he expenditure itself was excessive, in my view.
Secondly, because in the mode of that provision I thought the remission of
income-tax was large out of all proportion to the remission on indirect
taxes; and this disproportion I regarded as highly dangerous. I determined
to let no political prejudice stand in my way, and to test to the best of
my very feeble power the opinion of parliament with respect to tea and
sugar. I stated that if the opinion of parliament were against me I should
not factiously prolong the contest but should withdraw from it. Not only
was the opinion of parliament against me, but it so happened that the
opinion of the country was immediately afterwards taken by a dissolution
on that and on other kindred questions. The country affirmed the policy of
Lord Palmerston, and the policy of a materially increased expenditure, by
an overwhelming majority. I had misjudged public opinion; they had read it
aright. After the dissolution of 1857, Sir George Lewis, who had
previously raised the tea and sugar duties for one year, proposed to raise
them for two more. I immediately followed in debate, and thanked him
warmly for doing it. All this of course I can prove. I said, we are going
to have more expenditure, we must therefore have more taxation.

As I have gone thus far with my history, I will conclude it.
Notwithstanding what had happened, I did not absolutely abandon at that
time the hope that we might still reach in 1860 a state which might enable
us to abolish the income-tax. I had a faint expectation of more economy
under another government. When Lord Derby's administration came in in
1858, they professed to reduce expenditure by L800,000, and to contemplate
further reductions. I expressed my satisfaction, and gave them the extreme
of support that I could. But I then clearly pointed out that, even with
the scale of expenditure they then proposed, we could not abolish the
income-tax in 1860. In a few months, their reductions vanished into air.
In 1859 came the famous "reconstruction." I took office in June, and found
a scale of expenditure going on in the treasury far more prodigal and
wanton than I had ever charged upon Lord Palmerston's first government. I
found also that when the estimates had been completed, I believe entirely
on _their_ basis, there was a probable deficiency of four or five millions
for a year of which nearly one-third had passed. And the expenditure was I
think nearly seventy million