The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. TILE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT. The Marquis of NORMANBY asked her Majesty's Government whether they had any objection to give a copy or extract of any despatch from Sir J. Hudson forwarding the report made to the Parliament now sitting at Turin as to the numbers of electors qualified to vote at the late election, and of those who gave their suffrages to the present sitting members, and of those who voted for other candidates. The noble marquis said, as the Sardinian Chambers had given the information to the public, the Government would not refuse to give copies of the papers he asked for. Lord WODEHOUSE said no such despatch had been received. He was, however, assured that the Parliament of Turin was a fair exponent of the feeling of the Italian people. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.--YESTERDAY. THE BUDGET. On the motion for going into committee of ways and means, Mr. HUBBARD moved as an amendment, " That it is not expedient to remit taxation to such an extent, that the annual produce of the remitted taxes shall exceed the esti mated surplus revenue, in the budget for the current financial year." He did not mean to go into the question as to the right which Government had to expect of receiving any sum from China within the financial year which had just begun. He took the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade to be satisfactory on that head respecting the sum of £70,000 which ought to be carried to the credit of the Chinese expedition. He would ask the attention of the house to the course pursucd by a prudent manufacturer, who carried on extensive operations, and had built a mill, which he had insured. The m in was burnt down, and he received the amount of it. The first thing he did was to rebuild his mill with the money which he received, or paid it away in the discharge of the debt incurred in doing so. Ho could not see whore the difference lay between the pru dent course of that manu f a cturer and that which a prud en t Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take in his dealings with the country at large. He believed that the £750,000 expected from China ought not to be placed on the credit side of the national account, and the balance of surplus, i n stead of being £1,923,000, would be £1,173,000. But he would assume the balance was really £1,923,000, because it was not upon one point only which he wished to insist. His right hon. friend proposed to deal with that sum, and, in the course of his eloquent speech, he told the house that he intended to give up about one million income tax, and £1,400,000 paper duty. He wondered how his right hon. friend would deduct £2,400,000 from £1,923,000; but the course pursued by the right hon. gentleman reminded him of the tricks of the conjuror, who produced from the same box flowers, feathers, and some blind pigeons. (Cheers, and laughter.) He wondered whether his right hon. friend would be more dexterous than conjurors at coun try fairs, and it was behind the scenes which he wished . the house to go to see how £2,400,000 was met by a sur plus of £1,923,000. In the first place the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to collect the income tax at the reduced amount for only three quarters of the year, and the paper duty he did not propose to remit on the 15th August, because that would trench too much upon his balance, but on the Ist October next. He now came to the point to which he desired to call the attention of the house, and he would ask whether it was a wise and safe policy for a finance minister to propose so large a remission of taxation, and to justify that, not by the surplus at his command, but to measure that surplus at his command against a distant period of the financial year, within which he proposed to confine the measures of remission. Assum ing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented a northern constituency to whom the repeal of the sugar duties would be an acceptable boon, he (Mr. Hubbard) could un derstand the right hon. gentlemen, in proposing such a mea sure, to say he could not make the remission at present, but that he would do so from December next, the loss from which would be only one and a half million. With regard to such a mode of making remissions, it had, as he humbly sub mitted, a most injurious effect upon the future interests of the country, and hardly came within the province of those propositions which the right hon. gentleman had chal lenged the house to discuss. (Hear.) Ile would now come to matters relating to the importation of foreign merchan dise, and undoubtedly, taking one year with another, a country with the productive power of England exported more than it imported. But from the ordinary course of trade there would arise exceptional circumstances, and the year 1847 was a remarkable instance. This country and the adjacent islands suffered from scarcity of grain, and the consequence was that they had to import not less than £20,000,000 worth to supply the wants of the people. That was paid for by gold to a large extent, and not by exports. The late season was like that of 1847, and the country had consequently been suffering from scarcity of grain products. and that had led to unusually large importations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that, whereas in 1859.60 this country imported £17,000,000 worth of corn, it last year and to this time had imported £37,000,000 worth, being an excess of £20,000,000. But who could say that that expressed the loss which the country would suffer from the failure of the grain crops? 'With regard to the impor tation of wine to the extent of 11 million during the past year, he was assured by one 'of the most eminent houses in the City that the general character of those additional im ports of the past twelve months had been of a decidedly in ferior description, and that a large quantity of French wines for home consumption weuld entail considerable loss upon the shippers and importers, and would prevent further shipments. He had been informed that a large quantity of this wine was spoiling in the docks. Ons of two things must follow these importations—the wine must either go into consumption and ruin the constitutions of those who drank it, or remain in the docks and ruin those who imported it. (Hear, hear.) Leaving out of the accounts the money ex pended for cheese, butter, and eggs, it appeared that this country had imported corn and wine to the value of about £22,000,000, and that was an expression of the loss suffered by British capitalists and British farmers. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the revenue, it appeared they had received <£Bo,ooo from the duty on grain, and about £373,000 in excess of the expected duty upon wine, making about £1,200,000; and in addition to that amount he found from a paper circulated yesterday that by the system of quarterly collections of the income tax a large sum had been obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. gentleman then referred to letters which he had received, showing that the tax collec tors in some parts of the country had demanded the pay ment of the income tax due on March 20 three weeks before that period ; and he also stated that he himself, residing in St. Margaret's, Westminster, had received a notice that in consequence of the important financial measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imperative orders had been issued to collect the income tax forthwith, and consequently he had paid on the 12th March every farthing of income tax which would fall due on the 20th. He wanted to know whether the extra £2,000,000 income tax had been collected under the same pressure ? No doubt his right honourable friend would say it was perfectly legal, and so it was, but he (Mr. Hubbard) . desired to know whether this system of collection was to be maintained, for he had received a series of letters on the subject from all parts of the country. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to know whether the taxpayers were to be called upon for the pay. ment of their taxes, not merely immediately when they were due, but three or four weeks before they became due. (Hear, hear.) That was a subject which he hoped the house would find was not below their dignity to inquire into. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member, having quoted a former speech of Mr. M. Gibson's, in which the practice of making pro spective budgets was censured, proceeded to say that he thought that admirable doctrine in any case, but doubly ap plicable to the budget of the present year, which antici pated not only expenditure but income. It was not equi.. table, he contended, irrecoverably to relinquish a tax and leave the responsibility of providing for the deficit upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer of another year. One word in conclusion. He thought the house would not require to be told that he was not moved by no party feeling, but that his object was to point out defects which referred to the present scheme, but might affect the financial system of the country for many successive years. The hon. member concluded by thanking the house for the patience with which he had been listened to. The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER said that it was his intention to reply tt) the hon. member in the briefest terms possible ; and he must confess that he failed alto.. gether to discern the connexion between a considerable portion of that speech and the motion which his hon. friend ha d submitted to the house; so much so, that out of the numerous details into which his hon. friend had entered, there wasnot one which might not have belonged to ano ther occasion. It appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) a matter of very great doubt whether the speech had been made to the motion, or the l tatioanharran.ged to square with the speech. (Hear, h eat. upon him the necessity cheese, I:s4v thethat he answer respectingshould make no of iutyin on. friend had imposed which had only the remotest,vosilges and other matters he connexion w ith the q uestion on the table ; neither sh ou l d friend's comparison between certain. syatesuanZer his hon. the proceedings of a young man who might, have largefinanceance and con nexions at Newmarket and elsewhere, be canthe a ttacked was that which had been established by law this country, and, with respect to that touching letter Which had been read by his hon. friend, he must say that that letter having been addressed to his hon. friend in his capa city of chairman of the income tax committee, he (Mr. Gladstone) regretted, as a member of that committee, that his hon. friend had not taken the usual course of submitting the mat ter of complaint to the executive, so that the whole affair might have been carefully inquired into. (Hear, hear.) He should not follow his hon. friend into the dry details which he had quoted from circulars which had been prepared by persons who were not under the control of the Government, but if his hon. friend had shown them to him it would have been his - duty to ascertain the facts and to lay them before the house. There was but one point respecting the income tax which required notice. His hon. friend had said that if such extraordinary power was exercised to get in the income tax this year, the revenue of the coming year would be proportionably impoverished. Now, that might be very fair to use in an argument, but was untrue as a matter of fact, as so far from the collection of the in- time tax having outrun the collection of the previous soa. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1861 son it had lagged considerably behind. There was still a considerable arrear of the third quarter, so that all appre hensions on account of the coming year were wholly u.u. necessary. The sum and substance of his hon. friend had, in fact, occurred very near its conclusion. His hon. friend said, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not deny the fact, that they were repealing taxes the total an nual proceeds of which exceeded the surplus shown on the estimate of revenue and expenditure. True, the surplus was £1,900,000, and the taxes proposed to be repealed amounted to £2,400,000. Now that was the entire point of the speech of his hon. friend, and his hon. friend asked by his motion the house to affirm that they would not pursue any such course, but would refuse to remit any taxation beyond the estimated surplus of the year. All he could sa y on that point was that hi s l ion . f r i en d a sked then to reverse the principle upon which h a d been based the most important financial operations of the last 20 years. It had always been the practice of the legislature to repeal taxes to a much greater amount, and under circumstances far more venturesome, th an those of the present year. Ile could give his hon, friend three instances occurring in the time of three different chancellors of the Exchequer. In 1848 the surplus was £113,000, and the House of Commons passed an act repea ling sugar duties to the extent of £1,480,000, not me rely for that year, but comprehending successive falls for seven years to come. In 1853, with a surplus of X 93,000, which was considered so large that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade assailed him (Mr. Gladstone) with a motion for the repeal of the adver tisement duty, which, if ther e h a d b een a di v i s i on, he would have carried, supported by the hon. member for Bucking ham, taxes were impos e d t o th e extent of £ 3,039,000; but remissions were made to th e ex t en t o f £5 , 38 4,000, so that with a surplus of £493,000, remissions were made amount ing to £2,345,000. (Hear, hear.) That remission extended over four years. Again, in 1857, his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department, had a surplus of £1,931,000, and he remitted in excess taxes to the amount of £3,800,000, being four and a half millions of the 9d. income tax, and £1,200,000 on tea and coffee. Therefore, in point of fact, the motion of his hon. frier d did not re- quire detailed discussion, for to adopt it would be to over turn a principle upon which the house had always based its finances. The present year was a stronger case than those which he had just read. His hon. friend complained that their reductions exceeded their surplus by £500,000, but they must remember that there was this year an extra charge for China, and which there was every moral cer tainty would terminate this year, of a million and a half. There was, therefore, never a plainer or a simpler case. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he should not trouble the house with any further observations on his hon. friend's motion. Mr. NEWDEGATE complaine - d that all the pledges under which the income tax had been first assented to by the house had since its imposition been violated, and that what the late Sir R. Peel had described as an exceptional expedient had gradually come to be a pivot and a basis of taxation. Mr. DISRAELI, who spoke in a low tone of voice, ob served that although the motion of the hon. member for Buckingham might be fair as criticising the financial mea sures of the Government, still his hon. friend advanced principles which were at variance with our present manage ment of the finances. As, therefore, his hon. friend could not expect his motion to be adopted without very prolonged discussion, he trusted that he would not ask the house to come to a division on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUBBARD expressed his willingness to withdraw his amendment, but the consent of the house was refused. The question was accordingly plit, and the amendment was negatived without a division. The house then went into committee of ways and means, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I rise for the purpose of proposing on the part of the Government that we should pass a resolution which continues until the Ist of July, 1862, certain duties upon tea and sugar, toge ther with other subsidiary articles in the same class with sugar. They are duties which have been called popularly but not correctly war duties, because in point of fact they are duties which were enacted by the house in time of peace, namely, in the year 1857, at a considerable time after the Russian war had ceased. In 1853 when it was my duty to propose a measure bearing upon the subject of the tax on tea the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire observed that I ought not to do so without making a pre liminary the leads me y at s h ta e te t in he e:t e , an lyr d es l se e d o . m l w iln is i h na th r Butlanothery on thl occasion reason s to the same conclusion. We have had a considerable change of circumstances since Monday fortnight. We then made a proposition which we considered to be a proposition of con ciliation, but the proposal in our view of conciliation has been received as a proposal of controversy and of war. We thought that we were offering the olive branch, and it has been received as if we had been throwing down the glove, and if that be so, I am bound to say on my own behalf, and on behalf of my colleagues, that we do not decline the com bat. (Cheers.) We have no reason to, and we do not com plain of the discussions that have already taken place. We have the satisfaction of recollecting that for three days the most minute and searching as well as the most sweeping criticisms were applied to the estimated balance-sheet of the year, all founded upon the principle that there was no rea son to believe that we had a surplus of income over expen diture, and at the termination of the debate we had the satisfaction of seeing the right hon. member for Bucks rise in his place and at once and unceremoniously dismiss all those arguments, saying to the house in language of perfect truth and good sense that the wisest course for the house was to adopt the figures laid before them by the Go vernment.: (Loud cheers.) I may perhaps be permitted, as the matter is one a little personal to myself, to make an apology for a course which on my part was not altogether favourably commented upon by the right hon. gentleman. It was observed by the right hon. gentleman, and I think with great truth, that it was not desirable to bring any of the permanent civil servants of the crown before the house, that the minister should take the entire responsibility of the estimates, and the least he says about them the better. I thought, after I had seen a course pursued that had no parallel in the recollection of any of us, that I had no choice but to wake a clean breast of it, and tell the house point by point the whole proceeding by which the estimated figures had been arrived at. I did this, therefore, under great pressure, and I do not know that I had any choice. I was criticised, however, by the right hon. gentle man for the course I pursued, and I must confess it was with some surprise I recollected that when the right hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, under no pres sure whatever, hut upon a casual doubt let fall by a deceased friend (Mr. Wilson) with respect to the estimates of the right hon. gentleman, he fell back immediately upon the heads of the revenue department, and said, " I am of course in no degree disposed to shrink from the responsibility of having laid the estimates before the committee; on the contrary, I to the fullest extent accept and embrace them. But I may add that I have been empowered to state on the authority of the gentlemen in whom I, and every gentleman who holds the position I have the honour to occupy, must place the utmost dependence, that there is not a figure I have submitted to the coramitt,e that has not their fullest sanction." (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI—Those estimates were not estimates ' prepared by the Government of which I was a member, but by our predecessors. (Loud Opposition cheers.) We were suddenly called upon to accept the estimates of our prede cessors, and though this does not justify the reference to the civil servants, it makes a very great difference. ' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I cannot admit that the right hon. gentleman is correct in his state ment. The estimates of his predecessors were estimates of expenditure, but the point here in question is really an esti• mate of revenue. (Cheers.) But I will not enter into that point of controversy. The right hon. gentleman said in a manly manner, "I do not justify the course I, pursued." Then I say by all means, if we are to have these discussions, let us have them; the more the subjects are discussed the better will they be understood ; and if it were not for one very inconvenient monosyllable I should be disposed to quote the passage in "Macbeth," which I can, as it is, only refer to. I mean the passage which begins with " Lay on, I Macduff," and ends with expressing an uncivil wish with respect to the man "who first cries hold, enough." (Loud laughter.) We have before us on the present occasion two questions. We have before us the absolute merits of the only contested part of the resolution that I am submitting to the house, namely, that which refers to the tea duty, and we have likewise to consider the merits of the tea duty, and its claims to remission in conjunction with another duty to which much reference has been made, namely, the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) Take first the absolute merits of the tea duty, and it is of interest and not altogether without re creation to see that the claims of the tea duty to remission are in such exceeding good odour on the other side. The condition of the poor man has found its way to the heart of a very large number of highly tespected gentlemen who sit o pp o site. But the claims of the tea duty to remission were not always Thus favourably viewed. On a former occasion when the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed the re mission of the tea duty, what was stated by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks on the part of th e p a ity which then as now he led ? lie did not say, "This is a proposal so manifestly advantageous, that it at once co m • mands my assent," but declined the responsibility of any remission s i m ply upon its own merits. He said on the 13th May, 1853, "The committee must recollect that when a proposition was made by the late Government to repeal the duties on tea, we purposely combined with it an article of British growth with which tea was supposed to enter into competition—namely, the duty on malt . " We were asked to remit the excessive duty on the article of home growth, and bemuse we did not propose to re mit the dut y on that article, which amounts to about 20 or 25 p er cent. on the price of beer, vele l . 200 per cent., le the tea duty was hon. gentl emen ed the policy, and said that in the . the right opinion of th e G overnm "n t of Lord Derby the duty on tea et ought not to be reduced without sacrificing the duty on malt. As regards the merits of the duty, I may say, as it hasbe en said, that I have wrapp ed Up my ld. in paper, as the right e , e hon. gentleman thought it ue,'..A_ ry to wrap up his tea in malt. (A laugh.) As regards the merits of the duty, we think more favourably of the case than he did. We think this is a remission that, under favourable circumstances, does not require to be argued, and that would he highly beneficial to the people of this country. But at present, we have to consider it with reference to the extravagant claims made for it in certain quarters. I showed, in iatroduciPg tie (Notion, what would be the eff ec t of the • notremission c u o p n o t n e s t t h e d e c and o ns u w m h i e . r e , h and I k n l likewise w e i a s this, cannot no be which has confuted, that the reduction of mere revenue duties for the benefit of the consumer has not been the first but the last among all the great objects of commercial reform for the last 20 years, and that although good in itself it is and has been recog nised by statesmen and legislators during that period to be less advantageous than those great measures which have been adopted for the abolition and protection and the libera tion of trade from its fetters. Since then a new fact has come into our view. There is an amendment, and several petitions have been presented from the other side of the house, but I am not aware whether any of those petitions were in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Liverpool. Was the petition from Liverpool in favour of it ? Mr. HORSFALL—The petition from Liverpool was against the repeal of the paper duty, and praying that any surplus that alight be in the hands of the government should be applied to the remission of the tea and sugar duties or of the income tax. I also presented one from Warrington. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—My ques tion was intended in courtesy to the hon. gentleman to know whether the petition he presented was in favour of his amendment, because if it had been it would have been so far an argument in favour of the amendment which I am about to criticise. But I understand that the substance of the petition, though against the plan of the Government, is not in favour of the amendment of the hon. gentleman. Now I confess it is curious to observe the circumstances of this amendment. Some gentlemen who presented petitions to-night observed they had been signed very numerously and largely in the course of a few hours. That is a very singular circumstance. For nearly three weeks the pro posals of the Government have been before the country, but only within a few hours had a spontaneous feeling on the part of the trading communities been experienced. (Laughter.) It took fifteen days to consider what course should be pursued, but no time has been lost in arriving at the decision when this point in question had been reached. And what is this expression for ? For the re duction of the tea and sugar duties. But the very fallacy we have risen to expose is that if these duties should be reduced we should be left with less than half the amount available that we have now. But Ido not think the hon. gentleman has taken time to consider the grammatical force and effect of his amendment. Ido not know whether he is aware of its legal construction, but I am glad of the oppor tunity of speaking before him, and before he rises to propose it I would advise him to make Lome alteration in its form. I apprehend that the legal effect of the amendment is this. It is, in fact, an established principle of construction with regard to every financial taxing act, that it must be con strued in favour of the taxpayer. Now, the hon. gentleman lays a tax upon tea of ls. sd. per lb. till the 30th of Septem ber—for his words are " until the Ist October," which means up to the Ist of October, and he provides for a tax of ls. per lb. after the Ist of October ; so that under the ope ration of the amendment, as it stands, all those who have accumulated tea waiting for the reduction of the duty would upon the Ist of October, have the advantage of entering it free of any duty whatever. (Laughter.) I merely call the attention of the hon. member to this point; it is but a ver bal criticism. (Hear, hear, from the Conservative bench.) But I want to call the attention of the committee to the effect of the proposal that is now made, and I think it is quite fair to do so, considering the circumstances under which the amendment has been framed, and ushered into existence, with the support of two gentlemen who may be said in matters of finance to have almost equal authority— the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, and the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. First, what is the effect of this amendment upon the surplus ? We have heard a great deal about the unreality of the surplus, al though the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks dissents from that opinion. I ventured to say the other night that I deprecated the exchange of responsibilities between the Government and the Opposition, and when I found the Opposition taking upon themselves the custody of the public purse,`, I doubted whether it would come to good. How does the matter stand ? We propose the re peal of the paper duty from the Ist of October, and the amount of deduction from our surplus on that account will be £665,000, leaving us an estimated surplus of £480,000. The moment I saw the motion of the hon. gentleman I took the utmost means in my power to obtain an estimate of its effect, and my belief is that tbat estimate was gives without any knowledge of the reason why the question was asked. At any rate the result was this, that the loss upon tea proposed by the motion of the hon. gentleman and the provident stewards of British finance with whom he co-operated was, not £665,000 for the financial year, but £950,000 ; that is to say, he takes away £285,000 from the modest, and as some think insufficient, surplus I have proposed to retain, and leaves me with £123,000. And this is the upshot of three nights' debate. (Cheers.) At length the trumpet sounds, the troops are marshalled, the preliminaries questioning the surplus and showing that it is not to be relied upon have been disposed of, and when we come to actual practice the proposal is to take £300,000 out of the little surplus the insufficiency of which has been de nounced. (Cheers.) I asked no captious question when I asked if the people of Liverpool sanctioned the amendment of the hon. member. I deny that they have. I will draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the course of financial legislation for the last 20 years. It is a preliminary prin cipleiname.liitts-witia owsbornis dative csitablbetted - *Ma by reason and experience that the first effect of any reduction we propcse should never be postponed. In 1842, when we began 'these operations—when, on the first occasion that they took legislative effect on a large scale, we had not the same advantages of experience that we now have, the government of Sir Robert Peel made a double mistake. We were many weeks carrying the tariff through the house, and the arrangement made was this : First of all, that the whole of the reduction in cus toms should be postponed while the house was debating them, and not take effect till the royal assent had been given to the bill; and secondly, with regard to timber, the new duty was postponed till the' 10th of October. I will show you the effect of postponing these reductions now. It is not possible for me to show the effect with regard to the whole mass of miscellaneous articles, but I take one of the most important affected by the general postponement of the re ductions. I refer to coffee. The reduction in this case was proposed at an early date in 1842, but it did not take effect until the 9th July; and this was the result—the reduction was very large, no doubt—tbe duty was reduced on foreign and colonial coffee from a range of from 6d. to is. sd. to a range of from 4d. to Bd. The consumption before the oth July was 10,465,0001b5.,"and in the corresponding portion of the previous year the amount had been 13,823,0001b5., so that there was a reduction of about 30 per cent. upon the whole consumption of coffee up to the 9th July, caused by our unwise holding over the reduction. After the 9th July there was an increase, and it was as follows :—ln 1841, after the 9th July, the consumption was 14,597,0001b5., which was increased in the following year to 17,922,0001bs , or a rise of 3,325,0001b5.—that is to say, the increase was, excepting a very insignificant figure, 100,0001bs. or 200,0001b5., although we had made a great reduction in the duty. Such was the paralysis of trade, that the augmenta tion, after the reduction, did but just bring up the aggre gate consumption to the consump: ion of the former year, so that we lost the revenue without being able to say that we added to the comforts of the people. I tell the hon. gentle.- man that he is not representing the sentiments of the people of Liverpool, or of any commercial community in this coun try. I will, however, go to the more conspicuous article of timber, as that will more distinctly test the question, and compare the results of the postponement of the reduction of duty upon it in 1842 with those of the previous year. In 1841, before the 10th October, 554,000 loads of timber were consumed, and that was a very slack year. In 1842 173,000 loads only were consumed, making a reduction of 381,000 loads, or 70 per cent. of the whole consumption. But after October, 1841, 191,000 loads of timber were con sumed, and in 1842 the consumption was 351,000 loads. There WAS an increase, therefore, of 160,000 loads; but this was not one-half of the reduction previously caused. The amount produced in 1841 was £760,000, and in 1842 it was £523,000, showing a loss therefore to the re venue of £377,000, and a decrease on the consumption of the year of £221,000 loads. Then with regard to tea, I will show the effect of thus paralysing trade. In 1852-3 the tea duties were reduced in May. The usual monthly consump tion at that time was 4,400,000 lbs. In March and April, two months before the reduction, the consumption, instead of being 4,400,000 lbs., was only 2,650,000 lbs. In 1853-4 there was a further fall of duty, and that period is more analogous to the present case, because the reduction was foreseen for a considerable time. In 1853-4 the usual con sumption was 4,750,000 lbs. The reduction took place in April, and the consumption during January, February, and March, was 2,750,000 lbs. per month. In 1857-8 a reduc tion again took plaee:on the sth of April. The usual monthly consumption then was 6,450,000 lbs., but in the course of three months it was 3,200,000 lbs. only during each month, or half the ordinary consumption. Such would be the para lysing effect of the hon. member's proposal. But what would be the effect on the consumer during these alterations? I do not hesitate to say that, as far as my experience goes, though the reduction of the duty on tea would no doubt be beneficial in its operation, yet the full effect of that reduc tion would not, until after a long pet iod, reach the consumer in any proportion coming near to the loss of the revenue that would be occasioned. Let us now come to the figures as they affect the poor man, whose claims have been so much spoken of. The tea duties have been twice reduced, viz., in 1857 and in 1853. In 1857 the reduction was from ls. 9d. to Is. sd. per lb., causing a loss of 4d. on each lb. to the revenue. What did the consumer get ? He gained three farthings only. (Hear, hear.) It may be said, however, that this was the effect of the war with China, then going on ; and I will take 1853, when there was no war with China, The duty was then reduced from 2s. 24c1. to ls, 10d. per lb. The loss caused to revenue then was 44d. on each lb., but the consumer gained absolutely nothing as tea ;remained at the same price after as before the reduction, namely, 3s. 2d, per lb. The average of the five previous years showed but little difference in compa rison. During those years, which were years of peace, the average price was 3s. 31d. per lb., and there was a gain to the consumer after-the reduction therefore of lid per lb. Th e se figures show that you may ex p ec t a b ou t a f our th o f the duty you remit to find its way ,into the pockets of the consumer. (Hear, hear.) Considering the time taken to propose the amendment, I think somethi ng l ess vulnerable might have been expected : (A. laugh.) I believe it is a law of nature that the nobility of animals is in proportion to the period of their,gestation. (A laugh.) lam sorry to say the .reverse appears to be the case in the instance of Parliamentary motions. (A laugh.) I must now recall the attention of the house to the circumstances of last year, when the question was discussed. When we proposed the repeal of the paper duty last year, expensive armaments were on the point of being sent to China. We had remain ing a small surplus of revenue. Before the third reading of the Paper Duties Bill the condition of affairs in China had changed, and with them the financial prospects. The Government persevered with the bill for the repeal of the paper duty, because they thought that the pledge given to all the interests :concerned should be redeemed, even at the cost of inconvenience. (Cheers.) I do not admit what the right hon. gentleman opposite seemed to insinuate, that it is usual, after a Government has given all its weight to a financial proposal, for it to substitute other proposals. I am not aware of any such instance. Last year the hon. member for Somerset distinctly raised the question between tea end paper, but I said I preferred paper but would defer to the wish of the house. But the bill for the repeal of the paper duty was carried in this house by a majority of 53. By that vote the house conveyed to the country the knowledge of their opinion of thetax. We must not forget that the deliberate vote of the house rs tl- 8 re peal of a tax was conclusive as to its repeal. (11;.1.Y Ido not know why, after all the circumstances of last year, the hon. member for Liverpool should come forward with his amendment. It is said there is no wish for the repeal of the paper duty on the part of the public, and that it is not a "recuperative" duty. (Hear, hear.) Ido not kno w where that word comes from, and I should like to enter my pro test against it. (A laugh.) The principle upon which a tax should be remitted has reference to its beneficial effect. I think the name of Sir R. Peel commands some respect on the other side. In 1815 Sir R, Peel said he proposed to re peal certain taxes—not because there was a clamour for their repeal, but because they were taxes open to great ob jection. That was the time when Sirß. Peel was denounced as the author of an organised hypocrisy. Sir It. Peel also said that he proposed the absolute repeal of certain duties, expecting from the increased consumption of other articles an improvement in the revenue. (Hear, hear.) I come now to compare the operation of the repeal of the two duties re ferred to in the amendment. I have shown that the remis sion of a tax does not reach the consumer for a long time— never in the first year. (Hear.) Now that foreign paper crimes in on the same footing as paper made here, customs and excise duties being equal, I think competition will bring everything to the consumer, except as regards certain high priced books. Assuming that all goes to the consumer, he will be richer by the repeal of the paper duty to the extent of £1,000,000. (Hear, hear.) The increase of trade from the reduction of the tea duty may set in motion as much labour as the reduction of the Excise duty might do. But it is the foreigner whose labour would be first set in motion by a re duction in the tea duty. (Hear.) The labour we propose to set in motion by the reduction of the paper duty is British labour. (Hear, and cheers.) I am convinced that the people of this country would prefer that the surplus should be tap , plied to the liberation of trade rather than to the newly discovered benevolence of hon. gentlemen opposite. The great vice of an Excise duty is not its effect on trades that exist. If I may be permitted to offer an explanation to hon. gentlemen opposite, who really seem not to understand what it is we really contend for. Ido not believe that the duty does immediately act very largely on existing trades, though I shall show presently that its action in that way is considerable. But the great grievance is that it prevenls other trades from coming into existence, which would other wise spring up and form important branches of commerce. Many hon. gentlemen may have seen the biturninised paper pipes, which are made of paper covered with pitch. They have these general recommendations that they are only one fifth the weight of iron and half the price (I mean without Excise), and about one-fourth the price of lead. They have every advantage over iron and lead; they will bear much greater pressure than iron and lead are subjected to for test ing purposes, and they are entirely impervious to the evil effects of temperature and chemical action. In several very eminent establishments it is now in use chiefly for sanitary purposes. Now, Sir, I will give the house a brief history of this manufacture as illustrative of the operation of Excise. The source from which I take the facts is a letter from the manager, which contains all the particulars, and is at the service of any hon, member, or may be laid on the table, if desired. The invention is about four years old, and a patent was then taken out in France. Subsequently a simi lar patent was taken out in England, but it lay for three years entirely and absolutely worthless. Now I can see the policy of retaining. an Excise duty where the revenue is enormous and where the money is necessary for the public service, but unless that be so it must be unwise to retain a tax the effect of which is to prohibit Englishmen from applying their energies to trades that would otherwise be open, remunerative, and beneficial to the community. All this time the trade was flourishing in France. And to show that I was right in what I said about the abundance of the raw material in this country, 1 may mention that, notwithstanding the duty, the coarse descriptions of paper are cheaper in England than in any other country. Now, while this trade was pursued in France, but not permitted in this country, a branch was established in Australia, where these pipes were made of materials which were brought from England, but which was not permitted to the Maigliah manufacturer to use. Some months ago the trade in England showed some signs of animation, because enterprising men, finding that a vote of this house had con demned the duty, and relying on the fact that no vote of this house had hitherto been falsified—(hear, hear)—pro ceeded on the assumption that the trade would be freed from this prohibition. In this case the duty amounts to about 25 per cent. of the whole price of the article; and the con tinuation of the duty reduced their trade to one-tenth of what was expected. They then made an application to the Treasury to remit the duty, or to make, in tact, a virtual drawback ; and upon consideration we came to the conclu sion that wo might do so ; but I must recall to the commit tee that this is a very doubtful mode of proceeding. By what rule are we to exempt and enforce ? (Bear, hear.) You force into our hands an arbitrary power which is foreign to the genius of this country, and odious in many cases to those who are brought under its operations. (Cheer.) And if we were had up before a hostile committee ap pointed on the motion of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) at a time when he was as favourable to the repeal of the paper duty as he was at a time when he thought it more judicious, I do not hesitate to say that we could only appeal to the committee, and could not show any distinct principle of justice upon which remission and enforcement are founded. We are wandering in the dark, and it is a state of law not consistent with the honour and credit of the house. Sir, I venture to say that this amend , ment will not be supported by the majority of this house. I have some experience of this house in matters of finance, and this I say with confidence, in conclusion, that I have never appealed to this hour e with a more certain assurance of Cie issue than I now do. I ask the house to give effect to a proposal to carry out the policy which has been adopted for 20 years with so great benefit,, and which will add almost as much as any of the measures of that 20 years to the autho rity and fame of this house, and to the prosperity and hap.• piness of the people. (Much cheering.) Mr. HORSFALL, in moving as an amendment that the duty on tea should after the Ist of October next be Is. per pound, said that in making this proposition he was but ask ing the house to carry out the resolution it had arrived at some years age—namely, that on and after the sth of April, 1856, the duty on tea should be is. per pound. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer subsequently came down to the house and appealed to its patriotism to give her Majesty the means of carrying on the war. The house, with a ge•• nerosity ill requited, consented to increase the income tax and the duties on tea and sugar. He believed that if the reduction he proposed were carried out, the revenue would recover itself in from three to five years ; at all events, he knew that parties were ready to farm the tea duties for four years at the present amount. To the repeal of the paper duty ho was not opposed when the proper moment arrived, but he considered that the labouring classes had a prior claim to the remission of the tea duty. The Marquis of HARTINGTON recommended the house to agree to the propositions of the Government, and remove a chronic source of irritation between the two houses of Parliament. If, however, there should be a majority against the Government, he hoped the Premier would ap peal to the country. Mr. lIENNESSY called attention to the circumstance that, while the Chinese agreed to receive our manufactures at a duty of 5 per cent., we imposed upwards of 100 per cent. upon their tea. Mr. PAGET and Mr. Nonnts supported, and Viscount HOLMESDALE opposed, the resolution. Sir S. NORTHCOTE denied that there was as yet a surplus which enabled a choice to be made between the re mission of two taxes. The question was with what taxes a surplus was to be made. The reimposition of the tea duties was the chief means by which a surplus was to bo obtained at all. He argued that the proposed reduction of the duty on tea was based on principles of general policy, en the en couragement and promotion of trade, and on the best prin ciples of finance. There was also the question of good faith, for the house had pledged itself to reduce these duties at the earliest possible period after the cessation of the late war. All these considerations were to be sacrificed for a false point of honour, involved in a supposed insult received last year from the House of Lords, in correcting a great financial error. Ho fitatzd that he was utterly unable to make out that the reduction of the tea duty would entail a loss of £050,000 on the revenue. According to his calcula tion it would be £820,000. In 1853 the duties on tea wore 2s. 211, and it was proposed to reduce them to ls. in 1850, but for the sake of the French treaty that had been post poned—(Opposition cheers)—and now it was again pro posed to postpone the reduction, notwithstanding the pledge given in 1858, in order that the paper duties might be remitted. This was the way in which the Government had broken faith with the working classes. (Cheers.) The Government were continually disappointing the working classes of the country. (Prolonged cheering.) It was said that the honour of the house was engaged to the repeal of the paper duties. But what was the nature of this honour ? His idea of honour was that it was the perfection of justice to keep pledges — (cheers) —but the honour of some gentlemen was t h at w hi c h induced them to persist in a course of wrong. That was the honour of the duellist, but not true honour. (Cheers.) Did they think that the House of Lords rejected the bill of last year because they approved of the paper duties 2ro ; they rejected the bill because they did not think there was a sufficient provi sion made for the finances of the country. That was the rebuke which the House of Commons had received, and it was a just rebuke. (Hear, hear.) It was just because by an overwhelming majority it Was agreed not to challenge, but submit to the decision of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons should now let bad alone, and not endea s vour to revive the controversy in another way. (Hear, tear.) What would have been tho deficiency of last year if the House of Lords had passed that bill ? (Hear, hear.) Why, it would have been £2,000,000. He would now come to the question of finance. He did not think them was, in any fair sense of the word, a surplus; but, at the same time, he never ventured to criticise the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only questioned ono item—the Chinese indemnity; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having explained that, of course, with his means of information, his explanation must be admitted. But the real question for the conside ration of the house was this, whether, supposing the ex istence of a surplus, the remission should be on the tea or on the paper duty. He treated this subject on the broad ground of national advantage and of individual benefit, and in so doing he had come to the conclu sion that it would be better to take off the duty on tea than the duty on paper. The tea duty might replace itself, but not so the paper duty. He contended that it was safer, financially, to reduce the duty on tea than it was to destroy altogether the duty on paper. But after all, the question was whether we should renew these war duties ? Without saying a word against the repeal of the paper duties, when the proper time came, he asked the members, representing the commercial interests, to unite with those who wished to take off the duty on tea. It was quite possible that they might make out a case in favour of putting on some other duty to take off the paper duty; and he would not object if they could find a suitable substitute, which they ought to find no difficulty in doing, seeing how ingenious a Chan cellor of the Exchequer they had. (Cheers and laughter.) He put it to the hon. gentleman to consider this matter in the interests of their constituents, for while they were quar relling amongst themselves the people were suffering. (Hear, hear.) Let them first then take the tea duties and leave the paper duties for subsequent consideration. He did not love the paper duties, but they had a preliminary ques. Von, and that question he asked them to consider, laying aside all prejudices, voting for the hon. gentleman the member for Liverpool, and afterwards they could deal with the paper duties when the proper time came. The hon. gentleman then resumed his seat amidst loud and protracted cheering. Sir G. C. LEWIS pointed out that Sir S. Northcote's argument was founded on a verbal distinction, which was inconsistent with the practical nature of a financial debate. He thought that the question of the existence of a surplus was disposed of before the late debate closed ; but it seemed to have been now revived with a sort of cobweb logic which had bettor be swept away. Starting with the assumption that there was a large surplus, the question was as to its disposal. There was no necessity to apply it to the reducs tion of debt in this year, for which there had been of late years no encouragement given to finance ministers by the house. The next question was how the surplus was to be applied to taxation. He should be glad to have the income tax reduced to its original amount of 7d. in the pound, and he could have understood a motion for the reduction of that tax from the Opposition instead of that for the reduction of the tea duty. The right hon. gentleman then pointed out the advantage derived from the repeal of an excise duty; and as regarded the argument of good faith, the balance in that respect was in favour of the paper duty as compared with that on tea. He trusted the house would support a budget founded on just and economical principles. Mr. DISRAELI—I never, since 1 had the honour of a seat in this house, have heard a question more completely and more fully put before the consideration of the house than I have heard it this evening in the speech of my right hon. friend the member for Stamford—(cheers from the Opposi tion)—supported as it was by such ample knowledge, illus trated in a manner so happy, and supported by reasoning so irresistible. I think the debate of this evening has on many accounts been of an interesting character. It was opened by revelations on the part of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer of the spirit in which his policy was conceived by the Government and his now financial scheme originated. But what I think is peculiarly admirable in the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the tremendous courage with which he supports any opinion which suits him at the moment. Once a stout Protectionist, he has laid down every principle and axiom which he has since opposed. (Hear, hear.) I ask the house if he has not been met fai r ly upon every one of his points ? I say every argu ment of the right hon. gentleman has been completely met by my hon. friend the member for Stamford. (Hear, hear.) This was not the opinion of the right hon. gentleman in former day s; it was nut his opinion in recent days. Very recently the right hon. gentleman did entertain the opinion that the price of an article did affect the interest of the consumer. He thought it entered very largely into the con dition of the working classes of the country. (Cheers.) There are many sitting in this house who must remember, in 1857, the strong, the violent, I will say the passionate, language, in which the right hon. gentleman addressed the house upon that occasion. The right hon. gentleman was not then Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers.) Another gentle man, who seems to despise that cobweb logic which is some times heard from the Treasury bench, was then the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and is now the colleague of the right hon. gentleman. In what terms did he express his opinion upon the budget of the present Secretary of State, especially with reference to this question of the tea duties ? He said that if this impost was not to be taken off, if the duties on tea and sugar were not to be repealed, that should not be kept a secret from the people. (Cheers.) Such a deed ought not to be done in darkness ; he would raise his voice and let the people of England know who were the statesmen, and what was the policy which entailed upon them such a burden. (Laughter and cheers.) This is a feeble recollection of the fiery language of the right hon. gentleman in 1857. I remember, with circumstances of some self-complacency, the occasion on which the right hon. gentleman made that declaration. I remember that on that occasion the right hon. gentleman condescended to supptrt a motion which I myself recommended to the no tice of the house. We were net successful by our combined efforts in disturbing the present Prime Minister on that occasion. (Laughter.) I did not wish to prolong an in effectual contest; I abstained from any further effort; but the right hon. gentleman, reproaching me for no longer standing by him, in his chivalry determined to carry on the contest alone, or with the assistance of those right hon. friends who generally act with me. The right hon. gentleman, confident in those great powers which we all recognise, feeling that he was an army in himself, that he alone could do it, continued the war. He was determined that the house should reduce the duties on tea. He hurled his thunderbolts at the head of the Secretary for the Home Department; and I confess I am astonished when I remember what the Secretary of State went through when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he still survives to occupy a place in that peaceful Olympus in which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer himself sits. (Laughter, and cheers.) So when the right honourable gentleman, confident in his own unrivalled resources, without the support of any party in the house, either before him'or behind him, brought for ward his motion on the tea duties, the inexorable, irre sistible force of the language he used—no cobweb logic— (laughter)—perfectly astonished me. I could not h e l p saying, much as I admired what I have heard to- n i g h t, had the right hon. gentleman spoken upon the occasion when we were beaten by a majority of 80, with the powers he h as employed to-night, that majority must have been greatly diminished. For he carried his subject to a length to which no member on either side of the house could follow him, and I could hardly myself accept the consequences. I never read " Hansard"—(laughter)—except as an illustra tion of history, but perhaps the committee will pardon me if I trouble them with the conclusion of the speech of the right hon. gentleman. Understand, every argument the most subtle, every statement the most exaggerated, every phrase the most plausible had been used only four days before to induce the House of Commons to abolish the war duties on tea. This was the way in which the right hon. gentleman concluded :—" I am deeply convinced that the vigorous maintenance of the pledges given by Parliament is of the utmost importancetn itself—of the utmost import ance with a view to the increase of the comfort of the people —of the utmost importance to the satisfaction, contentment, and loyalty of the people—and, speaking of these proposals as precedents (the motion he had himself proposed), I do not hesitate to add, of the utmost importance to the stabi lity of the political institutions of the country." Taking the war duties off tea four years ago was of the utmost importance to the political institutions of the country —(cheers and laughter)—and those institutions still stand although four years have passed since the right hon. gen tleman gave his views to the house. The right hon. gentle man went on to say " because," for he gave his reasons, " in this country there were representatives of the people who were elected not by the labouring classes—and it was most important, if they intended to have tranquillity and contentment, that the labouring classesshould see that their interests were cared for by a liberal Parliament—(hear)-- and that there was no disposition to respect unduly and un , equally the interests of the higher classes ;" and " if I were an agitator," the right hon. gentleman continued, " for an extended organic reform in ithe Parliamentary:re presentation of the people, I should not desire a better case, to go forth among the people and to say to them, here is a fair test of a limited representation." (Loud cheers.) Fir, I do not find that this repeal of the tea duties is now a matter of high political importance—(hear) —nor are the war duties on tea disapproved of by the right hon. gentle man's, I cannot say colleague, but coadjutor, the hon. mem ber for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who may rail% upon it the basis of a new agitation in the next autumnal recess. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman told them that if he were an agitator he should have desired no better ease ; but perhaps in those days he was not prescient as to who might be his fellow-labourer, or the war duties on tea would not have been the subject on which to establish his scheme of agitation. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman in pur suing the argument on that :occasion said, " It was a case in which Parliament had power in their hands to reform the revenue laws, and that was the course of Parliament to take up the matter and undo the work of a former year and of a former Parliament, and to reduce the duties on to. and Lugar," (Qom) Id 9 not quote ‘ O , HAUfißra" A* a precedent for others, but merely to show what were the views of the right hon. gentleman who to •night tells us that virtually the duty upon tea is a matter of no im portance whatever, and that it is neither a social nor a political question. (Hear, hear.) Only four years ago the right hon. gentleman, I may be permitted to believe, spoke with feelings not less sincere and deep than he has spoken to-night, and that he then brought to the consideration of the subject care not less elaborate and thought not less pro found than to-night. (Hear.) lam surprised to find that this house, in not taking off the duty on that occasion, was establishing a case which may be used against the institu tions of the country. (Cheers,) Now, sir, this is my answer to the tone of the right hon. gentleman to-night, who, with singular indiscretion, rose so soon in this debate to deliver himself of opinions so much at variance to the policy which he advocated and enforced upon the same subject in a for mer year. What Can have happened between that luminous and elaborate statement and the restrained and courteous conduct which characterised the right hon. gentleman on that occasion and this evening ? What, I repeat, can have happened between Tuesday evening and the present ? I am not aware that any remarkable circumstance can have brought down the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a paroxysm of emotion to open this debate in a manner so unprecedented and so remarkable—(hear)—and that he should, as it were, have given up all those opinions which he had so long professed—(hear, hear)—that he should sud denly come down and declare that the amount of the duty on tea was not a matter which affected the consumer, and that to lower the duty at present would greatly injure the revenue, while we have authentic evidence that no injury would be done to the revenue, or at least it would be of a very limited character. (Hear, hear.) Nothing that I aril aware of has happened to the Government except that they were beaten one or twice yesterday; but that has happened before, and as the defeats have generally been on eccle siastical subjects, it was supposed they had the right hon. gentleman's sympathy. (Laughter.) It is true many of us passed yesterday evening in a way I need not men tion, except that it must have been entirely satisfactory to all who were present. (Laughter.) The right honour able gentleman came forward to oppose the motion—he does not condescend to argue, that is a "cabinet" process which he leaves to secretaries of state—(laughter)— but he denounced with scorn, and almost with tirade, all those notions which ho had hitherto professed on thisasub ject, and maintained the most ultra views on the opposite side, a change which unless it is explained by the noble lord who will probably address us to night, must remain a mys tery. (Hear, hear.) I will only say one word to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, who seems to reproach us with a new policy and new principles in upholding the expediency of reducing the duty on tea. I was not aware that the policy on this side of the house was new, or that the prin ciple we advocated was new. It is, the right hon. gentle man says, a newfangled policy so far as we are concerned ; but considering that we were the first party that proposed that there should be a reduction of the duty upon tea, and that the final amount of that duty should be ls. in the pound, I think there is a great want of judgment in the right hon. gentleman's chocsing to reproach us for having, under the circumstances in which this house is placed, and when we have a surplus to distribute, urged the house to follow the counsels which we recommended to it eight years ago . We believed that it was a policy that would contribute to the comfort of the working classes, and of the great mass of the community ; and I may be permitted to say that hon. gentlemen opposite have no claim to arrogate to themselves the right to be considered the peculiar representatives of the working classes. The principles upon which they are founded may be right, or they may be wrong, but a variety of laws have been passed through Parliament during the course of the last 20 years, the object of which has been to alleviate the labour of the people, to increase their comforts, and to recognise their claim to that portion of their time which may tend to their cultivation and general improve ment. All those laws have been opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. (Hear,) Though Ido not wish to enter into any controversy now about statutes which, however opposed at first, have been eminently successful, which have produced none of the evils which were predicted by hon. gentlemen opposite, and which are now received with affection and con fidence by the great body of the people, still I may be per mitted to say that it is rather unwise in hon. gentlemen to assume a monopoly of affection for the working classes, when, whatever may have been our errors, there can be no doubt that upon these subjects we have been right, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been constantly and invariably wrong. (Loud cheers.) In 1852, in recommending that policy which I have referred to in regard to the tea duty, we had—l will :not say a higher, but a not less important result in view than the improvement of the condition of the people. We looked to see an increase of occupation by opening up new markets and stimu • lating old ones. And what are the circumstances of the present day with regard to that sul ject ? If the ex treme East was at that time a subject of great interest to us, what is our present position with regard to China and Japan ? That, sir, is a much more important subject for us to consider than any bickerings between this and another house of parliament, if those bickerings ever existed, and I am surprised to find hon. gentlemen opposite treating it as as an acknowledged fact that we have been defeated and treated with contempt in the other house. Then if that was the case, why did you submit to it ? (Loud cheers.) If I had supposed that the House of Lords had interfered with our privileges, 1 should not have been so silent as the right hon. gentleman. But the House of Lords has its pri vileges and its rights; and if they had not, why have the paper makers paid the duty which, if the right hon. gentle man he right, it was their duty to resist ? Why, Govern ment proposed tt resolution vindicating the privileges of the House of Lords ; and is it now the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, who, of all Ministers, is to treat as an historical fact that the House of Lords had interfered with the privi • leges of this house? (Hear, hear.) 'What did the Chan cellor of the Exchequer do last session ? He brought' in a second budget, and included the paper duty as part of his ways and means. (Hear.) I throw away, therefore, all these arguments, covered with cobwebs, respecting our privileges. I deny that they have been out raged ; and if they had, I believe there is spirit enough in the House of Commons to vindicate them. The House of Commons did not resist, because after a calm consideration it es as found that they had not been violated, and my belief is that the House of Lords will never violate the privileges of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) I say, in conclusion, that we cannct, in deciding on this ques tion, keep such petty considerations as have been advanced before our eyes. If there is a surplus revenue—if a remis sion of taxation is to be made, and it is to be distributed for the benefit of the people, it is the duty of this com mittee to consider the way in which that, distribution should take place. Will you open great markets and sus tain your commerce ; will you clear those new channels of trade which ought to be encouraged and improved, or will you for some private understanding, some petty cause in comparison which even yet is obscure, and which it has been roost difficult to unravel in the course of this de bate, but which all have acknowledged to be almost of a personal character, will you forego this great opportunity of supporting and stimulating the commerce of the country ; or will you, on the other hand, take the course which at best will obtain comparatively petty results, and will encourage inferior interests ? That is the point upon which we are going to decide ; and whatever may be our present and immediate decision, lam sure that the principle involved in the question before the house will sink deep into the hearts of the people, and will not be forgotten when they are called to decide upon tho conduct of their repre sentatives. (Opposition cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, those who have been in the habit of attending to the course of debates and discussions in this house must have observed from time to time that When a great partyhav© found themselves defeated in argu ment—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—they naturally have recourse to personalities. (Cheers.) They select for their attack some leading and principal member of the party by whom in argument they have been defeated, and they endeavour to save themselves by an attack on that indivi dual, acting on the well-known principle in law, "No de fence, vituperate the counsel for the plaintiff." (Loud cheers.) Well, that is the course which has been taken on the present occasion. After long discussion on the various details of the different proposals that have been made, we have this night been favoured by a pouring forth of invec tive from the right hon. gentleman opposite upon my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Oh, from the Opposition.) But, sir, lam sure that my right hon. friend, if no other consolation were offered him, will derive comfort from an incident in the speech of the right hon. gentleman opposite, for in the midst of his laboured invec tive the kindly feeling of his heart—(loud laughter) — triumphed, and induced him, after accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of every offence that a public man could be guilty of, to finish by calling him his right hon. friend. (Loud laughter.) This deprives the duel between the right hon. gentleman and my right hon. friend of everything like personal animosity, and we come back, therefore, to the real merits of the c ase. (Ch eers. ) Th e question is brought to this single issue. A surplus is ad raitted, al though the hon. baronet, who spoke with great ability, contended that we had no sur plus. We all know that at the beginning of the year, and when part of the taxes are yet to be re-enacted, to assert that there is no surplus were a truism which nobody could controvert. Ih o e ui q d ues bo tion we applied, h a thatv have to t c s on t s o ide s r ay is , how by w pa b r a t t remission n plus f t axa ti o n part of the s ur p lus should be made to relieve the taxpayer. With regard to a remission of a portion of the income tax, that is disposed of. Then the question resolves itself simply into this, shall we remit a portion of the exist ing duty on tea or shall we abolish the excise duty on paper ? Now if the duty on tea were a very high duty, higher than had ever been imposed during a period of war, and continu ing now at the rate to which it was raised during and for the purposes of war, I should admit that that would be a strong argument in favour of the reduction. But that is not the state of the case. The duty now is lower than it ever was at any former period. The duty imposed during the war has been taken off since the war ended. (Hear.) It is now a duty of is. 5d., and it is an utter misnomer and fal lacy to talk ef repealing the war duty. Then in the first place I say you cannot argue that the duty now existing is a duty higher than it over was before, or higher than it was at any former period. That argument must fail. Y ou might say, however, that the price was high, but those who compare the price of tea now with what it was in former You not lens ago nawit hum that the price has Well im- mensely and is much lower than at any former period. Then have the duty and the price diminished the consump tion ? Why, my right hon. friend (Sir G. Lewis) has shown you to-night that the consumption between 1853 and last year has risen immensely, has risen from fifty odd millions of pounds to seventy edd millions. Therefore you cannot say that the present state of things limits oppressively the power of consumption. Then it might be said, " Your supplies are likely to fail you, and if your supplies diminish and your de mand remains the same, and your consumption at home in creases, the price will naturally increase, and the pressure will be felt by the consuming classes. But the right hon• baronet has answered and removed that objection, because he has reminded you that the treaty with China and the treaty with Japan have opened large additional markets for the supply of tea, and if that be the case yous,supply will increase, and it is quite clear that the tendency of things will be to lower the price with the newexisting duty. Well, then, I say I admit, if we had nothing to consider except this tax alone, it would be desirable at any time at which it was practicable to do so, to lower the duty on that, as well as any other article of general consumption by the lower classes ; yet I say, on the grounds I have stated, they; is no such pressing case of urgency in regard to the duty on tea, to lead you to reduce it in preference to any other tax which has peculiar claims on your consideration. It was represented that my right hon. friend the Chancel lor of the Exchequer said a diminution of the duty would not find its way into the pockets of consumers in the shape of a reduction of price. Nuw, my right hon. friend never said anything of the kind, but what he said was that from the nature of the measure and the circumstances of the case it would be a considerable time before the benefit was reaped by the consumer, and that, therefore, the purpose for which the remission was proposed would not be accomplished. MY right bon. friend could not be supposed by any body to be so little conversant with the principles, of which be knows so much, as to imagine that a diminution of duty did not in the long run, by some means or other, produce a benefit'to the consumer. Thenwe come to the reason why we should pro' pose the remission of the duty on paper. It is admitted that an excise duty is a bad duty from its essential nature ; that it interferes with the manufacture to which it applies; that it renders that manufacture more expensive, and prevents improvements in it, and also that it prevents other inven tions connected with the manufacture that would otherwise come into operation. Myright hon. friend stated an example. He showed you a pipe made of paper, and covered with other material, which would be exceedingly useful for man,' purposes, and if the authorities of the Treasury had not decided that, in point of fact, it could not be deemed to be paper, that article would have been prevented from cons' ing into use. I happen to know another instance. In the valley in which I live a very ingenious man three or four years ago established a mill in which he was to make not paper but parchment, to be made out of animal substance in the same manner as paper by a pulping machine—the article being applicable to a variety of useful purposes, which would have superseded parchment in a great degree, being a pplis cable to binding books and various other useful purposes• Well, that manufacture was stopped because it was decided on appeal to a court of appeal that, inasmuch as it was made in the same manner as paper, it ought to be liable to the Excise duty on paper. (Hear.) No doubt theremust be many others of which we are ignorant ; but these two ex' amples are sufficient as illustrations of the inconvenience of these Excise duties, and of the desirability of getting rid of them, if we can do so consistently with our financial poi' tion. Well, I say that, taking the intrinsic merits of the Excise duty on paper, it is a duty which stands in prefer ence to others for repeal, if you can afford it without incow venience to your financial position. (Hear, hear.) But thia is not the first time this proposal has been made to Parlia ment. Parliament is not altogether free to take its decision on this matter. Individuals have been reminded of the opt' nions they expressed at former periods under circumstance° in the country entirely different from those in which we now stand, by quotations such ss those which have been given from speeches of my right hon. friend the Chancellor' of the Exchequer, which I must say are not applicable to the present state of things. (Laughter from the Opposition.) • I say that if individuals are to look back to see what they said or thought on former occasions this house has also a character for consistency, and it ought to look bacX and see what it has said and done in matters cow netted with the public interest. (Cheers.) Resolutione have been passed by this house, and bills have beea passed decreeing the abolition of this excise duty se soon as the circumstances and finances admitted. Sarelit then, if the consistency of individuals is to be regarded , the consistency of an aggregate body ought also to be regarded ; and if the house wishes to be consistent with regard to the opinions it has frequently and deli berately expressed, we call upon it now to redeem the pledges it has more than once distinctly given. (Cheers.) We are told that there is no reason for doing this in cone' quence of the difference on the subject between the two Houses of Parliament. Why, last year the same language was held. I remember that a great deal of irritation Wa g created, not in this house alone, but out of this house, in th e co - antry— (loud cheers)—not by a violation—a technical via" lation—of the privileges of this house by the other Ho u se of Parliament, because I ventured humbly to submit to the house, and this house concurred in the opinion, that techni" tally speaking the House of Lords had a right to do that which they did —that they were entitled to reject the whole proposition sent to them, though we disputed their right to alter or amend its separate parts; but that feeling to which I have adverted was to be attributed to a difference of °pint's° on a great question of national policy. (Hear, hear.) S e man can deny that when a difference of opinion exists be' tween the two houses or. d question connected with the finely cial arrangements of the country, with regard to which the House of Commons has always expressed and maintained the utmost jealousy as to its privileges—no one can dispute that it is very desirable to get rid of the grounds on which that difference rests. (Hear, hear.) We are told, and truly, that the House of Lords acted last year in the belief and conviction, as they thought, that there was not at the tirae of their decision surplus enough to justify them in agreeing to sacrifice a very large portion of revenue. We are told that this year that objection does not apply, and that it will not be repeated when the repeal of this particular duty coraee again before them for their acceptance. I accept that State went with the greatest satisfaction. I believe it will t ur nout to be true. I say, let us take the House of Lords when they are in that mood. (Laughter.) Let us avail ourselves of this golden opportunity for getting rid by mutual consent of that which last year was a source of dissension and difference, and may in a future year, if it be.still allowed to exist, give rise to some fatal differences between the two Houses of Parlia ment. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet said he could see ne political advantage in the course we propose ; but in doing so he took a very short-sighted view of the practice and working of the constitution. There is nothing I should se much deprecate as a permanent or established difference on any material point between the two Houses of the Legisla' ture. Most unfortunate would it be if that difference of opinion were to arise on a matter which we think belong° to our own exclusive and peculiar jurisdiction, but in regard to which the other house may think it stands in the position of a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, entitled to exer cise a separate and distinct opinion. I say then, on every ground —on the ground that the tea duty is not a dutywhich presses seriously on the lower classes of the community-' on the ground that the price of the commodity is less than it was in former years, and that there is a probability that the increased supply will create a diminution in price—and on the ground, on the other hand, that we have an oppor' tunity of settling with the good will, assent, and consent of the other House of Parliament a question of difference which if left unsettled may at some future time produce the same agitation which did exist during the last session of Parliament—l say, on every ground, commercial, finals" cial, and political, the proposal which we make is entitled to your preference, and I cannot believe that the decision of this house will be otherwise than approbatory of the re' solution before it. (Loud cheers.) The committee then divided— For the resolution Against it Majority for the Government ---18 • - After the division had taken place there was evidently considerable anxiety on both sides to know the result. On the tellers taking their places to announce the numbers, when it was perceived that the Government had a majority there was vociferous cheering from the Ministerial benches, and es pecially was PecialiY from the members b e l ow the When gangway announced that the "A yes " were 299, t h er e was a burst of cheering fr om th e O pposition side o f the house, which was repeated again and again when the , t Noes" were declared to be 281. The resolution was then agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with respect to the paper duty he could not ask the committee at that hour to proceed with any resolutions that night, which hon. members opposite were anxious to discuss, btit he wished to proceed with those resolutions which would not require any protracted discussion. (Cries of N o , no, from the Opposition.) He only put the question for the consideration of the house. Mr. DISRAELI considered that at that hour of the night it would be extremely inconvenient to proceed with businesS• Thore were circumstances when a Minister was supported by a triumphant majority—(derisive laughter and cheers from the Opposition) —and exceptions might be made. g° did not wish to offer any obstruction to the progress of pub lic business; but he thought after what had just taken place, and that this question was carried by a very smal l majority, it would be for the benefit of both sides of the house to have time to reflect on what had passed, and he thought it would be most unadvisable again to commence now considering resolutions which might lead probably to a protracted discussion. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—I have not the least objection to give the right lion, gentleman time for reflection —(hear, hear, and a l aug h)— and there f ore they w ou ld procee d o n Monday with th e resolut i on o n the paper. (H ear. ) The remaining orders were disposed of and the house ad" joured at half-past one. At Lloyd's to-day war premiums were required of 20s. to 30s. on American vessels that have sailed from New Orleans, and £3 on ships that have Yet to start. From NEW York the charge is only 10s, LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 112,Strand , in the Precinct of the Sayoy, ha the County of MI dife lr i Utty 3,1801. in tho ceded Great CWhit, Tools Brush May Three be hac Arsen, IMP Afi by the a whereb] With in a Map( linseed, Worth o Market. at the ec for a drr quarter' cwt., at own wa l 21 owt. E ranted N JOBE p: Single IgetvgatA the noun T HC (111 Admiral contain i THC In Milk. 4 T H° so Ingdou T4Ol THO Mi of valua cultural press. Newgate EP TI rating: pc adoption A M Sold in i GI HEN Sufferers WARNI medical Memory, 10 Soctet, laxation, neglected death ; and vim aervation and two Crescent, "The In edicin e lid d th NO 3 POE co /, TATIO: DEBIT ASTR - li JA3 BB lust such plyi at D for Nav tract tion Pa also Pe the c office moot No form 9opli Ur osp No the d tend< office from pose( Ew Admi " Ten at So: BI the per toil has I 'I AU)