Mr. Gladstone’s Budget of 1860 contained a proposal which brought about his final rupture with the Conservative party. He proposed to repeal the paper duty.|Question of the Paper Duty.| Now the burdens upon journalism, originally imposed with the deliberate intention of limiting the number and regulating the political character of newspapers, had already been greatly reduced since the beginning of the reign. The stamp duty had stood at a penny on each copy of a newspaper till 1855, when it was abolished; but there remained still a pretty heavy tax on paper. Mr. Gladstone’s proposal to abolish it was met with strong opposition from all sections of politicians, and, strangely enough, from paper manufacturers themselves, as well as from the proprietors of high-priced journals. There was, besides, a vague, but very general, dread of the effect on the public mind of the multiplication of cheap literature. Nevertheless, the Budget Resolutions removing the paper tax passed through Committee, though the last of them was only carried by a majority of nine votes. At the present day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s proposals, having passed through that ordeal, would be regarded as impregnable. It was otherwise in 1860. Lord Lyndhurst, then in his eighty-ninth year, and so frail in body that a rail had to be fixed opposite his seat to support him in speaking, joined the opposition raised in the House of Lords to the repeal of the paper tax, and made a marvellously vigorous and effective attack on the proposal. The Lords vetoed the repeal by a majority of eighty-nine.
J. Phillip, R.A.] [By permission of Messrs. Graves, Pall Mall.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1860.
- Rt. Hon. Edward Ellice.
- Rt. Hon. Sir Francis T. Baring.
- Lord H. G. Vane.
- Richard Cobden, Esq.
- John Bright, Esq.
- Lord Elcho.
- Rt. Hon. Edward Cardwell, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
- Sir Roundell Palmer.
- Rt. Hon. Milner Gibson, President of Board of Trade.
- Rt. Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, President of Poor Law Board.
- W. Massey, Esq.
- Viscount Palmerston, First Lord of the Treasury.
- Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart.
- Rt. Hon. the Speaker.
- Thomas Erskine May, Esq. C.B.
- Lord Charles Russell.
- Mr. Lee.
- Rt. Hon. Sir John Pakington.
- Sir Hugh M’Calmont Cairns.
- Col. J. W. Patten.
- Rt. Hon. Sotheron Estcourt.
- Lord John Manners.
- Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer Lytton, Bart.
- Rt. Hon. Major-General J. Peel.
- Lord Stanley.
- Rt. Hon. B. Disraeli.
- Rt. Hon. Spencer H. Walpole.
- Rt. Hon. J. W. Henley.
- Lord John Russell.
- Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
- Rt. Hon. Sir George Grey, Secretary of State.
- Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wood, Bart., Secretary of State for India.
- Rt. Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bart., Secretary of State for War.
Ministerialists were very indignant; the House of Lords had violated the Constitution; they had refused to sanction the repeal of a tax ordered by the House of Commons, and thereby infringed the privileges of that Chamber. |A Constitutional Problem.| The next step would be that the Lords would claim the right of imposing taxation—the cherished monopoly of the House of Commons. It was certainly an awkward question, but Palmerston was equal to the occasion. He averted a popular storm by moving for a Select Committee to examine and report on the degree, if any, in which the Lords had exceeded their powers. The Committee sat for two months, and reported that no breach of privilege was involved in the refusal of the Lords to ratify the repeal of a tax. It was not the re-imposition of a tax, for, although the Lords have no power to impose taxation, a tax can neither be repealed or imposed without the concurrence of both Houses. In the end the difficulty was got over by Palmerston, who moved certain resolutions affirming the exclusive right of the House of Commons to impose or remit taxation.
Commander A. T. Thrupp.] [From Sketches made on the spot.
ATTACK ON FORTS ON THE PEI-HO RIVER, May 20, 1858.