The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

to that resolution you cannot doubt that it is the right of
the House of Commons to propose the manner, amount, and
nature of taxes. (Hear.) As was explained very clearly
by my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle, on the
subject of precedents, in the eat ly part of the year 1787 such
an instance occurred. But, as happened to Mr. Pitt, he had
the year before shown his sense of the privileges of the
Commons when it was said in the Lords there was a deficit,
and he refused to send up the accounts of the Commons to
be examined by the Lords. Then Mr. Pitt accomplished a
memorable act—a commercial treaty with France, which
was of great benefit to both countries. After a most delica'e
and careful investigation into the customs and excise Mr.
Pitt passed 3,700 resolutions and the excise duties were re-
duced. Well, he likewise imposed taxes in the same bill,
and when that bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord
Carlisle objected that the bill contained three principal ob-
jects—a commercial treaty of which they approved; con-
solidation, which they did not approve ; and, above all,
taxes, to which they might be disposed to cbject. Let the
bill then, he contended, be divided into three separate parts,
and let the house go into committee on each object. That
speech was answered by Lord Sydney, who was at that
time a Secretary of State, and he said that all three mat-
ters belonged to one arrangement, and tended to one end,
and that was the fact, and the question then raised was ap-
plicable to the present bill, because all these things formed
parts of one arrangement, and tended to one end, viz., the
settlement of the finances for the year. The opponents of
that bill divi led the house, and were beaten by 29 to 7,and
therefore the Lords themselves, taking a full and distinct
view of all their privileges, decided by more than three to
one that they ought to consider the bill as a whole. Was
that all? Was there no other precedent? It was that the
house ought not to repeal and lay on taxes in the same hill.
Another great measure of Mr. Pitt's was the introduction
of the income tax. He hadvery much increased the assessed
taxes, but his measure had failed, being evaded in various
ways, and he conceived the idea of obtaining the necessary
supplies for carryiogon thearduous war in which the coun-
try was then engaged in a totally different manner, and in-
troduced a measure, the 39 Geo. 111., c. 13, which began
with the total repeal of the act of the preceding year, which
levied the additional assessed taxes, and then proceeded to
impose an incometax to provide for the revenue of the year.
(Hear, hear.) In 1807 there was a bill in respect of certain
duties of excise in Ireland, altering various duties, increas-
ing some and diminishing others. One of the clauses was a
simple provision abolishing altogether the duties on ale and
beer in Ireland. This was an act in conformity with the
one now proposed. The income tax was increased, and the
duties on tea and sugar retained, and the duty on paper
totally repealed. It is plain, therefore that we are proceed-
ing according to pra cedent, but we are met by the observa-
tion that it is not a convenient mode of doing it. It limits
the power of the House of Lords, said the right hon. gen-
tleman who spoke last, and he even went so far as to say
it was an insult to them. I cannot see how it can be an
insult to send them up a bill similar to two bills which Mr.
Pitt has sent up. Nobody can deny that the House of
Lords has a perfect right to reject a bill sent up by the
Commons. They have always asserted that right, and it
has never been questioned. My right hon. friend near me
(Sir J. Graham) said it was an extreme right which ought
not to be resorted to in ordinary cases. The real question
before us is, whether the house has used that discretion
wisely or not, and whether it is an extreme case. My
opinion is the other way; but I am not going to complain
either of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons
on this occasion. lam quite satisfied that they considered
the revenue derivable from the tax on paper to be necessary
for the service of the country, and on that ground rejected
the bill. The question for the house now is, what will be
the case for the future. Admitting that the House of
Lords have an extreme right, is it desirable that, having
been successful in doing that for which they have no pre-
cedent whatever in rejecting a bill for removing a tax which
they thought necessary for the purpose of raising sufficient
revenue for are year, is it desirable to admit the House of
Lords to the possession of equal functions with the Com-
mons in respect to the imposition or remission of taxes?
(Hear, hear.) That is the extent to which the right hon.
member for Stroud went last year, and the hon. gentlemen
on the ether side of the house do not speak quite so plainly
as the right hon gentleman the member for Stroud. It is
plain that they consider the House of Commons so ill-
advised and inconsiderate in financial matters that it is ne-
cessary to send their financial schemes to the House of
Lords to be settled by an arrangement between the two
houses. That is what I deny. My belief is, that the great
privilege which was maintained by our ancestors, and as-
serted by the acts which establish their privileges, it is our
duty to maintain for the good of the trade and commerce of
the country, which are so much affected by our financial
arrangements. If, when we have determined certain taxes
shall be altered or remitted, the House of Lords is to say
they shall be retained, nothing but confusion can result.
That must be the inevitable result of taking the proceedings
of last year as a precedent, and not to take any means by
which we can secureour ancient privileges. It is a right which
we not only have, but which we ought to exercise, and if we
put all these measures into one bill the House of Lords must
either accept or reject. The hon. and learned gentleman
made some supposed proposition of relieving the country
from all imposts, and putting on an Os. income tax. Ido
not believe that any House of Commons would do such a
thing as that, and to make the attempt would be rash and
injurious to the country. Notwithstanding the setting up
of direct taxation, which it is said we are doing, I find that
the indirect taxation has increased from £33,000,000 to
£40,000,000, and certainly that does not look as if we are
destroying the revenue. I thing the question of the reduction
of the tea as against the paper duties has been discussed
en,,ugh, and I shall leave the matter in the hands of my right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at the
same time I cannot help being surprised at the rapidity of
the change in the opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite re-
specting the supplies. For some days nothing was heard
but inquiries after the surplus, and its existence was denied
altogether. It was said that it was an entire delusion.
When they had gone on proclaiming that for some days they
announced that they should not be surprised if after all
there was a surplus, and not only that, but the surplus
would afford a million and a quarter more for the reduction
of taxation. But now after the division on the very ques-
tion, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated
the manner in which the surplus is to be disposed of, we
are met again by the old cry of no surplus at all. How
can it be said that we propose to diminish the revenue by
reducing the paper duties? Let the house look at what
took place between 1844 and 1854, There was in that
period a total abolition of duty on various articles, includ-
ing glass, bricks, and soap, and that reduction of taxation
amounted to 21 millions. At the same' time, other taxes
were put on, amounting to £1,700,000. Does it follow
that because of that reduction there was a deficiency of
£BOO,OOO ? No ; on the contrary, in consequence of the
greater employment of labour and greater consumption
of taxable articles, instead of there being a deficiency of
£BOO,OOO, there was actually an excess of £500,000, and so
when this reduction shall take place, instead of there
being a total loss from the abolition of this duty, which
so materially interferes with manufactures, we may ex-
pect from the relief which will be given that the revenue
will rise again to a higher amount. (Hear, hear.) Some
persons were employed in making bricks and many on
soap, and nobody seemed to think that any harm would
happen to the country if these branches of industry were
relieved, but the moment you come to paper it is imagined
that some great calamity is to happen. Paper may be em-
ployed for purposes different from bricks and glass, but as
regards the industry which is employed in its production
there is no difference whatever. Men are employed and
receive wages the same as in the case of bricks and glass,
but there is some hobgoblin which takes the shape of a
penny newspaper, which always seems to frighten hon.
gentlemen opposite into a continued opposition to the abo-
lition of the duty, (" Oh," from the Opposition.) It is
impossible not to see in the course of these debates a de-
sire to depreciate the measures and to injure the political
reputation of my right hon. friend who sits near me. (Oh,
from the Opposition, and cheers from the Liberal benches.)
Well, sir, I think it is the duty of every colleague of
my right hon. friend to resist that attempt ; and, be-
lieving that he has always employed his great talents for
the benefit of the people of this country—believing that
the people will appreciate his exertions on their behalf—l
think that their gratitude for these efforts will stifle all the
accusations which party has made, and that my right hon.
friend will have an enduring reputation amongst those who
have admired his splendid abilities and his devotion to
the welfare and well-being of the country. (Loud cheers.)
Lord It. CECIL, who spoke amid much interruption,
condemned the course of proceeding of that house towards
the Peers, upon whom, he said, they were now making a
most unjust attack. All the main questions of the day
were now becoming financial measures, and if the Commons
interposed its privileges in all these measures the functions
of the House of Loris would be so cramped and limited
that it would be excluded from the arena of legislative deli •
beration.

Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of the debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I hope
the hon. member will reconsider his proposal. It is really
time that we should review the proceedings in regard to the
financial measures, which have been already unusually pro-
longed, before we accede to the farther adjournment of a
discussion in which no issue has been raised. (Hear, hear.)
Indeed, I am not aware that it is intended to make any
motion or offer any opposition on this stage of the bill. The
financial statement was made on the Sth of April. The
Government have put aside all business of every descrip-
tion in order t) go on with the financial business. The
plan contained only two propositions, neither of a very novel
or complex character, and yet we are now only at the second
reading of the bill, and have consumed a sixth part
of the F. e!7sion ; 17 days were occupied before the
Si.ealctr was allowed to leave the chair—a fact
entirely unprecedentad in our financial history. In 1853,
when very extensive propositions were proposed, after seven
days we were allowed to proceed to the discussion of them
in Ways and Means. In 1845, when. tlye proposals were also
extensive, the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means
was commenced after three d,:ys. The Government wished
to carry ou the financial business from day to day,
but hon. members would not give way. Never until
to-night have we heard of this constitutional question.
(" Oh," and " Hear.") At least it has not been debated
ou previoas nights. But no issue is challenged on