The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EV'ENINV, MAY 31, 1861. the two Houses of Parliament he would be prepared to vote for the repeal of the paper duties. Mr. MONSELL thought that they ought to consider this measure purely en financial grounds. He was convinced that any deficiency that might be caused by a repeal of the , paper duty, would have to be made up by an increase of di rect taxation. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK said he meant to vote on this question on it s merits, and not on any party grounds. He could not agree with those who thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus on the year. The right hon. gentleman had based his surplus on the assumption that the House of Commons were bound to (Any his dictates, and to reimpose all thedutieshe wished,them to re-impose. After all, the existence or non-existence of the budget was , a very immaterial question. If arguments were wanted against the budget, he could find nothing more conclusively condemnatory of the financial system of Mr. Gladstone than his own speeches of 1853 and 1857. No one could tell what would be the next step in our finances, or what would be the position of our finances. The repeal of the paper duties was unpopular, and many of the signatures to the petitions against it were signed by Liberals. This was the case at Norwich and at Coventry. He always voted according to his conscience, whether it was popular or not, and he would net impute to gentlemen opposite that they did otherwise, but if they wished to give a popular vote, they must give , it against the repeal of the paper duty. Mr. COBDEN, on flails., was received with loud cheers. He said,—lt has not been my fortune, good or bad, to be for s ix weeks in the house during the time this complicated question has been discussed ; I do not, therefore, know exactly what has already been stated, and I am fearful that in what I may say I should probably only be repeating what has been better said before. I will be very brief, then, in what I do state, and I should not speak at all but that I am anions to make one word of allusion to a subject with which I have been myself concerned. Now, sir, I will treat this question as it appears before us, without im porting any extraneous matter. The proposal is that we re peal the paper duty. I thought the question of substitu ting tea and sugar for paper had been disposed of. (Hear, hear.) I thought the question of whether or not we had a surplus had been settled. (Hear, hear.) But whether or not, for my part I am willing to take paper from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer as he proposes ; and as to the sur plus, I leave him responsible for his calculations for the future as to that. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, it is something new in Parliament proceedings to see a party united,perseve ring, constant in their resistance to the repeal of a tax. (Hear, hear.) I have seen—nobody has seen it more than I—we have seen parties united to maintain what are called protective duties--that is, duties not laid on for purposes of revenue, but for the protection of a native industry. That I can understand, as being a good basis for a party, and the party who had that cause in hand fought long and boldly for it, though they were at last defeated. But in all my Parliamentary experience, and I have looked beyond it, I have never yet met a case in which a party has taken its stand in opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prevent the repeal of any tax. We have had a systematic opposition to the repeal of this duty, a party banded together for the purpose—and in whose interest? Who are the parties who, outside of this house, have opposed the repeal of the paper duty? 'We cannot disguise it from ourselves that they are the large papermakers and the large paper printers. (Hear.) These are the parties who have originated the movement. (Hear.) It is not a new thing—it is not unnatural. I have seen something of the kind before. The very earliest public movement with which 1 was connected nearly 30 years ago was accompanied with the same thing. I recollect coming up to London with a deputation on the subject of the repeal of the duty on printed cottons. We saw Lord Althorp—a shrewd, sensible man, as we all know—and I remember quite well that in the course of our conversation the remark was made that, although all the young calico printers and many of the most respectable among the old firms were in favour of the repeal of the duty, the very oldest of the prin ters were opposed to the repeal of the tax, Lord Alth3rp, with that instinctive sagacity for which he was remarkable, instantly replied that he had never heard so strong an ar gument in favour of the repeal of the tax, for it was quite evident that if any cotton printers were interested in keep ing the tax on, it would not be for the public interest. (Hear.) And what are the grounds on which these parties—who are not cotton printers, and not, as our opponents then were, harmless individuals in their strength—who have power, who use a mighty instrument, who are organs of a public opinion to which many of us have succumbed in past times, and to which too many of us are ready to succumb now ? What are the grounds on which these parties justify their resistance to the repeal of this tax ? Last year the whole of Europe resounded with the cry for free rags. I was at the time on the Continent, and I declare that the Chan celleries of almost all the embassies in Europe were ringing with this question of rags, simply because this notorious print that wished to make a party question of rags, sounded the alarm that we had been defrauded in the treaty with France, because she would not allow rags to come in duty free. I may say in passing—and it is all I have to say on the subject—that, so far as regards the French Government in its dealing with this question of rags, it acted towards me not merely with perfect good faith—for that is a small compliment to pay any Government—but it showed an enlightened appre ciation of the business it had on hand, and it took especial precaution that there should be no misunderstanding upon the subject of raga. (Hear.) The French Government, as we all know, had a prohibition on the exportation of rags, but we know also that other countries on the continent— such as Belgium and the Zollverein—had a prohibition against their exportation as well. The French Government contemplated, after completing the treaty with us, making treaties with Belgium and other countries on the continent, and they wished to retain in their hands the power of con ceding on the question of rags to those other countries from whom they might in return ask for reciprocity. If they had allowed exportation to those countries without stipulating for reciprocity it must be evident that they would at once have parted with their power of preventing their rags find ing their way into those countries. Exportation differs from importation in this—you may give one nation an advantage in importing goods, but when once you allow of the expor tation of goods you cannot prevent their free circulation into other countries. The French Government therefore, with my full consent, retained that question of rags in their hands. (Opposition cheers and counter cheers.) The house may remember, if it is worth while to go back to them, what foul imputations were made on the Emperor of the French and his Government, what unscrupulous charges of having imposed upon me in this matter of rags. (Hear, and counter cheers.) That is the spirit in which this matter was resisted, and let it be a warning to hon. gentlemen:opposite —(a laugh)—how they touch this question, and how they deal with these parties. How is it that at this moment you hear very little of that question? It is because the cry, the falsehood has been extinguished by subsequent knowledge of the truth. (Hear.) But, leaving this question of the treaty, how does the question of rags really affect the matter in dispute? Have the papermakers any more right to claim protection for paper because other countries have the ad vantage in rags than you had to claim protection for your corn because other countries had an advantage in the pro duction of that article ? (Hear.) Nothing is more certain than that we adopted it as an inflexible principle that we would never regard the cost of the production of any article , productions, and that we claimed the right of i mporting all a nd the cheaper they were produced th e more we insist ed on it. (Hear, hear.) When you claimed exemption from that principle—l am speaking now to the landed interest, which appears to have allied itself with the opponents of this remission—when you claimed protection against the im portation of Russian corn, because you said you could not compete with Russia, where corn was produced by the labour of serfs fed on black bread—and protection against corn from America, where land could be bought in fee simple for 6s. an acre, whereas the English farmer had to pay 20,, an acre for rent—these very parties laughed you to scorn, and denied you the protection you then sought. (Hear, hear.) The case of sugar is still stronger, because whenwe claimed the admission of foreign sugar there was a strong argument in favour of protection to colonial sugar. The pl an ters said they were o bli g ed to raiseit by free labour, whereas their opponents raised it by slave labour, and not only had they no slaves, but it was manes felony to bn . y a slave. Still we disregarded these argu, and admitted foreign sugar on an equality with colonial sugar. (Hear, hear,) All these things must be well remembered, particularly by hon, gentlemen opposite, who were then refused the protec tion they sought in their own case. (Hear, hear.) What is the ground on which this paper duty is to be an exception to all other Excise duties? Is it a novelty that we are now coming to ask for the repeal of the Excise on paper ? By the way in.which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is attacked one would think that this is some novelty suggested entirely by my hon. friend the member for Birmingham, that the right hon. gentleman had taken his inspiration from him alone, and that the thing had never been heard of 12 months ago. Why, it is one of the oldest questions we have had before us. I turn to the " Financial Reform" volume by Sir Henry Parnell, dated 1831, and I find that on this subject he says : " Contrary to every sound principle of trade, the manu facturers of paper, glass, and printed calicoes have been selected as subjects of taxation The duty on paper has an injurious effect on many other trades besides thatlof the papermaker. The limited consumption whic h it occasions in jures th e ma kers of machinery, type -founder , inkmakers, p r i n t ers , engraver s, booksellers, bookbi n d er : stationers, Paperstainers, an d several other trades. B u t the greatest evil o f a ll is the high price of books which it gives rise to. By this a great obstacle is thrown in the way of the progress of knowledge, of useful and necessary arts, and of sober and industrious habits. By the use of books the productions of the human mind are carried over the whole world, a nd they may be truly called the raw materials of every kind of science and art, and of all social improve ment." I don't know that anything has been slid on the subject of paper which could much enlarge on the language of that report, and :that was in :1831, when my hon, friend the member for Birmingham had not yet reached man's estate. Recollect that during those 30 years every other Excise tax, not including alcoholic and fermented liquors and hops, has been abolished. (" Malt ?") I ally malt with alcoholic and fermented liquors. (Hear, hear.) You have abolished the duty on soap, on printed cottons, on glass, on leather, and every other article, and now, when paper comes the very last, which Sir 11. Parnell put the first, you ask, "Who wants the repeal of the paper duty ?" For 10 years to my knowledge there has been a society for effecting the repeal of the paper duty. I, who highly approve that mode of car rying reforms in this country which enables us by resorting to public opinion, to publications, and to public meetings to carry reforms instead of descending into the streets to fight for them, have long been a member of that association. I have been a member of that association from the first—l believe it was formed in 1849—and yet it is said, who has asked for a repeal of the paper duty ? Then we are told that therepeal of the duty will do no good, and thatityields a small amount of revenue. The same argument might have been used against the repeal of the dut ies on glass, bricks, butter, and other things. They were all items much smaller than this. They have been removed one by one — not more than one in a year, and that year forming an epoch in our finance. Yet, from the successive removals of these restrictions en industry has proceeded that state of content and quietness which the hon. gentlemen opposite are con stantly vaunting as proofs of the Conservatism of the age, (Loud cheers.) lam old enough to remember when the streets of London were periodically crowded with multi tudinous and violent men calling out for some impracticable measures of reform, nearly allied to revolution. (Hear.) I remember that every three or four years we were liable to have the State thrown into confusion from the possible failure of a harvest or of a market for our industry. But, as we have expanded those markets, as we have removed restrictions, as we have given further development to capi tal and more employment for labour in all our various manufactures, we have placed ourselves, humanly speaking, in that position in which it is scarcely possible to believe in any great calamity happening to this country from any par ticular quarter, without finding it more than compensated by the prosperity and advantages which we enjoy. (Cheers.) Is it a hard, is it a difficult thing to govern a people who ask only to be allowed to work ? (Hear, hear.) They are contented if you allow them to labour and to earn moderate wages, Do not tell me that the people have not clamoured for these reforms. We are here because we are assumed to know better than they. (Hear.) That is our only title to be here. (Cheers.) And with this long experience can any one doubt that the true policy is to proceed in the path which has been marked by such a career of advantage and prosperity ? (Cheers.) It is attempted to frighten us by say ing that there are some impending calamities overhanging us from the Western hemisphere. There is a danger—the only danger which can menace this country, for I can conceive no other danger of a great calamity or catastrophe but that which may arise from a short supply of the raw material of our industry. From everything else we guard ourselves by the number of our markets and the variety of our resources. A catastrophe may come from such a source. I hope it will not be so bad as some hon. gentlemen surmise. (Hear, hear.) But, admitting the worst—admitting that danger — what can we do better under the circumstances than follow the path pointed out by experience, and by removing the shackles from industry give a better chance of finding em ployment for the people ? (Loud cheers.) We have been told that instead of taking the duty from paper we ought to take it from tea or sugar. I have no objection to either or to both. I can even hope that with the average prosperity we have seen for the last few years in another year we may greatly diminish the duty on tea and sugar. (Hear, hear.) But I am not sure that the argument made use of with con siderable stress by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire with regard to a market for our ma nufactures in China is well founded. We were greatly dis appointed with what was called the opening up the trade with China in 1840. I think that within four years we had a committee sitting to inquire into the subject, and here, in passing, I may say that I have no faith whatever in what is called opening up China to Englishmen. From what I hear of China, the Chinese merchants are quite as clever as our own. (Hear, hear.) They have superseded the English merchants at Singapore ; they have the whole trade with San Francisco, and I believe if that trade is epened with the interior of China it will be by Chinese and not by Eng lishmen. (Cheers.) But, at all events, Ishallbe very happy to see a reduction of the tea duty, though it may not be with the same certainty of an expansion of trade which may bo procured by the repeal of the tax on paper. (Cheers and " No" from the Opposition.) Have hon. gentlemen considered what is to be end of the present struggle ? I fancy I see hon. gentlemen opposite arraying themselves very much in the same way they did some 16 or 18 years ago, opposed very much to the same people and the same influences, and likely to be landed in very similar disaster. (Cheers.) What are you aiming at? You are aiming at preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from continu ing in a course which he has not chalked out for himself. I cannot give him the credit of the least originality. He is . only going in the path which every Government must fol , low, whether it be called Whig or Tory. (Cheers.) It is for the advantage of hon. gentlemen opposite that they should place themselves in this position ? If you succeed by a majority in overturning the Government and coming in yourselves you must instantly adopt the very policy which you are opposing tooth and nail. (Cheers.) There is no alternative. The principle retained in the public mind of England is to remove these barriers which impede the progress of commerce and manufacture, so as to give the chance of employment for a rising and increasing popula tion. You yourselves have the greatest interest in promot ing that policy, and in nothing more than the repeal of the Taper duty, by which you offer the advantage of employ ment to a class superior to those affected by any otb er article subject to the Excise duty, for bear in mind that there is no article which gives employment to the same educated class of men as paper. (Cheers.) If I were a young man, just fresh from college, with nothing but a good education, I should look with much interest to making perfectly free the press of this country—(cheers, and " Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—by removing all the taxes which tend to rut der dear and scarce literary productions. What should I want? I should want employment for my pen. Is it not an advantage to rising educated young men that more edi tors, more contributors, more shorthand writers shou'd be required ? (Hear, hear, and oh, oh I) Do not treat this as a light matter.) I am not going to offer a menace to hon. gen tlemen opposite. lam the last man who would hope to in fluence them through their fears. But do not shut your eyes to the fact, and let it be an element in the calculation of success in the course you are pursuing, that all the cheap and rising and growing literature of the country is in favour of the removal of this duty. (Cheers.) You have nearly 300,000 daily papers at a penny issuing from the press, and almost every one of them is advocating the re moval of these duties. Fortunately, their interest is the public interest, and therefore I am very happy to find them advocating the removal of this duty. You have 70,000 or 80,000 dear papers issuing daily, and generally they are silent, or they are trying surreptitiously or openly to pre vent the repeal of this duty. But can you doubt, if it comes to a struggle, to a dissolution, to a change of Government, that these 300,000 papers, with a multitude of weekly papers at a penny, will every one be opposed to those who are op posed to the emancipation of the press ? (Cheers, and oh.) I am sorry to say it is not a question which can be argued at length upon its merits as a fiscal question. The minds of hon. members are straying to other subjects. This is made a political question. I cannot go into the lobbies, and I can not stand here without seeing that it is made a political question. (Hear, hear.) I ask, then, hon. members oppo site to take that view of it, and I say that the course they are pursuing cannot possibly lead to a successful issue. ("Hear, hear," and murmurs of dissent from the Opposi tion.) I have been so little in this house of late that Ido not pretend to enter upon the question of the rival strength of parties. I may say, honestly, I like to see an Opposition which has some principles belonging to it (hear, hear) which may make it eligible for the country to resort to it, if it has occasion to seek better mea sures by a change of Government. At whose instigation this course is being pursued I know not. It cannot be that the wise heads of that party are the instigators of it. (Laugh ter and cheers.) But I tell them candidly they cannot give the country the benefit of their services even if they suc ceed in overthrowing the G overnmen t. (Ch eers an d counter cheers.) struggle, see w it n h o e b u e t n e e n tl y t i t s o s them,ue which n a longa promiseud t hpro tracted advantage, or possibly injure the Government. Therefore I entreat hon. gentlemen e ree o rs ei t from r t e leto m t h this hi s Opposition.)qu est question Let us have settled.ee Let hon. gentlemen consider how they the opportunity of holdi ng out to the country the prospect of better measures th an those which Adminis tration can give, and th en , with their the present e !at numbers, if they do come into power, they may Dome cer tainty of being obliged to falsify their in without the g eprinciples or be turned out of office. (Cheers, and derisive cheers e from the Opposition.) lam not going to t rou bl e the h g reater length. (Hear, hear, from th e Opposition.) atl am any not sufficiently conversant with recent debates to do so. But I thought it my duty to state my views in this plai n _ ner, and I sincerely hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will allow this Budget to pass, and allow us to proceed with other business of a practical character. (Loud cheers.) Mr. T. G. BARING said, —I am sure lam only express ing the opinion of the whole house when I express my own gratification at the return of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down to his place among us. (Loud cheers.) I cannot help thinking that the hon. gentleman gave strong evidence of the length of his absence from the country when he described the opposition to the repeal of the paper duty as consisting of only a few monopolists, and asserted that there was no feeling at all on the subject throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) Let me tell him that the opinion of the country is, that if it be in our power to remove any tax, this is not the moment for the removal of the paper duty. (Cheers.) I believe that if he were to poll the coun try, aye and this house too, apart from party considerations —(hear)—he would find the almost universal opinion to be that any diminution of taxation which the Government can afford may be applied with far more benefit to the national interests, with far grea t e r reli e f to the consumers, a trle n ey d rena w ali i i t e h pf professes e f e s a s r pe as s p t t r eo o r n bde g u e at r syt s . o t n i m i(sH u l h eeudasr that, to h i e n a d ar u . ); t a r i t h teshhhaonounlb.dyg takeethe its stand on the opposition to a repeal of taxation. I e f a na w tde e stth w ad e te r gi e t rs e e c r e e. r r a t aoEivnua But in h wi a no t u w tlhd e eb w ef ir es e ; fitwabol u e t l h t d o e da people : w e e p e i t lhewwith out i t n h t himhe thet a x , g, r i place, we on this side do not feel quite sure that you can with benefit remove this tax, because we know that, if once removed, it can never be re-imposed. (Hear, hear.) No man is gifted with omniscient sagacity, and if by any mis fortune there should be an error in the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if the reyeuue should fall short or the expenditure exceed his estimate, we know that you cannot revive the paper tax. We know also full well that there is an elastic tax—the income tax—which will be employed to meet any deficit. (Hear.) Again, we oppose the immediate removal of this tax because there are other duties to the reduction of which the house at large, and the right hon. gentleman especially, is pledged—l mean the war taxes on those articles which enter into the consump tion of the people. (Hear.) I recollect that the financial reform sketched out by the hon. member for Birmingham a year and a half ago comprised the reduction of taxation on the consumption of the labouring classes, the reduction of the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco ; but I think he made no mention whatever of paper. (Hear, hear.) The removal of the paper duty will not stimulate industry nearly so much as the reduction of the duties on those articles which we receive from other countries. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman made an observation in regard to the pro hibitive duty on the export of rags from France which ought not to pass unnoticed. I quite agree with him that the French Government acted with the greatest good faith, and we have now his own admission that it was with his assent and approbation, and almost on his suggestion, that they refused to make any change in regard to that duty. (Cheers.) I have always thought that our Government might have made better terms in that respect, but this is the first time we have heard, on official authority, that the French Government acted in this matter with the assent of our representative. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman maintains the principle that we ought to receive a commo dity from the country which can produce it most cheaply. That is true ; but we must remember that on the occasion in question we went on the principle of a treaty, and were bound accordingly to get as much advantage for ourselves as we could in return for our concessions. (Hear, hear.) The honourable gentleman reminds the house that there is a branch of the press which extends throughout the country, and which will resent the continuance of the duty, and urges us to conciliate them by re moving it. That is just the argument which we have been using against the repeal. We object to it, because it will benefit a class, and not the community at large. (Cheers.) I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that the house ought to accept the estimates of revenue and surplus from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer without examination or discussion. I hold that it is the duty of the house to scrutinize them carefully, and subject them to every test which doubt or criticism can suggest. (Hear, hear.) I hope, with the hon. gentleman, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sure of his surplus. lam no prophet to tell what will be the revenue of the next year. The right hon. gentleman may have under-estimated some of the items of revenue —probably he has under-estimated some of the items of expenditure as well. (Hear, hear.) There are two items which have sprung up since the declaration of the right hon. gentleman. There is the increased interest on Ex chequer-bills, which has already led to an addition of about £50,000. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—It is only for six months. Mr. BARING.—It may be so in the meantime; but the right hon. gentleman must be gifted with second-sight to tell what will be the state of the money-market at the end of that period. (Cheers.) Then there is another item of expenditure in the payment on account of the Stade Dues, which public report fixes at about £200,000. Similar items of expenditure are always liable to spring up, and if we abolish this duty we shall be able to meet them only by falling back on direct taxation. (Hear.) The noble lord the member for the City said that he could not understand how we should object to the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without proposing a vote of censure upon them. When I objected to the Budget without moving an amendment, I did so because I wished the house to reflect upon the course it was called on to pursue. • I believed that the proposals were unpopular, and that representations would be made to the Government which would lead them to reconsider, and perhaps to modify, their scheme. As I anticipated, there is throughout the country a feeling that it would not be wise to repeal this tax at the present time. I for one am anxious that a sufficient surplus 'should be maintained to meet every possible expense. Ido not hold myself at all bound to the proposal of my right hon. friend the member for Bucks, to make a further reduction of taxation, if this measure be rejected. (Hear, hear.) Any further reduction of taxation mint be regulated by existing cir cumstances, and from day to day there seems to me to be greater uncertainty as to the future, and greater change in those circumstances which ought to guide this house in its financial measures. It is, consequently, more and more in cumbent upon the Government, on its own responsibility, to maintain such a surplus revenue as may guard us from any future difficulty, and to preserve at once the faith of the country and its influence in the world at a moment when the influence of England is becoming more and more important. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, the committee has just heard delivered the opinions of two gentlemen among the most distinguished and able of its members, and men whose high characters are not less re markable than their abilities. One of them is the hon. member for Huntingdon, the other is my hon. friend the member for Rochdale. The latter recommends the repeal of the paper duties as a measure wise, politic, and acceptable to the country; the former recommends the rejection of that measure as being neither wise, nor politic, nor accept able to the people. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Under these circumstances it is natural to examine into the com parative authority of those two hon. gentlemen, and to seek for the sources of that authority by a recurrence to the ad vice which respectively they have given on previous occa sions. (Cheers and counter cheers.) In the member for Rochdale we see the man who, more than any other, living or dead, contributed to the destruction of the Corn Laws— (cheers)—the man who eloquently advocated the repeal of the Navigation Laws—(cheers) —and the man who on every point in a struggle of twenty years has taken the most active and powerful part in recommending that legislation which has not only augmented the wealth of the country, but done more for its Conservative principles than all the measures promoted by hon. gentlemen opposite. (Con tinued cheering.) On the other hand, the hon. member for Huntingdon opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws as a' national calamity, bewailed the repeal of the Navigation Laws as probably involving the ruin of the country, and upon every—or nearly every—occasion when it has been proposed to amend our commercial laws, and to relax the existing restrictions of our system has beenlfound their stoutest and most ardent defender. (Cheers.) I say, then, that upon this occasion the man who has always heretofore interpreted rightly both the wishes and the interest of his country is more likely to give sound advice than the man who throughout the whole of his past life has misunder stood both the one and the other. (Cheers.) The committee I know must be wearied with hearing the discussion of the paper duties, and it is with an unfeigned reluctance that I present myself to them on the present occasion. I trust, however, that I may be allowed to occupy some small por tion of their time because, whatever may be said as to others —whatever senses or constructions may for others be put upon this discussion—at all events there is one man in the house for whom it can bear but one construction, and that is the person who now respectfully entreats your attention. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Radnor shire made some remarks which will lead me to the point on which I wish to address the committee, for I want to at tain, if I can, to a true conception of the position of both parties upon this subject. My hon. friend declared—and he declared with perfect sincerity—that the Opposition had no greater desire than to give their support to her Majesty's Government. He stated that nothing but an absolute neces sity has brought them on this occasion upon the field of battle, and that it was the excessive and wilful unreason ableness of the Government in making so strange a pro: posal as the repeal of the paper duties which really left to hon. gentlemen opposite, however pacific might be their inclinations, no choice whatever, but compelled them to step in for the purpose of restraining us in our rash and furious career. Here, according to him, is the secret and explanation of the present party conflict. (Hear, hear.) Is that really a fair and just statement. We have heard a va riety of opinions expressed in the speeches of hon. gentle men opposite, who, nevertheless, concur in their votes. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks frankly admits that an Excise duty is a bad duty, and that he re tains the opinion on that subject which he has expressed on previous occasions; but the tendency of the minds of many gentlemen opposite is explained much more accurately by the noble lord the member foriStamford, who, in a very ingenious speech, went back to the legisla tion of 1842 and 1844, ridiculed the argument of Sir Robert Peel upon the glass duty, and contended that the present progress of the country neither was nor could have been owing to free-trade legislation, but was due to a set of causes entirely different. I have no argument to address to apeak he tn is a e p nt a i r r lia ely ra un en a t p w p h ro e a r c e h t a h b e le by us—(a ( o a pp la o u s g ed h the noble lord. Upon his standing-ground it appears to me no longer re estab lished fact, resting on the solid proof of a happy regarded as a matter of opinion but as an and where we are entitled not from, the proposition that the relax argue for, but to commercial strictions and the liberation of trade are the c o mme rc i a l r .t e 3 - e policy for this country to pursue. (Cheers.) Is there thing so strange, then, in the production by the Govaeny ment of the proposal to repeal the paper duties ? In the first place it is strictly true, with exceptions so insignificant that I need not refer to them, that except as to the constituents of strong liquors, which by the necessary principles of your fiscal system are and must continue to be heavily burdened, the trade in paper is the one within the limits of this country which at the present moment is in all its branches burdened, and in many of its branches actually proscribed. (Hear, hear.) Every other restriction is gone. Every other excise, one after another, has been sacrificed. Was that because there was a cell for it from the people ? No such thing. I had the curiosity to look back to the case of the glass experience, )t—o hb laugh )—but st is duties. I believe the whole number of petitions for the re peal of the glass duties in three years, including 1845, the year of the repeal, was one. (Hear, hear.) For the repeal of the brick duties there may have been six or eight peti tions. For the repeal of the soap duties there was not a single petition before the proposal was made by the Govern ment, and even then the number was very insignificant. The paper duty is the only excise duty for the repeal of which there has been a constant demand from the country, and that demand has been supported by many members of Parliament, Members of Parliament not belonging exclu- sively to this side of the house have thought fit to join an association for promoting the repeal of the paper duties. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, for whose vote the country will look with interest to-night, and the right hon. baronet the member for Herts, whose vote upon a former occasion was given in the manner that we expected from what we knew of him, are members of an association for the repeal of the paper duties. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks is not himself, as far as I know, a member of any such association. He has probably acted upon the principle to which I have always adhered, and, without censuring others, has de clined to be a member of any association outside the doors of this house for Parliamentary purposes. But the object has received the most distinct, conspicuous, and emphatic support from the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman voted for the repeal of the paper duties in 1850, when the duty on tea was 2s. 2d. per lb. (Hear.) What did the right hon. gentleman do in 1858 ? I am afraid I cannot approach this part of the subject without coming to a point on which I differ from my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, because in my opinion all abstract resolutions on the subject of the extinction of taxes are im prudent and unwise. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend thought differently, and he moved a resolution condemning the paper duty, selecting it from all other duties, and making no reservation in favour of tea. Byhis resolution he pledged the house to the proposition that the paper duty should not be permanently maintained, and that distinction was con ferred upon the paper duty alone. There was one gentleman more responsible for that resolution than my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend moved it as a private member of Parliament—the right hon. gentleman accepted it as the organ of a Government. (Cheers.) I confess that, as it ap pears to me, he did an imprudent act in acceding to that resolution; but I confess also that it seems to me that, hav ing acceded to it, he would have done better to avoid the temptation which has since been put in his path to endea vour to explain it away. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) Why, Sir, the right hon. gentleman has since told us that that was a hesitating resolution, passed in a languid house, and it was, according to him, a resolution that meant that, at some future time or other—probably in the days of our children or grandchildren, when the war duties upon tea and sugar, as they are called—and I will say a word upon that subject by and by—had been disposed of, and the income tax was extinguished, then, forsooth, we might proceed to repeal the paper duty. But does the right hon. gentleman think that he, as the organ of the Government, was right in advising the house to give that pledge in the face of the country —(hear, hear) —and does he think that he is using weapons which are either safe or honourable when the House of Commons is encouraged, in order to avoid some momentary difficulty or to obtain some momentary favour—(hear, hear) —to hold out promises of that kind which are to be explained—l repeat the terra—which are to be ex plained away in order to meet the prudential considera tions which exigencies may subsequently suggest ? (Oh, oh.) The right hon. gentleman has to-night set up a doctrine which, as far as I know, is entirely new. In the first place, I must say that, differing in this respect very much from some gentlemen who have spoken from that side of the house, he has stated the issue with perfect fair ness. He made a comparison between an Excise and a Cus toms duty, and he said, " I admit at once that we are not to look to the mere question to what extent a reduction is to be effected in the price of some article of subsistence, but we are to look to the effect of our measures upon the gene ral trade, industry, and employment of the country." With respect to that I will only say that I entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman as to the principle, but I believe it to be impossible for any candid man, after any examination, however cursory, of the facts of this case, to maintain that the removal of some 3d., which is the utmost that could be taken off the duty upon tea, would have anything like the effect upon the industry of the country that wo must in common prudence anticipate from the abolition of the duty on paper. (Hear, hear.) What is the effect of a Customs duty ? The effect of a Customs duty is by burdening the article to which it applies to limit the consumption. The effect of an Excise duty so far considered is the same, but over and above that effect an Excise has a serious in fluence through the medium of its restrictive regulations and the indirect cost which it entails, which amounts not merely to a burden, but, in many instances, to an absolute prohibition. What was it that, in the year 1830, caused Sir H. Parnell to designate this paper duty first among those that called for repeal ? That was not the suggestion of the hon. member for Birmingham, and every authority from that time to this has concurred in that judgment. The facts of the case as they concern the paper duty are these. You are not simply to consider what is the incidence of the duty upon the paper that is made in this country —so far I grant that there is a certain parallelism between that duty and the tea duty—what you must consider is, what are the trades or branches of trade which are pesi tively prevented or extinguished by the operation of the paper duty. Were this the time for details it would not be difficult to state many such trades to the house. On a for mer occasion my noble friend mentioned one instance and I mentioned another—and that might be greatly multiplied— of a trade in paper, that is to say in sheets made of fibrous materials, that is actually rendered impossible, or all but impossible, in many cases quite impossible, by the opera. tion of the paper duty. :The right hon. gentleman, feeling the pressure of the argument, resorted to a doctrine which I believe to be entirely novel, which I grant to be inge nious, and which I admit would have been entitled to in fluence our decision if it had been true—(a laugh)—by true, of course I mean accurate. He said that the tea and sugar duties are war duties, and that Parliament is under a pledge to remove them. " Let us therefore," continued the right hon. gentlemen, " let us above and before all things keep faith with the nation." Now, sir, lam glad to get the issue between us some degree narrowed. If the first part of this statement can be proved, I do not contest the latter portion of it. I say "by all means let us keep faith with the nation." But is it true that these are war duties ? In what sense are they war duties ? Were they imposed in time of war ? No. Were they imposed for the purposes of war ? No. When were they imposed ? They were im posed in time of peace, and not for purposes of war. (Mur murs of disapproval on the Opposition benches.) Ido not . in the least complain of those murmurs. My desire is to convey information, because I am sure that hon. gentle men, although they seem to muster as if for a party struggle, are really actuated much more by a love of truth and a desire to understand the facts of the case, of a great many of which I do not think that they can possibly be aware. (Cheers.) I want to know what is the meaning of a war duty. Ido not now ask whether this expression has prevailed as a cant phrase, or has been adopted as a convenient ono. Ido not know who is the author of it. I cannot tell whether or not it has ever passed my lips. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition ,benches.) lam not finding fault with the phrase, because I can under stand that if you treat it as a popular designation it is so far true that the duties with which tea and sugar are now burdened are higher than those which were proposed before the Russian war. (Opposition cheers.) But that does not make them war duties. Is the present income-tax a war income-tax ? (Yes, yes, and cheers.) The present income• tax was imposed in 1859. Is there, then, any pledge connected with the Russian war to reduce the income-tax? (Yes, and hear, hear.) Ido not speak of any time that is gone by. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) I speak of the tax upon incomes imposed in 1859, and I say that you may, if you choose, popularly call that a war in come- tax, because it is higher than the income-tax as it was originally proposed—(hear, hear)—when we had an expen diture of £52,000,000 or £53,000,000 to provide for ; but I say that it would be ludicrous to call it a war income-tax in the sense of founding upon that term an engagement—be cause that was what was done by the right hon. gentleman — an engagement, to reduce that tax as if it had been an income tax laid for the purposes of war. If there is no such engage ment, the whole argument of the right hon. gentleman falls to the ground. What I say of the tea and sugar duties is this. In the first place, however, I must complain of the unfairness which is practised upon this subject. Again and again we are told how wrong it is—and an endeavour is made to delude the public upon the subject; again and again the people have been told that it is absurd to repeal the paper duty instead of repealing the war tea and sugar duties. (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord the member for Staffordshire considers that a fair statement of the case, does he ? (Hear, hear.) Now, that is exactly the point to which I want to bring the committee. The noble lord says that, instead of repealing the paper duty, we ought to repeal the war tea and sugar duties, the repeal of the paper duty entailing a loss this year of £600,000, and ultimately of £1,250,000, while the abolition of the war duties upon tea and sugar would cause a loss of £2,500,000. (Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich denies that statement. I beg leave to say that, speaking in round numbers, I have stated accurately what would have been the cost for the year of repealing what are called the war duties upon tea and sugar, and I do not think that it can be denied that it is grossly unfair to represent the repeal of the paper duty to the public as if it prevented the repeal of another duty which would cost more than twice the money. [Sir J. Pakington was understood to say that no proposal had been made for the sacrifice of so large an amount of revenue.] I am stating that this is the way in which the subject has been repeatedly handled in speeches, and the way in which it is constantly represented to the public. I have in my hand the last and most authentic instance of this unfair ness. You say that the people are entirely in favour of your policy—(hear, hear)—and you challenges reference to the people. We have had an 'election within the last few days. (Loud and derisive cheering from the Opposition benches.) We have had an election within the last few days, and the issue raised by that election was a very de finite ono, because a most respectable,:most competent, and well-qualified gentleman made his appeal to the consti tuents, whose suffrages he solicited entirely upon the ground of opposition to the financial measures of the Go vernment. Here is his address, and in it a mode of state ment is adopted which I have no doubt was suggested from head-quarters. In the most authentic manner, as if he had undergone a regular training through a course of these de bates, he runs through tho old points of the surplus, the state of the national finances, and the comfort of the la bouring classes, and he then says : " The permanent sacrifice of £1,500,000 of Paper Duty seems to be imprudent at present, and the consequent main - tenance of the war duties upon tea and sugar, those neces sary articles of consumption in every home, appears unjust." (Murmurs from the Opposition Donchoa.) Z merely otato, and I confess that I did not expect that there would have been so much disposition to question that statement, that it is an unfair mode of putting the case to place against the repeal of the Paper Duty, and to declare to be the alterna tive of that repeal, a measure which would cost at least twice as much. The duties to which I am referring, there fore, cannot, properly speaking, be called war duties, inas much as they.were not imposed in time of war 'or for war purposes. In the year 1854 the sugar duties were increased for the purposes of war, and in 1855 the tea:duties were in creased with the same object, and I am quite willing to:admit that the right hon. gentleman says truly when he con tends that there is a sort of general pledge given to the public that war taxes should be taken off when the cause for which they have been levied has ceased to exist, and, in point of fact, the increased duties which I have just men tioned lapsed with the conclusion of the war itself. The House of Commons read last year a second time, by a considerable majority, a bill for the repeal of the paper duty. For a period of 40 years a vote of that kind on the part of this house has been accepted by the trade and commerce of the country as an absolute and final decision. In all such cases persons interested in the trade industry of the nation have felt themselves justified in accepting the assurance which such a vote afforded, and upon the faith of it invested their capital and pledged their credit. (Hear.) This was done last year, in consequence of the conclusion at which the House of Commons arrived, and I now send back to the right hon. gentleman opposite the challenge which he threw out, and I say to him, " Keep faith with the country —(cheers)—keep faith with those who have trusted to the vote of last session, as they have done to a long list of similar assurances which in a hundred cases we have given them." (Hear, hear.) I will not trouble the committee by going into details upon this point ; but I would illus.• trate by referring to facts the statement which I make, that a long course of precedents has given the public a title to rely upon votes similar to that of last year given by this house. I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. Grey, a gentleman who is well known to my hon. friend the mem ber for Edinburgh, who is one of the most enterprising men in this country. Ido not know that he possesses large means ; but about 30 years ago, when such enter prise was much rarer than at present, he conceived the ingenious idea of establishing a paper as a gratuitous adver tising medium. The undertaking was successful, and con ferred, I believe, a great benefit cn the country. Well, this gentleman writes to me to say that trusting to the vote of the House of Commons last year he had at once committed himself to his subscribers, and that the conse quence had been that there was a considerable diminution of his profits; but that they were still sufficient to keep the roof over his head which, after 34 years of indefatigable industry, he was enabled to call his own, but such could not continue to be the case unless the paper duties were repealed during the present session. He adds that he, perhaps incautiously, trusted to the pledge given to the public by the vote of this house last year ; that he, never theless, kept his word with his subscribers, and that the consequence had been to entail upon him a fearful loss. In touching on the question of surplus I must not forget that the member -for Norfolk, the hon. member for Hunt ingdon, and the hon. member for Limerick have all ques tioned the existence of that surplus exceedingly, yet each and all of these gentlemen voted to take from it, according to the beat official estimate that can be framed, £285,000 more than would be absorbed by the proposal of the Go vernment. (Cheers.) And then the hon. member for Hunt ingdon comes down here and challenges me about Exche quer-bills and Stade dues, and says I shall lose £220,000 by Stade dues and £50,000 by Exchequer-bills. That would make in all £270,000, but I should still be £15,000 better off than their proposal, if carried, would leave me. (Cheers.) The hon. member found fault with my calculations ; but it was he, and not I, who ventured to predict what the state of the money-market would be six months hence. He it was who said, in his desire to make good the ease he was urging with great ability, that he had calculated the Exchequer bills for 12 months, forgetting the provision of law which— Mr. T. BARING—I asked what the amount was. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You computed it at £220,050, and you-- Mr. BARING—I wish to explain. ;(Cheers.) I said that as it was stated by the right hon. gentleman that the in crease on the interest of Exchequer-bills would not be for more than six months, I took that item at £25,000, and the payments on account of Stade dues I said were fixed by public opinion at £200,000. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am very much obliged by the explanation. I thought the hon. member said the Stade dues would be £220,000, and, in point of fact, neither he nor we /had any accurate means of com putation, not knowing whether the arrangements would be completed or not. My noble friend, I believe, is now of opi nion that the arrangement will probably be carried out. It will require a sum of £155,000 or £156,000, and that, of course, was one of the reasons why we objected to the re peal of the tea duty—(cries of " Oh," from the Opposition) — feeling it necessary to keep in hand a sum of £400,000 or £500,000. (Cries of "Oh," and cheers.) Of course in a coun try like this you cannot possibly foresee every accruing charge for the 12 months, and you keep a small surplus, not exactly in hand, but before you on paper, so as to meet con ' tingent charges whichmay arise. The hon. gentleman is still in a very uneasy state about the surplus, and thinks it very doubtful whether there will be any after all. I must say I do trust that the subject of a surplus as it has been handled in these debates will not be a precedent for future times. To-day it is denied, to-morrow it is asserted, the next day it is exaggerated, and the following day it is denied again. (Laughter and cheers.) One time we are told the surplus will not admit of a remission of £15,000; next, it is endea voured to force upon us the remission of £1,500,000; and then the hon. baronet the member for the West Riding rises in his place and thinks it becoming his station and position—(cries of "Oh !" and cheers)—to say that he thinks the estimate of that surplus—(loud murmurs from the Opposition, followed by cheering from the Ministerial benches.) On this subject, and in discharge of a public duty, I must vindicate the privilege of speech. (Cheers). I think it right to call e to the recollection of the house that the member for the West Riding did think it right to state—(renewed cries of " Oh In —that the estimate of sur plus which I have submitted was no better than the reckon ing of any speculator. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerialists.) If that be a misre presentation, I am ready to listen to any explanation. Sir J. RAMSDEN—I believe, Mr. Massey, the words were these :—That the estimate of surplus was liable to prove as fallacious as the scheme of any speculator en the Stock Exchange. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That ap pears to be precisely the sense imputed to the hon. baronet —(loud cheers and counter cheers) —and which I was in hopes he might have been induced to qualify. However, having been deceived in that expectation, let me deal with another assumption of the hon. baronet no less astounding. He said it was unexampled after a deficiency in a particular year to propose the repeal of a tax in the next. I need not go very far back to produce a remarkable instance, in which, I suppose, the conduct of the Government of the day will not be much disapp roved by the honour able baronet, as he took office with them shortly afterwards. In 1857 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, having had a deficiency of £4,000,000 in the previous year, repealed taxes to the extent of £10,700, 0 0 0 , and im mediately after this was done the Government which had been guilty of such astonishing profligacy was joined by the right hon. baronet. (Cheers.) My hon. friend the member for Dorsetahire, who made this motion, has thought fit to repeat imputations on me which I have never noticed in this house. As long as the most sordid motives or the most questionable proceedings are imputed only by anonymous writers of the press, or at any rate by those from whom one has no right to expect favour or indulgence, I think by far the best course for a member of this house to take is to pass them by in utter silence, and to trust to the candour of his countrymen, which I believe will never fail him—(cheers) —and, I must add, to their appreciation of his character and his services, be those what they may. (Hear.) But my hon. friend, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing from boyhood, and my respect and regard for whom no political circumstances can ever in the slightest degree affect, has imputed to me that the proposals which I have made in this house are brought forward for some mysterious purpose of conciliating the hon. gentleman the member for Birming ham. (Opposition cheers.) With regard to any supposed sympathies of mine with the hon. member for Birmingham, I must say that if I did sympathise with him I should not have the slightest hesitation in avowing it, because I know of nothing in the character—(general cries of Hear, hear) —or in the conduct of the hon. gentleman which need make any man who agrees with him afraid to state it. (Cheers.) His character has, in my opinion, always been marked with strict integrity, and his conduct has been uniformly straightforward. (Hear.) But, when a statement of that kind is made against a person like myself, who am not at all aware of holding the same opinions in politics as the hon. member for Birmingham, I must observe that neither my hon. friend who made it last, nor any gentleman who made it before, has ever attempted to support or sustain it by any language I have used, or by any sentiments I have expressed. I certainly do sympathise with the hon gentle man member for Birmingham in regard to the whole course of that commercial legislation which has conferred such im mense boons and blessings on the country, and of which he has been one of the most distinguished champions. And I regret to find that that policy still has many opponents in this house, who, though unable to prevent it from taking effect in the main, are apparently glad to find any oppor tunity of crippling it or of covering it with discredit. I should not be doing justice to my hon. friend the member for Birmingham if I attempted to describe my own opinions with respect to matters of finance by mix in g them up' with his, of which I have no knowledge other than that which every member in this house possesses in common. with my self. But if my hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire, wishes to make any imputation on my opinions sieleas I I can explain, I am willing to give him an explanation: have no doubt that he has a meaning, which I am obliged to conjecture, as he has been content to make use of vague , perhaps, that am one a nd shadowy language. He m eane of those who entertain the concealed and covert intention of changing the system of taxation, shifting the burden from commodities to property, and affecting thereby a con siderable alteration in the relative position of classes. (Oppo sition cheers.) If such be the belief of hon. gentlemen opposite, I have no doubt that the proposal we now make for the repeal of the paper duty is regarded as the iusiduous beginning of a serious innovation, fraught with danger to the country. (Opposition cheers.) It might, perhaps, be enough for me to say that not one syllable had been adduced from any speech of mine to sustain that belief. Whether such be the desire of the hon. member for Birmingham I know not, but it is not mine. (Some interruption.) lam sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will permit me to state in a few words the view I take of the proposal of her Ma jesty's Government. We are not now at the beginning, but at the accomplishment and consummation of a great series of legislative changes. We are not introducing novel prin ciples, but working up the residue of great and beneficent operations introduced by great men, whose names will ever live in the grateful memory of the country, and who ad vanced them up to a certain point and then handed them over to us simply and in all humility, but likewise in all fidelity, to complete. I confess that, in my opinion, the days of what are called by their friends comprehensive, and by their enemies ambitious, budgets are gone by. They began in 1842 and 1845 with Sir R. Peel, who had a great work to do, and who set about it like a workman equal to his busi ness. Then came in 1852 the budget of the right hon. mem ber for Buckinghamshire, who quite justifiably in his own point of view, though I did not concur with him, pro duced an extensive and comprehensive new financial plan. In 1853 I was myself responsible for a plan of the same kind, and again last year, taking the opportunity presented by the treaty of France, we introduced a measure which in our view went to complete the whole of that series of changes which had been initiated, though not entirely, in modern times by Sir R. Peel. Therefore, it is not the commence ment, but the conclusion of our commercial legislation that we are now proposing, and viewed as the conclusion I put fearlessly to the house the proposal for the repeal of the paper duty as being one as well and as firmly founded in all the sound principles of finance and of industrial economy as any proposal that during the course of the last 20 years was ever submitted to and met the approval of Parliament. (Cheers.) I heard with deep regret last night the speech of the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth, though not indeed with the same regret as I heard some other re marks made by the hon. baronet the member for the West Riding. I hope that the lion. member for the West Riding will express his regret before the conclusion of the debate — (laughter, and cries of " hear")—for having, with or with out premeditation, spoken of the American Government as a great Republican bubble. (A cry of " Hear.") lam sorry to hear that phrase cheered by a single member, and had hoped that that was the first and last time we should hear any member allude in a jeering way to the tremendous calamity which threatens to fall upon a great country— (cries of "oh," and cheers)—but Tdo not believe that the hon. member for the West Riding had any intention to speak in such a spirit. With regard to the right hon. baro net the member for Tamworth, I cannot express the regret with which I heard it stated by him that this measure is one which appears to aim at some extensive substitution of direct for indirect taxation and is not a measure of free trade. The recollection of the long years during which I sat by the side of one in whose memory the hon. baronet is entitled to feel the deepest interest led me to a different con clusion, and I think it would puzzle the hon. baronet to draw a distinction in princip 'e between this last Excise duty which we are now proposing to remove and those other Excise duties, not one whit more objectionable in principle or more oppressive in practice, which his honoured father was the instrument of repealing. (Hear, hear.) I certainly had hoped that in the work of removing this description of legis lation from the statute-book we might have had the advan tage of the hon. baronet's assistance; but, if not, we must still appeal to the convictions and experience of this house, and until I see the contrary, I never will believe that this house, after the eleventh hour, will withdraw the last hand from the work it has hitherto carried through with firmness and courage ; and on the present occasion I anticipate a de cision which shall be faithful to the spirit of the former acts of the Legislature. (Cheers.) Sir J. RAMSDEN rose to explain. He said—The right hon. gentleman has commented in somewhat severe terms on the observations I ventured to utter. He said that I stated that previous surpluses had been actually in hand, but he omitted to add some important words, on which the whole meaning depended. I said that formerly the surplus had been either actually in hand, or in some other form equally tangible and secure. (Hear, hear.) I put it to the sense of the committee what is the plain meaning of those words ? (Hear, hear.) I did not speak in childlike igno rance, as the right hon. gentleman seems to think, of the arrangements by which the surplus in hand is devoted to certain purposes, but I meant to convey this meaning, that it is not justifiable to repeal permanent and safe taxation— (oh, oh, and cheers) —except on the faith of a surplus, which the experience of the previous year has shown that we can depend on. (Hear.) I went on to say---(cries of " Ohl" and cheers) —that it was unprecedented tor a Chancellor of the Exchequer to close the year with a deficit of more than £2,500,000, and then to propose to remit taxation on the faith of a sur plus purely founded on speculative calculations. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman takes exception to that, and quotes against me the case of the budget of the present Home Secretary in 1857. If I was speaking of any one for whom I had a less unfeigned respect than I have for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should say that to adduce that example is trifling with the sense of the committee. (Hear.) For what was that year ? It was the year when we returned to a peace establishment from the great expenditure of the Crimean war. (Hear, hear.) I repeat the challenge I made to the Chancellor of tne Exchequer, to show in a year of peace a case in which any Finance Minister has closed the year with such a deficiency, and has proposed to remit taxation on the face of a surplus so purely speculative as the present. (Cries of "Hear, hear," and "Divide 1") Grave charges have been brought against me. (Cries of " Divide !" Chair 1") The right hon. gentleman has seen fit to renew the observations which in an early part of the evening were made by the noble lord the member for the city of London. At that time I rose and offered an expla nation of the remarks to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. If I might be allowed to form an opinion of the sentiments of the Committee from the manner in which they received my explanation, I believe it was perfectly satisfactory. (Cheers.) The explanation which the right hon. gentleman asks has, therefore, already been made and has been thoroughly accepted ; and I now leave it to the fairness of the committee to judge between the right hon. gentleman and myself. (Cheers, and cries of "Divide !") Sir J. PAKINGTON—I am glad the hon. baronet oppo site has not complied with the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that he should express regret for one of the best and most effective speeches I have ever heard. (Hear, hear, and "Divide 1") At this late hour I will not inter fere between the house and the division. I will, however, claim their attention for a few moments, as I believe I am almost the only member of the house who has not yet spoken on the Budget. (A laugh.) My reason for now rising is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, put a question which I think it is in my ower to answer. Tho right hon. gentleman com plainped that the present duties on tea and sugar had been described as "War Duties," and he asked who was the author of the phrase. To that question I believe I can give an answer. In 1857, in one of our debates, one of the speakers said, " It is almost matter of good faith; that when next remissions of taxation were made, the duties on tea and sugar, which were, in fact, war duties, should be reduced." (Cheers.) The speaker added that there could be no greater claim for a reduction of taxation than on those articles which entered so largely into the consumption of the people. (Hear, hear) Who spoke these words ? The noble lord the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. (Cheers.) Therefore the author of the phrase "War Duties," as applied to the duties ontea and sugar, of which the right hon. gentleman complains, was toe noble lord his colleague, to whom I refer him. (Hear, hear.) I confess I have heard with extreme surpriseany reference to the Flint shire election. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentle man took part in that election, and also in the same election two years ago. If there is a roan in this house from whom I did not expect to hear any reference to the Flintehire elec tion it is the sight hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear, and divide.) I claim the right to say that I have listened to these debates from first to last, and have heard nothing to affect the opinion I entertain, and which the great majority in this house and the country also bold with me, that this budget is open to three fatal objections. The first is, that the arrangement is one that is financially unwise. The se cond is, that the budget is no better than a party manoeuvre, and has been arranged with a view to the interests of party, and not of the country. Lastly, I am of opinion that this budget does involve unnecessary offence, if not insult, to the House of Lords. (Oh I) The House of Lords, however, I have no doubt, will treat that offence with the contempt it deserves. (Oh 1) I maintain that the House of Lords has never objected to repeal the paper duties. they only objected to reduce the resources of the country. (Oh 1) If hon. members will refer to the speech of the Earl of Derby they will find in a distinct statement that he agrees in thinking that the paper duty is an objectionable impost, that its maintenance is a mere matter of time, and that whenever the state of the finances renders it desirable he is prepared to repeal the paper duty. The right hon. gen. tleman has spoken of my right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli;) as being unable to resist the temptation of explaining away the part ho had taken in 1858. But the part taken by my right hon. friend requires no explanation. Ho held th e same language then that the Earl of Derby held last year. We were parties to a resolution, and we thereby acknow ledged that it was right to repeal the paper duty whenever the financial state of the country would permit. Whet i the right hon. gentleman imputes to us that we are incorn• sistent in proposing to repeal the tea duties, whereby yea reduce the revenue by £200,000 more than he proposed, ray answer is to be found in an extract from another speech by the noble lord (J. Russell). He was then an independent member of the Opposition. In 1857 the noble lord said he was sure that a reduction of the d ut y on tea to ls. pr lb. would be followed by an increased consumption tb.at would soon bring up the revenue to its former amount. (Hea This is an answer to the charg e of inconsistency. Lord[ J. Russell. -I never said the revenue would be made up one year.] No ; (but I adopt the language of the noble y ars will be ent )rely lord, and say that the duty interes d th d made up. (Hear, hear.) lir:llf.leevittha:tofetthyhee ocGnooeunvestornry)iitiahennedty ought to have considered the tio o s natorts of the ma sses wouldnot the ehav have interests rep e of al e d t party h e d ; u t i a e an d ba h whin L ead I tm,fe of war vere ba l'or s e reasons I can not put on the comforts of the pe pp t e e , , repealing the i duty n 1 7. a a arti cl en very sli gwhich e g o r n e t e r! concur in the proposition of the Government. (Cheers. ) Lord PALMERSTON.—Sir, I cannot begin the very f 'ow words which I shall feel it my duty to submit to the hot tse on the present motion without expressing the satisfaction.' feel, and which I am sure is participated in by all preset it, at seeing again within these walls my hon friend the mem - ber for Rochdale, returned after rendering those valuably services—(oh 1 and hear, hear)—which he has performed for his country—(renewed cries of ' oh l' and hear, hear) — and restored to that health which I am sure even those who differ from him in politics are happy to see him enjoying. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, the hon. member for Norfolk has asked me a question which ho has repeated for the second time, and I presume it will be a question put every fort night till the end of the session. (Laughter.) lam happy to be able to answer that questioninthaendsamheeanwo)rdTs hine which I answered it before. (Laughter hon. member asks me whether there is anything in the present s t a t e of affairs on the continent of America which induce s me to think it will be necessary to apply to this house to increase the armaments either by land or sea. I stated to the hon. gentleman that I saw nothing in the events now taking'place in the United States which was likely to 'lead to those consequences. The hon. member asks me again whether those events in America are likely materially to afect the Customs and Excise duties of this country. The best answer which I can give him on this point is to state the fact that during the eight weeks end ing last Saturday the p rod u ce of the Customs Dad Ei4eio and Stamps, the fixed revenue of the country, was £.500,000 more than in the corresponding period before those oc currences. (Cheers.) Judging, therefore, of the future from the past, I do not think we have need to be under any , anxiety on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Passing from that topic, I must observe that the state in which the house is this evening is certainly a remarkable contrast to that which the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire stated to have been its condition on the occasion when the vote on the paper duty was before taken. This certainly is net a languid house; nor is the vote likely to be a sleepy vole. (Laughter and cheers.) We are told that hon. mem bers have come down to give freely, and without reference to party considerations, those votes which on mature re flection in their study they may be led to give on the repeal of the paper duty. (Laughter.) Why, Sir, I dare say that that is the case. (Renewed laughter.) At all events, the vote of this night will be one remarkable for the manner in which different conflicting opinions have, without any party object whatever, been brought to concur in a single vote. (Laughter and cheers.) We are going to have a vote against the repeal of the paper duty by those who on for mer occasions voted against that repeal, and by those who decidedly and enthusiastically voted for it. (Cheers and laughter.) We are going to have the same vote given by those who denied the existence of a surplus, and by those who exhibited a wish to diminish the surplus which my right hon. friend proposed as the result of the financial year. We are going to have the same vote given by those who advocated a repeal or remission on the duty on tea, by those who on former occasions demanded a reduction of the Ex cise duties, and by those who supported a repeal of the income ;tax. We are going to have the same vote given by Freetraders and Protectionists. We are going to see every variety of opinion merged into one common vote, and we are told that this is not a party vote. (Hear, hear.) We are told by the right hon. baronet who has just spoken, and who has just censured what he calls a party manceuvre, that there is nothing of party in this vote. In deed, on the contrary, we are assured by many of the hon. members who have spoken in this debate that there is nothing which hon. gentlemen opposite have at heart so much as to maintain and support the existing Government. (Laughter and cheers.) Well, sir, at last we shall come to an end of this long debate—(hear)—and if we wanted any authority for the opinion that this debate has lasted an un usual time, it is afforded us by the first sentence of the speech of the right hon. baronet, who stated that he be lieved he was almost the only member of the hcuse who had not spoken on the discussion. (Laughter.) Therefore, Sir, I may be excused for saying this has been a long debate, and that hon. gentlemen have had a full opportunity of making up those independent opinions and uniting them in one harmonious whole which are to characterise the divi sion to-night. (Laughter and cheers.) But I hope that, in spite of this fortuitous concurrence of discordant atoms in one united vote, hon. members will remember that we are deciding a most important question of financial regulation; that they will bear in mind all those arguments that have been refuted by those who have spoken on this side of the house, and will not be led away by the conflicting, and I may say by the unfounded, arguments of those who have spoken against the proposition of the Government. (Great laughter and cheers.) Almost every one has concurred that the paper duty is vicious and hurtful in itself. (No, no, and hear, hear.) Gentlemen on the other side of the house have argued, and confirmed that argument by their votes, that this tax ought to be repealed on the earliest occasion on wheh the finances of the country will allow of its repeal. (Hear, hear.) It has been proved and admitted that the tax is one which not only imposes a burden on the indus trial exertions of the country, but is promotive of impedi ments to any fresh operations in the particular branch of trade on which it is levied. My right hon. friend has re minded the house that this is the last remnant of an objec tionable system of Excise duties ; that we are not inaugu rating any new system of finance, but only completing a system which has been sanctioned by many of the most competent authorities in former times as well as at the present in all that relates to the commercial transactions of the country. (Hear, hear.) 1 do, therefore, hope that no extraneous matter—no question of party, independent of the matter at issue, will affect the votes on the division which is about to take place. Relying on the assurance which has been given, that hon. gentlemen are going to vete free from all party considerations, and on a full and mature consideration of the case--and believing and being convinced that the merits of the case are clear as the sun at noonday—(laughter)—l confidently look to the result of the division which is to decide the question on which we are now about to pronounce our opinion. (Cheers.) The committee then divided. The process of numbering the votes occupied fully 20 minutes, during which the greatest excitement prevailed. When the respective tellers entered the house and having declared the numbers, upon the clerk handing the total paper to Mr. Brand an outburst of cheering occurred from the Ministerial side which lasted for several minutes, upon the subsidence of which the numbers were declared to be— For the clause Against Majority for the Government The other clauses and the schedules were then agreed to, and the bill ordered to be reported to the house. Colonel FRENCH called the attention of the house to the statement made by the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs ; that statement he considered prejudicial to the honour and independence of the Irish members of the house. (" Oh, oh.") The noble lord, he understood, stated that a deputation. of Irish members had applied for an interview with the Prime Minister on the subject of the Galway contract. On the part of all the Irish members with whom he had spoken, he declared that there was no foundation for this statement. They had never thought of asking an interview with the noble lord; and, under the circumstances, he did not believe that any Irish members would have attended such an interview. A certain indi% i dual, not representing the Irish members, did have a con versation with the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment ; he (Colonel Fi =oh) had asked him whether he had made any statement to the noble lord that might compro mise the honour and independence of the Irish members, and he (Colonel French) was authorised to state that the report was wholly desitute of foundation. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said—l will answer the statement of the hon, member instead of my noble friend, as what the hon. gentleman has said is founded on a communication made to me. My noble friend .did not state that any pro posal for a deputation had been authorised by the Irish members. What passed I will state exactly as it occurred. There is no use concealing names. Father—that is Mr.e— Daly—(laughter)—came to me =Saturday, and urged many reasons why the decision of the Government with regard to the Galway contract should be rescinded. I stated to Mr. Daly that I did not consider him authorised to represent anybody, and declined to enter iota any discussion with I him about the contract, as I did not consider him the am bassador of the Irish members in general, or of the Galway Company in particular. I said it was a public question; that the hon. member for Galway had given notice of a motion on the subject, and that the question must be die cussed publicly in the House of Commons, not privately in my room. (Cheers.) Mr. Daly said, if I would not dis cuss it with him would I do so with a deputation of Irish members ? I said I did not see that it was a matter be tween me and the Irish members, but between the Govern ment and the Galway Company ; nor did I see what the Irish members had to do with it more than to take part in the discussion that must follow on the motion. (Laughter.) Mr. Daly said I was mistaken, because the Irish members must take some action on the subject. I said "Yes, tha ac tion will be on the discussion." (Cheers, and laughter.) Well, Mr. Daly said, " That won't exactly do (laughter) ; I wish to bring a deputation of Irish members to you on Monday." But Monday I told him was the day appointed for the Budget, and the Galway Contract is a different question. (Laughter.) I said " There is no discussion on Monday about the Galway contract. There is no reason why I should receive a deputation on that day, and, more over, if I were to receive a deputation, I know already everything they could say to me, and I can only tell them what I tell you —namely, that it is a public question to be discussed in the House of Commons, and not in a pri vate room in my home." (Hear, hear.) " Well, but," said Mr. Daly, "I am anxious that you should see them on Monday , because they must take action on the subject — (l au ghter)—and that action must be taken on the Mon day evening." (Renewed laughter.) "Oh," said I, "I now understand you—(much laughter)—and when it is put to me in that way I must, with all deference and re spect for the Irish members, entirely decline seeing any of them." (Cheers.) So the matter ended, and that is what I stated to my noble friend as well as to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ido not know what authority Mr. Daly had for anything which he said, or for his undertaking to bring me a deputation of Irish members. (Hear.) My noble friend did not say that he was authorised, and it is for Mr. Daly and the Irish mem bers to settle this point between them. (Cheers and laughter.) Col. DUNNE said that no one had a right to go to the noble lord and act in his name, or in that, he believed, of any other Irish member. (Hear.) However much he might condemn the conduct of the Government in reference to the Galway contract, he would have equally opposed the finan cial measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the con tract had been continued. (Hear, hear.) He opposed those measures because he had no confidence, and his constitu ents had no confidence in the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The bill was then ordered to be reported, and the house resumed. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned at 20 minutes to 2 o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HOROWSLy'S Pills.--The most effec tual remedy for liver complaints and disorders of the stomach.—At this season of the year, when the complaints are so prevalent, there is no better remedy than Holloway's Pills, whether as a preventative or cure. When taken in moderate doses, and strict attention paid to diet, the worst :ases will be re li e ved. The strengthening properties of t hese Pills resto re the impaired tone of the stomach, and jl good has been discovered ifug so rom a long residence in hot di.. personssurpass h every other medicine for general Inie f ' a o : ri ai attn ehlsyse'e cureand theu se. lt i4veefyn They o have the happiest effect On the stomach and secretions, promoting digestion, and gently stimulating the ttorpid bowels. LON DON : Printed and Published by =ADO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Sure Office, No. 112,Strand , in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex 'i-tday, May 31, lem, I