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

TUE SITN,(I- LONDON, TUESDAY' EVENING, APRIL 30, 1861.

year they prophesied an immense deficiency, and now this
profligate Opposition"—profligate is, I believe the favourite
,epithet of the day—" they deny a surplus." Whereupon
the right hon gentleman, with all that power of ratiocina-
tion of which he is master, proceeds to demolish the Oppo-
sition which had prophesied a deficiency and denies a sur-
plus, How does he do it ? First, be said, my hon. friend
dee member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), who in a man-
ner which has commanded public attention, and which has
so deservedly obtained public confidence--(hear, hear)—in-
troduced the subject to the house, "he and the hon. member
for Stamford," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer," are
the two moat important members of the Opposition who have
as yet taken part in the debate; they are the great financial
authorities, and they do not deny a surplus." That is the
way in which the right hon. gentleman proceeded to fix
upon those who sit upon these benches the crime of deny-
ing the existence of a surplus. But then be said, pointing
to the hon. member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt), " There is
the culprit"—(a laugh)—and he went on to destroy the de
tails of the statement which that hon. member made ; that
being the mode in which he thought proper to demolish
the charges brought against his financial scheme by a Tory
Opposition. (Cheers.) More than that, while charging us
with denying the existence of a surplus, he refers to the
speeches of the hon. member for Huntingdon and the hon.
member for Stamford—two of the highest financial au-
thorities who took part in the debate on this side of the
house—to show that they are of a contrary opinion,
so that the right hon. gentleman is scarcely consistent
in the line of argument which he adopts. (Hear.)
Having proved that those two hon. members acknowledged
that there was a surplus, he proceeded to show how come
pletely i. Tory Opposition had failed in their prophecies
with respect to a deficiency, and for that purpose he read
an extract from a speech of Lord Monteagle. (Cheers and
laughter.) Not seeing the ridiculous point to which he
had brought his argument, he follows up by quoting a pas-
sage from a speech of Lord Derby, which has been literally
and accurately fulfilled. (Cheers.) Now, for my own part,
I quite gree with my hon. friends the members for Hunt
ingdon and Stamford, and even with the hon. member for
Birmingham, in supposing that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would scarcely announce a surplus which it would
be our interest to look upon as fallacious. That surplus is,
no doubt, founded upon a calculation of the great branches
of our revenue, and if there be any documents placed before
this house which are more than others entitled to credit,
they are, in my opinion, the estimates of the great branches
of revenue, because they have brought to bear upon them
not only that extensive information, that sagacity, and that
peculiar experience to which the right hon. gentleman has
to-night so justly, as it appears to me so properly, referred,
but they are subjected to the judgment of the Cabinet,
which in the present instance, as in the case of all Cabi-
nets, consists, I suppose, of statesmen of high reputation,
capable of dealing with such questions as the political con-
tingencies of the year. If, therefore, I doubted these esti-
mates, if I thought they were drawn up in an inadequate
manner and in a spirit which did not appreciate the events
which were likely to occur within the year for which
they were framed, I should, instead of discussing their
merits on the motion for going into Committee of Ways and
Means, feel that they furnished a basis on which a vote of
want of confidence in the Government might fairly be
grounded. I am not, however, prepared to make such a pro-
position, or indeed to question in any degree the accuracy
of those great estimates. I may, however, observe with
respect to the minor point of the Chinese indemnity, that
although a portion of that amount may not to my mind ap-
pear altogether legitimate, and although the manner in
which it may accrue may not be altogether profitable, yet I
cannot doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, by
some means or the other, obtain that sum and that we shall
therefore have to deal with a surplus. I take that surplus,
then, at the amount at which the right hon. gentleman has
stated it, and shall proceed to deal with it without, at this
hour of the night (12 o'clock), entering too minutely into
matters of detail. (Cries of Hear, hear, and oh I from the
Ministerial benches.) I suppose hen, gentlemen opposite
having invited me to express a definite opinion on the
financial scheme of their Chancellor of the Exchequer, do
not seek to deprive me of the opportunity of exercising that
privilege. (Cheers.) Ido not, as I said, propose to enter
into details comparatively insignificant in point of interest,
but shall at once address myself to the character of the
right hon. gentleman's surplus, and the mode in which I
think it is expedient it should be distributed. Now, with
respect to the character of the surplus, I must say that the
mode in which it is arrived at seems to me to be somewhat
peculiar. It appears to me, in the first place, to be based on
a false assumption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found
himself in this position—there are several taxes which have
expired or about to expire. Of these a great number are
avowedly war taxes. The right hon. gentleman would
therefore find that he had an immense deficit to make good.
He has to maintain the public credit of the country ; he
has to take care that provision is made for duly sustaining
her armaments, as well as for upholding the efficiency of the
civil service, and for carrying out these objects he is aware
that, whatever may be his deficiency, he can appeal with
confidence 0 the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But
has he, let mo ask, under those circumstances, a right to
appeal to this house for anything more ? (Hear, hear.) He
has a right to ask, and he may with confidence, however
great the number of expired or expiring taxes may be, ask
us to renew them to such an extent as is expedient for the
great purposes of State to which I have referred. But the
right hon. gentleman goes beyond these limits. He assumes
he has a right to ask, and that he may confidently calculate
that those expired and expiring taxes will be renewed, not
merely for the maintenance of the military credit of the
country, and with a view to upholding the efficiency of her
civil service, but in order to make a financial experi-
ment. (Cheers.) Now, I leave to hon. ; members
to say whether I have not fairly stated the case. (Hear.)
I do not wish to misrepresent the position in which the right
hon. gentleman is placed. Well, and what is the scheme
which, under those circumstances, he proposes ? Why, the
repeal of the Excise duty on paper. That being so I have
been very curious to ascertain what has been the history of
this tax in connexion with the proceedings of the House of
Commons. So far as the Government is concerned, their
connexion with this question is of very recent date. Last
year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial
statement, which was made, as I have already shown the
house with too much precipitation gave expression to this
astounding and, I will say, even enormous declaration. He
said that a general understanding prevailed throughout the
country that there would in 1560 be a considerable diminu-
tion of indirect taxation, and he, therefore, proposed, among
other things, the repeal of the duty on paper. Now, that
there was throughout the country a very general impression
that there would in 1860 be a considerable diminution of
direct taxation, I believe no one on either side of the house
will deny—(hear, hear)—and the Chancellor of the Ex-
dt
aetbi
oant e
wthaes jfuosutni edee odf
otlahi shisst a
ot ewrane g iinasmuch
taos wt hhei cehx rhci
ehequer would, I think, be the last person to challenge in
s
House adhered under other Governments with his entire
assent and complete sympathy. (Cheers.) But if the right
hon. gentleman could do or say anything which could
astonish me—which he cannot—(laughter)—l must admit
that that which would be most likely to produce that effect
was the ingenious invention of his soaring imagination, by
means of which he sought to impress us with the idea that
the pivot on which the whole financial campaign last year
was to turn was that it was the general impression on the
mind of the British public, that there would in 1860 be a
great diminution of taxation. (Hear.) Proceeding on that
assumption, he recommended to us the repeal of the paper
duty. He did not, however, rest there, but laid down the
doctrine that the house was pledged to a remission of the
tax. I will now point out to the house the astounding pedi-
gree of this celebrated public question ; and, in doing so, I
shall have occasion to allude especially to the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, in his
speech a few evenings ago, made a statement with respect
to myself which I cannot help thinking—although it was
repeated by his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to-eight—was singularly infelicitous and indiscreet. I
cannot in passinghelp remarking that this mysterious pledge
in reference to the repeal of the paper duty seems somehow
or another to enter into our debates, as if there were an
undertaking on the part of the principal members of the
Opposition to carry out that object, and it appears to me, I
must confess, a somewhat new dogma in Parliamentary
practice that the opinions expressed upon a particular pro.
position by the leaders of Opposition should turn out to be
an irresistible reason why her Majesty's Ministers should
carry that proposition into effect. (Cheers.) Now, what
took place upon this'question, in alluding to which the right
hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade read
the other evening a garbled extract from a speech which I
made some time ago ? The right hon. gentleman told us
that he brought forward a resolution inviting the house to
repeal the paper duty, and that I spoke in favour of the
motion, lie did, hcwever, nothing of the kind. He was,
on the occasion to which I am referring, connected with a
great and powerful interest, known in common parlance as
the Association for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge.
In 1850 he brought forward a motion for the repeal of those
taxes, and they were described by the right hon. gentleman
in four resolutions ; but every resolution was put separately,
and the first, in favour of the repeal of the paper duty, was
not put, but was only brought forward as one among others
to effect that which was a favourite object with the right
hon. gentleman—namely, to free the public press from the
shackles by which its progress was impeded. I entirely
agreed with the right hon. gentleman in that respect, and
have taken every step in my power to carry that object. I
thought then that the press of this country was most un-
wisely and impoliticly shackled. In 1853 I stated that the
press could not be too free. I knew that under the then
condition of law the cheap press in this country sent forth
an unlimited supply of blasphemy, sedition, and all those
opinions most detrimental to the State, and I believed that
an unshackled press would instruct the public mind, be filled
with sound information, and guided by intelligence and
moderate views. The result has shown that I have not
been disappointed in these views. The right hon. gentle-
man failed in bringing in his measure in 1850 ; but every
measure, except the remission of the duty on paper, the
direct object of wl ich was to free the press and to destroy
those shackles that prevented its beneficial development,
has been passed. What was the second resolution of the-
right hon. gentleman ? It was to put an end to the
stamp on newspapers. That was passed, and I voted
for it, The hat regoltitiou for Puttiag tau eAci tt?

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
penny 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 ttion of the member for Hert-
fordshire, that they would be of a Conservative character ?
There never were more penny newspapers, and 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 en 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 a hile 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 1
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. 2d. a pound ? (Cheers.) Tho tea duty at that rate
had been a stumbling-block to every financier, and no go-
vernmeut had ventured on grappling with it, but when we
had the opportunity the first thing we did was to grapple
with the tea duty, and we proposed a measure which, after
some gradual declines, would have left the tea duty at Is. a-
pound. (Cheers.) We believed that that measure would
not 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-
r ament 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, bat I will show the house that no pledge at
all was given, and that that resolution of'tbe 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, bat 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 ExchequefLbonds,
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 1858 ? There was a monetary crisis,
panic, and commercial embarrassment ; the rate of discount
was 10 and 8 per cent.—at 8 per cent. when the budget was
brought in. Was that a time to lay on new taxes in order to
carry out a proposal 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—spoke 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 the dimi-
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 to 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 paper 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-
-1 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 9d. 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
1 additional 9,1. war tax—representing a sum of more than
£9,000,000—0n the country for the year after the war ter-
[ minated. I gave notice of a motion challenging that policy;
1 the opinion of the houso was so strong, and the feeling in
k m~ country so irresistible, that the Government gave up
the 9d. ; it gave -itp the resource it by law possessed of rais-
ingl£9,ooo,ooo of money, and an act was passed repealing
ithe existing law. What was the effect of that ? In 1857 and
the commencement of 1858 we had the Commercial and
1 monetary crisis to which I have referred. There was great
commercial embarrassment and diitress 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 hon. gentle-
men 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 have 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 threaten the peace of Europe
can only raise such a aunt 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 this country more powerful than any
armament that can be devised ; mere 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. I am 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 hon. gentleman to .night when he spoke on the
subject of remitting duties on articles that enter largely into
the consumptio 1 of the people. I think I never heard a case
more sophistically argued, 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 leave entered into an 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. I am net requiring any specific pro-
position ; I am laying down a general declaration that it is
the policy of statesmen 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 injustice. 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, to 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 consumption. You may defend the general duty
on tea and sugar, but you cannot defend on these abstract
principleg 9f plililic policy the violation of public faith, or go

disappointment and distrust which you will create in the
country. (Cheers.) I must do the right hon. gentleman
the justice to say that on other occasions, when he has him-
self so strongly and so passionately advocated the remission
of these war duties—when he has said that they affected the
happiness of millions of homes, ho was influenced by proper
feelings. To-night, however, he has taken refuge in sophis-
tical evasions, Ho has intimated to us that there is a mode
bywhich the war duties on tea and sugar may be remitted.
" You may retrench," says the right hon. gentleman,
" your expenditure." This country. as we were told by an
hon. member the other night, is suffering from profligate ex-
penditure, and if the right hon. gentleman did not himself
use the phrase he cheered the epithet, and afterwards, in
his reply, enlarged and expatiated on the sentiment. Now,
it is right to ask for a frank declaration from the right hon.
gentleman on this subject. We heard a great deal last year
about a gigantic innovation, but to my mind there is no in •
novation so gigantic as a Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
nouncing as profligate the expenditure for which he is sup-
plying at the same time the ways and means. (Cheers.) I
think the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes to the house on
this subject an explanation which he has avoided giving to-
night. If he believes the expenditure to be impolitic, to use
the mildest term, on what principle can he vindicate his
sitting on that bench ? (Cheers.) I have asked men of all
parties, the simple and plain, and men of refined intelligence,
for an explanation, but they have all been perplexed by a
mystery of conduct that is unparalleled in the history of
this country. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman
does more. He insinuates that the Government, as well as
himself, are recommending and pursuing an expenditure
that is contrary to their conviction of public necessity. It
is some one or other, some unknown but irresistible force,
that urges them on. Sometimes it appears to be Ilse coun-
try, sometimes the house, but never the Ministry. (Cheers.)
Now, is it the fact that the country is ungovernable and
irrational on this point ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer
has given this explanation more than once. He wrote some
months ago to some one who complained to him of the in-
come-tax, and said " It is your fault. You go about agitat-
ing the country, and you must pay for it." Now is that true?
Are there any public meetings in favour of expenditure ?
I believe there is in the country a calm confidence and con-
viction that any Government which calls upon the country
for sacrifices ought to be supported. Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman may refer to the volunteer movement as an evi-
dence of the national irrationality. I should, however, draw
from that noble ebullition of patriotis st an indication of a
very different character. (Hear, hear.) I should recog-
nise in that movement a desire on their part to assist the
Government in placing the country in the commanding
position it ought to occupy with as little cost and pressure
upon the industrious part of the community as possible.
(Hear.) It is neither just nor true, therefore, to say that it
is an irrational country that has forced on this expenditure.
Well, is it the house ? Let us look to tho facts. At the
end of the year 1859 the right hon. gentleman the member
for Stroud, who has addressed us to-night with such sus-
tained and varied ability on the whole of this financial ques-
tion—(hear)—brought before the house a proposition for an
address to the Crown, I think, that considerable sums
should be laid out in providing for the necessary defence of
the country. The Government disapproved that proposi-
tion, and on a division defeated the right hon. gentleman
by a large majority. Next year the Government, after
more extended observation, arrived at the conclusion that
the right hon. gentleman was right, and they brought for-
ward a proposal for fortifications on a large scale. The
Government then carried the scheme that they had rejected
by a majority. Well, it is not the country or the house
that forces on this profligate expenditure. Who is it, then?
It is not difficult to point out the author of the expendi-
ture, and I believe that in acting as he has done he has been
governed by a high sense of duty, and that he does not
shrink from the responsibility of the course he has pursued.
No doubt it is the Prime Minister of England. (Hear,
hear.) In repeated speeches in this house, and in re-
dresses to his countrymen out of doors, he has never con-
cealed his opinion that the present position of public
affairs was such that it was the duty of the Chief Minister
of the Crown to call on the country to make those exertions
and endure those sacrifices. (Cheers.) But the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, indulging in one of those unwise taunts
which he sometimes conveys, talked about the gossip in the
speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rosman) on the
subject of Cabinet divisions. Lord ! Sir, we need not
maunder about in ante-chambers to discover differences in
the Cabineb---(cheers)—when we have a patriotic Minister
appealing to the spirit of the country, tolling it that it must
be prepared to defend itself against aggressive ambition,
and to show Europe that we are determined to maintain
our rights, and when, at the same time, we find the Chan.
cellos of the Exchequer, whose duty it is to supply the
Ways and Means by which those exertions are to be sup-
ported, proposing votes with innuendo, and recommending
expenditure in a whispered invective. (Cheers.) Don't tell
me that there are not misunderstandings in the Cabinet—
that the right hon. gentlemen and noble lords who compose
it aro all of the same opinion—when on that most important
subject, the expenditure of the country, which affects every
branch of policy, there is between two of the most eminent
Ministers of the Crown—one the Prime Minister and the
other the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such difference and
discordancy. (Cheers.) There is only one other point I will
touch upon, and that is a subject which I think of late years
has been unnecessarily introduced into our debates; but
still it has been introduced, and I know enough of the
House of Commons to be convinced that, when a subject
has been introduced and touched upon by men of great in-
fluence and authority, and when it fills the public mind, it
is worse than useless to attempt to avoid it. That subject
is the influence upon the condition of the Government
which any vote in Committee of Ways and Means may
produce if contrary to some details of the measures which
they now have introduced to us. I think this is a subject
upon which it becomes the House of Commons to acquire
as accurate and as clear a conception of the public duty of
public men as they well can. Power is a possession which
ought not to be lightly accepted, and which, to my mind,
ought•not to be lightly relinquished. (Hear.) To accept
or to relinquish it involves the fulfilment of a very grave
duty to our Sovereign, whom we embarrass very often
by such conduct, and to our country, whose condition
must always to a certain degree be affected in such a case.
(Hear, hear.) If, indeed, the House of Commons, directly
or indirectly, expresses a want of confidence in an Adminis-
tration, my opinion is the sooner they quit the helm of
affairs the better, for though, under certain circumstances,
that may entail great public inconvenience, there is no pub-
lic inconvenience, as there can be no public injury, equal to
their continuing in a responsible position when they have
lost the confidence of those to whom they are responsible.
(Hear.) Generally speaking, a Minister must deeply reflect
before he relinquishes the trust which ho has accepted.
Nothing can be more unwise, nothing more pernicious to
himself—if that limited consideration is to have my influ-
ence—nothing can be more generally injurious to public
men Oen that their country should find that in taking such
a course as either the acceptance or abdication of power
they are animated by private and personal motives, but par-
ticularly by personal pique. (Hear,•hear.) When a Mini-
ster finds that in a time of great public abstraction and
anxiety his foreign policy has not been challenged or criti-
cised—certainly not by the Opposition; when he finds that
with regard to our internal affairs large claims have been
made upon the confidence of the representatives of the
people, and that they have not hesitated cordially and gene-
rously to vote every supply, though of an unprecedented
amount in time of peace, which they have been asked to
grant to the Crown ; when that Minister cannot lay his
fingers upon a single public act of this session in which any
principle of importance is involved which the house and
those who formally oppose him here have successfully re-
sisted—it would be a very strange thing that a Minister so
favoured and supported should come forward to challenge
the most precious privilege of the House of Commons.
(Hear.) When a Minister is•prepared to make a remission
of taxation it has ever been held to be the most precious
privilege of the House of Commons to give their advice as
to the mode in which that remission should be distributed.
(Hear, hear.) To say that a Minister should, because the
House of Commons differed from him on a point involving
the distribution of a surplus for the relief of their constitu-
ents and tho great body of the people—for him to take such
an occasion to quarrel with the house, or even to desert the
service of the Sovereign, is in my mind a highly unconsti-
tutional proceeding. (Hear, hear.) It has always been laid
down by the most eminent writers, it has always been held
by our most eminent statesmen and orators, that if there be
an unquestioned privilege in this house it is that of advis-
ing the Minister with impunity as to the distribution of
any remission of taxes. (Hear, hear.) We heard last year
a great deal of an assault upon the privileges of the House
of Commons, upon which I will not now d well, because
there will be other opportunities to treat that subject
if necessary. But there never was under these circum •
:lances an assault upon the privileges of the House of Com-
mons so great as, would be perpetrated by that minister who
denied to us the privilege of advising how the surplus of
taxation should be distributed. (Hear.) But it may be
said, " This perhaps is an unfortunate occasion on which
to found the change either of a ministry or of a Parliament ;
but it may be an opportunity which a minister is justified
in taking if he finds himself embarrassed by a powerful and
aggressive opposition." But is that the position of the
noble lord ? (Hear.) I do not mean to say that we who
sit on this side of the table may not have our own private
opinion of the manner in which we were expelled from those
(the ministerial) benches. (Hear.) But no one has ever
heard a murmur from us on the subject. (Hear.) No one
has ever found us whimpering here over our personal losses
and grievances. (Hear.) On the contrary, I knew very
well (for I ventured to predict it) that when the noble lord
moved the resolution which has been described but recently
by one of the most eminent and influential supporters of
the Government as a great mistake, it would lead him and
his friends into a position of great embarrassment and
humiliation. (Hear.) I never hesitated for a moment,
however, in giving to the noble lord when he took that
course, credit for the most honourable feelings. I thought
that he mistook the temper of the country, and would find
out he had mistaken it ; but I had no doubt that in bring •
ing forward his resolution he acted in all sincerity and in
no other spirit than that of a noble and a justifiable ambi-
tion. (Hear, and a laugh.) When the noble lord next
session had to relinquish his bill, no taunt reached him
from these benches, because I thought that noble lord and
tile Government it takipg tilt yarn werc actuated by een-

timents equally honourable. This year the question, which
once was embodied in a resolution, now recognized as a
great mistake—the question of Parliamentary Reform, be-
came definitively shelved—(hear, and laughter)—and from
that mots ent there was no doubt greater irritation conscien-
tiously felt by gentlemen below the gangway in consequence
of the conduct of the Government. That irritation was
not concealed. Every invitation that was Parliamentary
and legitimate was given to us to embarrass the Govern-
ment. Did we avail ourselves of those opportunities?
(Cheers.) On the,contrary, we gave the ministers credit,
as before, for being actuated in the course which they
took by those sentiments of honour and by those convic-
tions of public duty which I believe always animate gen-
tlemen in their position. (Hear, hear.) What has been
the course pursued by the opposition during the present
session? I will not refer to it in detail because many of
the instances which I might adduce might be painful to
hon. gentlemen opposite. (A laugh.) But I will take one
case of a financial character to show the temper of this Op-
position, which some suppose to be so aggressive. A
motion for the repeal of the hop duty was brought before
the house immediately before the right hon. gentleman had
to propose his budget. Having last year objected to repeal
the Excise duty on paper, because it put an end to a com-
plete branch of our revenue, I thought it would be incon-
sistent to be precipitated into suppoiting the repeal of the
hop duty, though unquestionably it is, both in amount and
in its character, very different from the paper duty. In
supporting the Government, and I believe I may say in ob-
taining for them a majority upon the question, I placed
myself in a painful position towards many friends whom I
greatly regard, and towards an interest with which I deeply
sympathise, as I proved by a measure which when Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer I submitted to the house. (Hear.)
There were other occasions fresh in the recollection of hon.
gentlemen, when it is well-known that on this side of the
house there was an anxious and a very prompt determina-
tion to support the Government of the Queen; and even
since this unfortunate, this ill-advised, and unhappy bud-
get was produced the Government have three times, in
Committee of Supply, been sustained from defeat by the
Opposition. (Cheers.) Then I think I have shown that
there are no special circumstances arising from the exis-
tence of a powerful, menacing, and aggressive Opposition
that could give any colour to violent and rash conduct on
the part of the noble lord. (Hear, heft* From this house,
and from those who, because they sit opposite to him, bear
the constitutional and formal name of Opposition, the noble
lord since he has accepted office has receivedupon the whole
a sincere and cordial support. (Cheers.) Sir, no one
grudges the noble lord the position which he occupies.
(Cheers.) He has for many years served his country and
his Sovereign, often with great advantage, though we may
sometimes have questioned the prudence . or propriety of
some particular course that he has taken. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord has on all occasions expressed himself in
assmanner upon the important subject of the defence of
the country which has obtained from this side of the
house an echo sincere and stedfast. (Hear, hear.) The
general policy of the noble lord has been well received
and countenanced on this side of the house;
and on this very question of finance, on this question
of the paper duties, if it is possible to under-
stand language aright, no one who sat in this house last
year can suppose that there is any serious difference be-
tween the gentlemen on this side and the noble lord. (Hear,
hear.) Then is this Minister, who in difficult circumstan-
ces has been so supported—is this Minister whose policy in
these eventful times has not been challenged by the
Opposition—is this Minister, who has come forward to make
unprecedented demands on the finances of the country, to
ask an amount of taxation for which he has never applied
in vain,—is this Minister, who never has brought forward
one great measure that has been defeated by the Opposition
(for I maintain that the measure of Parliamentary Reform
was mainly defeated by his own friends) ; is this the Min-
ister who, after a career so long and experience so great,
after having lived so long in the House of Commons and
loved it so well, who will grudge to the house the enjoyment
and exercise of its dearest privilege—the privilege of con-
sidering how a remission of taxes may be effected most
advantageously for the interests of the country ? (Cheers.)
I can never believe that the noble lord, after running so
illustrious a career, will commit so great a political mistake.
(Hear, hear.) He knows the House of Commons better.
He knows England better. (Hear, hear.) Such a course
might become a man of violent passions. It might become
a man who has a secret understanding and carries on the
business of the State in such a mysterious manner as to
confound all speculation. (Cheers.) But such is not the
course that becomes the manly character of the Prime Min-
ister of England. (Cheers.) Convinced, then, that in assert-
ing this dearest privilege and fulfilling this most important
business weshall arrive, whatever may be the decision of the
Committee of Ways and Means at no result but what will be
to the advantage of the country. I shall offer no opposition
to the first resolution which is to be submitted to our con-
sideration, and which stands second on the list, the first
resolution having been already agreed to. I retain and
strongly retain all those opinions which I have so frequently
expressed respecting the policy we should pursue with
regard to the income-tax; but, concidcring tho circum-
stances in which we are placed, considering that a committee
is now sitting on the subject, and that it is impossible when
there is a remission of taxes that there should be a re-
mission of both direct and indirect taxes, I shall offer no
opposition to the resolution. When we approach the second
resolution that will come under our notice, and which pro-
poses to renew not only the old duties on tea and sugar, but
the war duties also, I think the house will have gravely to
consider whether it is wise to pass that resolution entire.
(Hear.) We ought to consider whether if there is to be a
remission of indirect taxation—which I should be prepared
to approve—we should not find it more expedient and ad-
vantageous that that remission should take piece on this
third resolution. (He .r, hear.) Of course it does not re-
quire a Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform us that that
gentleman made a great mistake who proposed to remit all
the war duties, though no proposal of that sort has met my
ear during the debate—(hear)—and it will become a matter
of grave consideration to what amount and to what articles
that remission should be directed There are two great con-
siderations to be looked to. In the first place we ought to
look to the immediate and general advantage of the commu-
nity, and we ought to take care that if we remit taxation it
shall be remitted in such a manner that the whole advan-
tage shall go into the pockets of the conanunity. (Hear,
hear.) So much for the immediate advantage of the com-
munity ; but there is another consideration in my mind not
less important than that,—we ought to consider how re-
mission of indirect taxation may at the same time stimulate
the industry of the country. (Hear, hear.) I have not the
slightest doubt that if you take off the Exise duty on paper,
or on anything else, you will, t 3 a certain degree and in a
limited sense, stimulate the industry of the country. I don't
use those words to depreciate the remission of any Excise
duty, but it must necessarily be in a limited sense. There
are indirect taxes, however, which you may remit which
which would give a much more extensive stimulus to the
occupations of the people, and which would contribute to
much greater results than the remission of the Excise on
nary pat ticular article. You must look to the state of our
markets. (Hear, hear.) The state of our markets, though
it may be, and, I have no doubt, has been, duly taken into
consideration by the Minister in the estimate laid before us,
is a subject to which the House of Commons cannot be
blind. (Hear, hear.) You have our great American trade
already embarrassed, and though one still cherishes the lin-
gering hope that the dissensions may terminate among
those to whom we are bound, not more by blood than by
the sympathy of a thousand sentiments, still he would be a
sanguine man who can suppose that, under any circum-
stance, the trade of the great American nation will be for
some time that which it has been. (Hear, hear.) Our
Levantine trade is only just escaping—l can hardly say
escaped—but is only just terminating a convulsion
greater than has happened in our time. India is suf-
fering, and the whole of the Continent of Europe
is either in a state of confusion, or its general industry is de-
pressed and destroyed by military preparations or military
expenditure. (Hear, hear.) It is clear, therefore, that the
prOspects of those great markets are by no means suspi-
cious ; but there is a great trade, an increasing trade in the
far East, which offers at this moment a remarkable opening
for the enterprise and the capital of England. Lord Elgin,
who has just returned to this country—it is not in a blue-
book, but the house may depend upon it it is perfectly au-
thentic—says that while in China he took especial pains to
ascertain what was the amount of the populatian of that
country—whether those traditions which had long pre-
vailed on that point were mythical or founded on fact ;
and, having given great pains and industry to ascertain the
truth, it is the opinion of Lord Elgin that the real popula-
tion of China, taken by census, is not less than 400,000,000
human beings. It is impossible, therefore, not to see that
that is the point of the world which ought now to be
watched with the greatest anxiety and interest. (Hear,
hear.) We have another country in the vicinity of China
which, though not so extensive, has a refined civilisation
and a population of many wants—l mean Japan. Have we,
then, an opportunity at this moment, by remitting wisely
and boldly the duty on one great article cf general con-
sumption, not only of adding to the happiness of a thousand
homes—to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's language
—but of giving a consistent stimulus to the commerce of
this country? (Hear.) I think that remission ought not
to be frittered away between the articles of tea and sugar.
(Hear, hear) I think we should concentrate our efforts on
one of them. (Hear, hear.) It is the war tax on tea on
which we should concentrate our efforts—(hear, hear)—and
I believe that, if we do so in a manner to consult the inte-
rests of the revenue, and to secure that the whole advan-
tage of the remission shall reach the pockets of the con-
sumer, the result will be one highly beneficial to the
country. (Cheers.) I think I may furtheratate that an hon.
friend of mine, representing one of the greatest constituen-
cies in the world—my hon. friend the member for Liverpool
—will in committee take our opinion on that course. (Loud
cheers.) I thought it fair to the Government and frank to
the house that I should state the course which we propose
to take. (Hear, hear.) There are points which may after-
wards arise, and upon which it may be necessary for the
committee to act; but it is not necessary for me at present
to go beyond the statement which I have made. (Hear,
hear.) I apprehend that we shall go into Committee
of Ways and Means on Thursday. The house, there-
fore, will not have been taken by surprise, and the Govern-
=At au4 the cclutaittoo will have had tilde to ceAsicicr the

course which they will take in reference to the notice which
I presume my hon. friend will put upon the paper to-night.
(Hear.) I earnestly pray the decision which the house may
come to in Committee of Ways and Means will be the one
most conducive to the interests of the people, and to the
maintenance of the commerce of the country. I cannot
doubt that if the house be animated by sentiments which
will make them desire such a result, those sentiments will
prevail and find an echo in the country; and that no plan
will more sincerely respect your decision—whatever that.
decision may be—then the noble the Prime Minister a
England. (Loud and general cheering.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, it is not my intention at this
late hour of the night to enter into those controversial dis-
cussions which have occupied so much of the time of the
house ; but I am bound to say, that although we have sPeni
a great deal of time in this preliminary discussion, and
although a great variety of opinions have been expresso',
yet I do not complain that we have lost or improvidently
consumed the time of the house—(hear)—because, in a teat;
ter involving so many comparative points, it was nature',
that a great number of varieties of opinions should arise,
and it was desirable that those different subjects should be
freely canvassed and discussed, in order that the house
might come to some final decision on the course which it
should be disposed to take. (Hear.) We have made pr°-
gress, because, though in the earlier discussions there sr
peared to be some doubt in the minds of some hon. members
as to whether there was or was not an available surplus,
the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has fairly
admitted that a surplus there is. The only question, there'
fore, for the house to consider is in what manner that sure
plus should be disposed of. (Hear.) lam glad that the
right hon. gent'eman has stated that with regard to the
proposal which the Government have made with respect 0
the income tax no opposition is intended to be offered. I
should hope that, that being the case, we may be allowed,
late as the hour is, to go into committee to pass the resolu-
tion to which there is no opposition, and clear the way for
that discussion which will take place on Thursday in
re-
spect to those propositions on which there is a difference
of opinion. (He or, hear.) Now, I admit that the
issue
which the right hon. gentleman has stated it to be his in-
tention to propose is a perfectly fair one to be submitted
to the house. (Hear, hear.) Though there are many'
considerations which would lead the house to prefer the
remis-ion of the duty on tea, I think it is a misnomer to
call it a war duty ; becaUse, if I am not under a miser'
prehension, the war duty on tea was Is. 9d., and since the
war the duty has been reduced to is. sd. I believe *he
present duty is lower than ever it was at any former time ;
but, at all events, the higher duty put on during the war
has ceased, and the duty now, instead of, being Is. 9d., i$
only ls. sd. I mention this in order that the house may
clearly understand the point on which its decision will be
required. I admit that it is a very legitimate proposal to.
make, to substitute the repeal of the duty on tea for the
repeal of th - duty en paper. I prefer remission of the duty
on paper. I think there are good and valid reasons why
we should accept the reduction of the income tax, and that
economical and commercial reasons have been stated in
favour of the remission proposed by the Government'
(Hear, hear.) Whether a pledge has been given or not,
whether we are bound by resolutions or not, I think ne
man can deny that, at all events, we are in that position
with regard to the paper duty (not only with respect to
itself but with respect to the other House of Parliament)
that it is highly desirable on the gravest political ground
that we shouldtake the opportunity of repealing the duty,
especially if we can do it in a manner which will render it
less disagreeable than it otherwise would be for the other
house to concur in its repeal. (Cheers.) I think it is clear
that if we do not repeal that tax this year we shall be urged
to take the earliest opportunity to repeal it which the state
of our finances will permit. We shall then, perhaps, have,
to send up that bill singly, and I put it to any one whether
it will not be more easy for the House of Lords to consider
in the proposal, when we accompany the repeal of the.
Excise duty on paper with a popu'ar measure for the dun,'
nution of the income tax—(hear)—whether i; will no
facilitate a good understanding and accord between the two
houses that we should send up the two measures, rather
than send up singly and nakedly a bill for the repeal of the
duty, to which last year the House of Lords refused to
accede. (Hear.) In my opinion it is impossible to exag-
gerate the value of a settlement of a question which has
created ill-feeling and misunderstanding between the two
houses. (Hear.) Ido not mean now to argue the tpiestion
fully; it will be argued when it comes properly under our
consideration ; but I wish to state that I retain the opinion
on which the Government have acted in proposing the ar-
rangement which has been laid before the house. Both
on the ground of the intrinsic value of that repeal, and on
the higher and more important ground of its bearing on
the relations of the two houses to each other, I attach-
great value to maintaining the repeal of the Perot
duty in preference to a diminution of the duty on
tea. (Cheers.) It would be quite misplaced at this time
of night to go further into that argument. I merely state,
therefore, that notwithstanding the reasons which the right
hon. gentleman has stated he is prepared to allege in favour
of the diminution of the duty, her Majesty's Governmets
will certainly maintain the proposal which they have made.
(Cheers.)

The house then went into Committee of Ways and
Means.

Upon the first resolution, with respect to the income-tax,
Mr. T. BARING said he thought it desirable to defer the
adoption of the first resolution for the reduction of the in-
come-tax until it was ascertained whether it was the plea-
sure of the committee to adopt the remission of the paper
duty. His own impression was that if the paper duty was
abolished they ought not to have any reduction of the in-
come-tax, because it was a very different proposition to re-
peal a positive tax like paper from that of reducing a pro*
ductive duty like tea. He thought of moving on Thursday
that the resolution on the income-tax be postponed until
after a decision had been taken on the resolution with re-
spect to paper. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. BARING moved that the Chairman do report pro•
gress.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER confessed
that he was disappointed—(laughter)—in the interest of hon.
gentlemen opposite, among whom he had looked for some
unity of plan and proceeding, especially after the very die
tinct terms in which the right bon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire had declared that there was to be no
opposition to the first resolution. (Hear.) As regarded the
order of those resolutions it was but natural that those im-
posing taxation should precede those by which it was to be
repealed.

Mr. BARING said ho had no communication with his
right hon. friend, and was therefore unaware of the course
which it was intended to pursue. But, entertaining the
strong objections which he felt to a positive throwing sivay
of revenue which there was no means of replacing, he should
simply move that the resolution do not pass, reserving to
himself the right of opposing it on a future occasion.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the object his hon. friend
the member for Huntingdon had in view would be marred
by the course which he proposed to take, which would have
the effect of raising a false issue instead of that between tea
and paper, on which the house was anxious to divide.
In reply to the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
The CHAIRMAN stated that it was a well-established
rule in Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means that a
resolution could not be postponed, unlike a bill where the
clauses might be taken up in whatever order was considered
most convenient.

Mr. DISRAELI said he had not intended by his observa-
tions to preclude any gentleman who might be desirous to
discuss the question of the income-tax from the opportunity
of doing so. If such a desire were really entertained the
Government, he trusted, would waive their right to press
the first resolution.

Mr. BRIGHT said if the hon. member for Huntingdon
could not make up his mind to part both with the penny on
the income-tax and the amount of the paper duties, or an
equivalent, he ought to agree to the reduction of the in-
come-tax and to vote against the remission of duty either
upon tea or paper. (Laughter.)

Lord PALMERSTON thought the hon. member for
Huntingdon would perceive that it was not necessary for
his purposes to object to the passage of the resolution,
which must be adupted or negatived, then, or on some future
occasion, as it could not be postponed. The resolutions
_ _ _

were merely the foundation of that which was to give effect
to them, and many future opportunities would necessarilY
be afforded to those who objected to the reduction of thel
income-tax to negative that portion of the financial scheme
in case they thought proper to do so.
- -

Mr. WALPOLE pointed out that the question which
they were considering was whether the income-tax should
be reimposed at 9d. or at 10d. He was not aware that any
one wished it to be fixed at the latter amount.---(hear, hear)
but, of course, if the hon. gentleman wished to discuss the
question, ho ought to have the opportunity.
Mr. MALINS hoped the hon. gentleman would throw
no impediment in the way of a proposition which was un-
animously approved by the country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. BARING thought it not unreasonable that at
such an hour they should not proceed with the discussion,
but report progress. It had been doubted by several mow
bers whether there was really a surplus.
Lord P ALM ER STON observed that the hon. gentlemen
was in this dilemma, that, while holding that there was not
a surplus to warrant any remission of taxation, he was mov-
ing a resolution the practical effect of which was to prevent
the renewal of the income-tax. (A. laugh, and " Hear,
hear.")
Mr. BARING said that if the Government wished i°
pass the resolution at that hour he would not interfere. He
begged to withdraw his motion.

Mr. CONINGHAM hoped it was understood that the
proposition virtually before them was a vote of confidence
in the Government. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.")
The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

The other orders Were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at 2 o'cloek.

LONDON : Printed and rublished by MURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, printer, at Till: SuN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County at Dildclleiel
TuMlaY, April 28,101,