
the country so irresistible, that the Government gave up
the Dd. ; it gave up the resource it by law possessed of rais-
ing £0,000,000 of money, and an act was passed repealing
the existing law. What was the effect of that ? In 1857 and
the commencement of 1858 wo had the commercial and
monetary crisis to which I have referred. There was great
commercial embarrassment and distress in the country; yet
during it all the revenue of the country sustained itself.
(Hear, hear.) And why ? Because the consumption of the
country was stimulated by this immense remission of direct
taxation. (Cheers.) And if the right hon. gentleman will
enter that beehive he has so picturesquely described to us,
he will find the working bees all agreeing that such was
the effect of the remission. But now as to the remission from
the political point of view. There is nothing influences
the opinion of foreign States with regard to this country
more than the consciousness that such is its wealth that the
Sovereign can, by appealing to one single tax, raise annu •
ally an amount that other Governments can only acquire by
most costly loans, raised at a high rate of interest that
leaves those countries in a proportionately exhausted con-
dition. If the income tax were what the right honegentle-
mon in such glowing terms, and with such frequent elo-
quence, has contended it ought to be—a weapon adapted
only to the purposes of war, nothing can havo'such influ-
ence, looking at it politically and morally, as the knowledge
that this country can raise 20 millions as an annual revenue
while potentates who might ethreaten the peace of Europe
can only raise such a sum by loans at such a rate of inte-
rest as must impoverish the coffers of the State and exhaust
the industry of the country. Such an engine as the income
tax is to a Minister of Vas country more powerful than any
armament that can be devised ; more powerful than fleets
and armies. (Cheers.) It is th refore worse than madness
in time of peace to throw the whole weight of our financial
system upon it. (Cheers.) It was for this reason, and from
a general sense of the inquisitorial and unequal character
of the tax, that made us declare in 1858 that it was our
policy to carry out the engagement of the right hon. gen-
tleman. The house accepted that policy unanimously, and
the right hon. gentleman supported it. And when the in-
come tax fell to 5d., I, for one, did not consider the occasion
favourable for a repeal of the paper duty. lam tempted to
touch on the position in which we are placed with regard to
the war duties on tea and sugar, the other cardinal points
of our finance. And it was with the deepest regret I listened
to the right hen. gentleman to-night when he spoke on the
subject of remitting duties on articles that enter largely into
the consutnptio i of the people. I think I never heard a case
more sophistically ar,gueJ, or more fallaciously placed before
the house. The question is not whether we shall reduce or
remit duties on articles of consumption, but whether Go-
vernment and Parliament have entered into au engage-
ment with the consumers of those articles to remit, in a
moment of exigency, the special taxes that aggravate the
cost of those articles. lam net requiring any specific pro-
position; I am laying (lowa a declaration that it is
the policy of statesman never to enter into any engagement
with the great body of the people as to articles of general
consumption that may make them feel that they smart under
an act of hijuslice. I want to know, if we leave war taxes
—and war taxes of recent imposition—pressing on the people
in time of peace, with what prospect of success we can ap-
peal to them, should war again occur, t come forward, and
bear a share of the public burdens ? (Hear, hear.) , That
is a consideration of high public policy, and not an abstract
principle about raising a revenue by duties on articles of
general consumpr on. You may defend the general duty

on tea and sugar, but you cannot defend on these abstract
priuciplee of public policy the violation of public faith, orthe