The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

ever, discuss the tea question ag ai n ; but he could not avoid saying a word or two with regard to our West India inte rests. These interests had been most unfairly treated by the house and by the country. Free trade had been applied to them ataantime unjustwh one. when even Sir R. Peel thought the ap plicationHe (Mr. Selmer) knew the house would never retrace its steps with regard to the West Indian sugar legislation. But they ought to remove those war duties from their produce, in order, if possible, that they might struggle on by means of the increased demand given to the staple of their country. He felt no s cruple in advocating these interests, although he had a personal interest in the question. (Hear.) He thought before they voted away a large portion of the permanent revenue they ought to consider the interests of the West Indies. He thought there never was a question in which people of different parties took so strong an interest as they did in this question of the paper duties. They did not do so out of any feeling with regard to the penny newspaper's; as a rule, they were believed to be very well conducted, and to confer great benefits on the coun try. But it was necessary to consider what taxes they ought to take off and what they ought to retain in the pro bable condition of the country next year ; and people were widely of opinion that the duties on tea and sugar ought to be relaxed, and the income tax brought down to a state more consistent with the requirements of the country. Having stated these objections, he could only express his hope that the committee would join him in resisting the removal of £1,200,000 of permanent taxation, and in voting against the abolition of a duty which, though it was ex ceptionable as an excise duty, was not on the whole a tax which operated with severity upon the great mass of the people. (Cheers.) Mr. M. MILNES said that after the vote he had thought it is his duty to give last year, he could not present himself as an enthusiastic admirer, either of the budget of last year or the budget of this year. But it seemed to him that the question did not deserve that great earnestness on the subject of the paper duties which had been shown in the speeches of many hon. members. On the subject of the paper duties he had always thought it was a most painful operation of the excise, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to get rid of it ; but last year he thought they could not legitimately do this ; last year they had no right to get rid of that large sum of money in the face of a de ficit. c o nsequently, though unwilling to vote differently from hon. gentlemen with whom he generally acted, he could not support last year the proposal of his right hon. f r i en d. He therefore was not one of those who was disposed to view the act of the other house in the same light as it was received by many hon. members on that side of the house. Although he could not blind himself to the fact that anything like a division between the two Houses of Parliament was a most unfortunate event, yet he did not see in that act of the House of Lords the same precipitation, the same violence, and the same desire to produce a rupture between two branches of the Legislature which had been attributed. He did see in that act a desire to conform to what they believed to be the general feeling of the country, and taking that view he seemed to himself to be justified in saying he brought a perfectly clear and candid consideration to the subject. Ho thought it would have been very difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have passed over the question of the repeal of the paper duties, consistently with his own opinion and that permanence of adherence to his own views which was always estimable in a statesman. But there was one circumstance which had great weight with his right hon. friend and with the house. This question of the paper duties was not new 'in the house. It had long been agitated, and ho thought with some exaggeration. It had been treated as a question affecting the intellectual pro gress of the country, connected with what were called the " taxes upon knowledge," and assuming an almost moral, or at least an intellectual character. Those abstract resolu tions of the House of Commons had been quite sufficient to place the large amount of capital that was employed in the manufacture of paper in a most uncertain and un comfortable position. (Hear.) They could not go on year after year talking about a tax, holding out prospects of its repeal, dangling, as it were, an advantage before the eyes of a large class of the community, without inflicting a vast amount of present injury not only upon those connected with this trade, but upon persons engaged in other branches of commerce. (Hear, hear.) If then the house had the means of remitting the duty without inflicting any injury upon another class of the community, he thought it most imperative on them not to keep this considerable interest any longer in a state of uncertainty and suspense. Ile con fessed be thought the elaborate compliments which had been paid to his right hon. friend last year, on his efforts in carrying out the great policy of Sir R. Peel—that of making increase of consumption pay for decrease of duty —were a little misplaced. There was, it seemed to him, another and a larger principle called into action—one to which the right hon. gentleman had already called attention. It was this. They could not remit the pressure of taxation upon a material of home industry without bringing into play a correlative field of industry, without stimulating, almost imperceptibly in particular instances, but on the whole in a very palpable and distinct manner, the various other interests which were connected with the remission of this duty. He thought it would be scarcely possible to hit upon an article in which relief would DO felt in so very various a degsee as upon this. It was not the paper seller who seemed to think that he would be the person most re lieved in this matter. It was the great trades of the coun try which believed they would be relieved in small retail transactions. It was the vender of small wares, such as the milliner with her bandboxes, who would mainly be bene fitted by the remission of the duty. At the same time he confessed he hailed with satisfaction that passage in the right hon. gentleman's speech in which he seemed to say that he had come to the end of his tether in the path of direct taxation. He (Mr. Milnes) had sat long enough in that house to remember the first attempt to introduce direct taxation having been made, and he well remembered the cheer which Sir It. Peel gave him when he (Mr. Milnes) declared his belief that a certain extent of direct taxation had been fully and finally accepted by the people of this country. He could not say, however, that he had shared the sanguine hope expressed by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer that by this time the income tax would be abo lished altogether. He hopel the Chancellor of the Exche quer looked with anxiety to the dangerous weapon which had been placed in his hands. The balance between the two modes of taxation ought to be very fairly and carefully adjusted, and any Chancellor of the Exchequer who, though from the best motives and upon the justest grounds, yielded up great public interests to personal feelings or to financial necessity—whatever temporary advantage ho might gain at the time—would fail in doing his duty to the country, and in earning that groat reputation which he might otherwise achieve in the eyes of posterity. Mr. LYGON said the hon. gentleman had informed the committee that the relief given to trade by the repeal of the paper duly would be of a very undefined character. He believed the repeal of the duty was wholly indefensible; and when the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade failed in all his efforts since 1850 to arouse a feeling in his favour, he had no right to come to that house and ask them to do so. The fact was, the measure was a pet one of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer; but if anybody wished to read the strongest argu ments against th e repeal of the duty he had only to turn to the arguments of the right hon. gentleman. It was an un necessary and uncalled f ar procee di ng, and totally distaste fulto the feeling s and opi n i ons o f th e country. The best way to show th at such Houseuchwas o the eease was to refer to what passed last year. T Lords rejected the bill, after the majority in this house dwindled down to nine, and yet not one sentiment of disap i rob a • was expressed except ' by those immediately iuterest ed La . t :l n g t , w w as he n o t so in the case of the Reform Bill, or the Corn house r e e w sto h r o o le king domwas agitated and scenes of violence evnetnh in consequence of the course taken by the other Par liament. But who wanted on the present occasion the of of the paper . duty ? (Hear.) The proprietors of cheap°repealpapers, and nobody else. (Hear.) Besides, it was not onlvn o t e n unpopular tax, but it had increased very eee ,,,id erubi y of late years. In 1 835 it produced but £796,000, whil e in 1858 it amounted to £1,119,000, and last year to £1,30 0,000. That was, he conceived, a sufficient answer to those who argued this duty was an obstacle to the paper trade ; and as to its being a tax on knowledge, they had the evidence of Mr. Bohn that no such effect was produced by the reten tion of the tax. He himself believed the duty was no bar whatever to the diffusion of sound knowledge ; and as to the consumer, it was clear ho would get no advantage by its repeal. The real answer to those who asked what were the advantages of the paper duty was, that it produced a re. venue of £1,300,000 a year, and annoyed nobody. (Hear.) Nobody doubted but that in the present state of parties in the house, the duty was proposed to be repealed in order to gain over the votes of those who had been for years clamouring for its repeal. If the tax were taken off to morrow, it would not give a stimulant to the paper trade of this country, but to the manufacturers of France and Belgtteat. Hon. members should remember that £1,300,000, the Produce of this duty, represented the whole of the charges on the civil list, except law and justice.; and why should they for the sake of a shadowy advantage throw away BQ large an amount of the public revenue, and at a time too when other duties demanded a more immediate repeal. There was a statesman in this country who stated that there was no more unsatisfactory means of ascertaining the revenue of this country than the Excise ; and Sir Robert Peel, acting upon his own experience, swept away many articles upon which Excise duty was charged. Be tween 1822 and 1832 there were nearly £18,000,000 o f taxation remitted, and between 1832 and 1842, there was a remission of £1,500,000. Admitting even that this policy was wiae, the House of Commons were not to be precluded from considering the present plan of the Chancellor of the Excheque r own merits. With regard to th e question of "Tin its y i e ge, , he believed that every member in that house would be ready to vindicate the privileges inthe privileges house if those • • leges w ere rea ll y invaded. Those privi leges were dear to th e houseand the country, because they had been wisely and justly used. But if they allowed them to be diverted from their ni g h a order to promote the interests of a noisythey and legitimate purposes, in poses of unnecessary agitation, clique, for the pur . - they would imperil their position as an important portion of the Legislature—(hear) —but if invaded by the House ofh Lords there was no doubt that every man in the Common s and in the be ready to start up in support of them as thee°unpaltry ladium wouldf their rights. (Hear, bear.) But their privileges had not been invaded, and the assertion of them Was intended to I serve no other purpose than that of a noisy clique. (Hear, I hear.) He believed that the course they were pursuing would have the effect of inflicting a slight on the other House of the Legislature, in consequence of the course taken by them last year. At all events, in the position of the finances of the country, the house would not be war ' ranted in remitting £1,300,000 of taxation on the four grounds of matter, manner, measure, and time. (Hear.) Mr. P. URQUHART said it appeared to him that hon. gentlemen opposite, in continuing this, their fourth attack, ' in the manner in which they were pursuing it, were very likely to place the country in a difficult position. He was afraid that, between tea and paper, John Bull might find himself in the position of a donkey between two bundles of hay, or a state of equilibrium and starvation, from isa not knowing which way to turn. He believed that if the excise duty on paper were swept away, it would give rise toin creased manufacture and increased consumption of the article. It had been said there hadbeenno agitation through.. out the country in favour of the repeal of the paper duty ; but were they, as the author of ~ Coningsby" (Mr. Disraeli) had said, "to yield nothing to reason and everything to agitation ?" The hon. gentleman concluded by adverting to the repeal of the .duty on other articles against which noisy clamour had been raised, and by stating that he should give his support to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. HENNESSY expressed a desire to call the attention of the chairman to the construction of the clause. As now amended, it included the resolution as passed in committee o f ways and means, and he was desirous to know whether it was not very unusual for a Minister of the Crown to ask a committee to pass a clause in a bill, a portion of which repealed a duty which was not passed in committee on the Customs Acts ? Mr. MASSEY, in reply, said the resolution that affected Customs, affected trade, and therefore it was necessary that it should be considered in committee of the whole house. But that resolution which referred to the Customs forming part of the financial arrangements of the year; the 'Chan • caller of the Exchequer thought fit to put in committee of ways and means as part of the financial scheme, and though it was usual that resolutions affecting trade should be con sidered in a committee appointed for that purpose, he could not say that there was anything irregular in the course taken by the right hon. gentleman in moving this matter in committee of ways and means. Mr. HENNESSY said he for one was as much in favour of a repeal of the paper duty as any hon. member could be, but in the proper time ; and the present, in his opinion, was not the proper time to repeal it. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the proposal to repeal the paper duty now because he considered the time had come • when it was desirable to settle the quarrel which had arisen between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the hon. and learned member for Plymouth followed and supported him in that view of the matter. The right hon. gentleman said, if the House of Lords had only exer cised their well-understood privileges there would have been no necessity for the discussion that had taken place. The right hon. gentleman seemed, however, in the course he had taken, to have forgotten the admission that the Lords had the privilege to deal with such a question, and the arguments which he used in that respect in the last session. Last year it was admitted that the Lords had the right to amend bills of this description, but this year the Government pressed the consideration of the present bill in globo on the ground that the Lords had no right to amend the measure, that they should either reject or adopt it altogether. Having shown by reference to official returns that the manufacture of paper was largely on the increase in Ireland, he contended that instead of there being any benefit to that country from the preceding legislation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the effect of his last budget had proved most injurious to Irish interests, and that the butter trade especially had been greatly injured by the seduction of the duty on foreign butter. Such a result, no doubt, had not been expected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by those Irish members who supported his financial proposals, but nevertheless, that result was most disastrous to the Irish butter trade. He believed that of the £1,300,000 paper duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer propo: ed to remit, no less a sum than £1,200,000 would go into the pockets of the pro prietors of penny newspapers, and the public at large would only be benefited to the extent of between £50,000 and £lOO,OOO. (Hear, hear.) On Irish as well as on imperial interests he thought it his duty to resist the financial pro posals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were not based on the precedents of his predecessors who had entitled themselves to public confidence, but on a precedent which he himself was creating, and which he was sure the house would be loath to follow. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NORRIS remarked upon what he considered the inconsistency of the course pursued by the hon. member for Dorsetahire, and the hon. member for King's County, 'who was himself one of the presidents of the society in Ireland for the repeal of the duty on paper. He (Mr. Norris) utterly denied that it was the penny newspaper proprietors who would be benefited 'to the extent calcu lated by the latter hon. gentleman. There Was hardly an article of manufacture connected with which duty-paid paper was not used, and they should bear in mind that paper of that description had to compete with foreign menu:: factured paper, which was duty free. There were scores of articles now produced in this country which came within the legal definition of paper, which not being sufficiently identified as such, were exempted from the tax. In seven different trades there were such exemptions, and this was a great hardship on those who had to the tax. The only remedy for this evil, according to the reports of the tax collectors themselves, was the entire repeal of the paper tax. In 1858 the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire said this tax should not be retained as a source of permanent income. He said the same last year, and added that the tax should be remitted as soon as there was a surplus. Now, having come to the conclusion that £1,700,000 might be remitted from the tea duties, surely the righthon. gentleman was not consistent in opposing the abolition of the paper duties. The surplus was admitted, and the only question was as to what remission of duties that surplus should be applied. He (Mr. Norris) thought the paper duties had the first claim. He did not think the other branch of the Legislature were much indebted to those hon. members who had ventured on an ingenious and ela borate defence of the privileges of that honse. A noble lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) said when he was a poet— " Let wealth and commerce, laws and learning die, But leave us still our old nobility." • The lords were able to vindicate their own privileges, and hon. members should permit them to do so. There had been within the last year a decrease of 55 per cent. in the pro duction of paper in Ireland owing to the vexatious operation of this excise duty on paper. Mr. Bohn was largely engaged in the book trade ; most of his books were exported to Ame rica, and on these he had a drawback of the duty, and was opposed to the proposed remission lest he should have to encounter competition. The house had discussed this ques - tion 10 nights, and he hoped they would conclude the de bate on this, the 11th occasion. Sir J. WALSH thought this was rather an important crisis in the history of the session of 1861, but one of rather subordinate importance as compared with crises that oc curred during his parliamentary experience. The Opposi tion had not been influenced by any factious motives, or any desire to disturb her Majesty's Ministers or oust them from their places. On the contrary, the desire of the Oppo sition was, so far as they could do so consistently with their principles, to support the Government. They respected the Premier, whom they believed to have the head of a states man and the heart of an Englishman. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The Conservative party, although num bering among them many able men, did not desire to at tempt to carry on the affairs of the country with a minority. (Hear, hear.) The third reason was that the Conservative party were growing in influence in the country, and he hoped soon to see the day when the heads of that party would be able to take the Government of the country into their hands and hold it with the approval of the great body of the people. This question was forced upon the majority of the house by a sort of screw, by which a certain section in the house was enabled to override the real majority in the house. This made the question a very irritating one. o The measure b e f ore th em was carried by a bare majority to tak°ellgeas it, then, very facti o us on th e p ar t o f the e tli C tt house. W Conservatives to discus s th e w h o l e ques ti on f u ll y, an d another vote on it in committee ? Was there any chance that in the a " course of the ensui ng y ear th e y wou ld be able to . roah remission of the taxation o f th e country? The whole aspect of affairs both at home and abroad wa s aga i nst the possibility therefore c ontended ossibility of such an occurrence. such athattan as it wa s most unw i se on their part to give up denied that th e a b o li tion of as the d u t y on paper. H e duty would benefit, as had been urged, th e great the defend its shores, in a gi:eat measure, country was calling upon th e i so y of t he people. The and the house had assented to this to a ytheef wingf ect passed resolutions in favour of f ortificatlon a , mand . ye b t of the proposal before the house was, which they weld t ying np to neutralise their efforts in this re means then in their hands by thoseb le to carry out the wishes of the country. Entertaini ng opinions he felt it to be his bounden duty to offer to that measure, fraught, as he thought, with so many mischievous consequences, and introduced under such unfavourable ices, the most determined and most strenuous opposi on Mr. AYRTON said he did not intend to follow the hon. t a i usp . gentleman who had just sat down through the several ar guments he had addressed to the house, and still less to reply to the imputations levelled b y him at hon. g entlemen sitting on that (the Government) side of the house, as he considered that the hon. gentleman had himself given the most complete answer to them. (Cries of "Hear, hear," and ~ Oh.") First, the hon. gentleman charged them as a party with compelling the Government to introduce that measure in' deference to the popular opinion. Sir J. WALSH—I did not say that. (Laughter.) Mr. AYRTON—The hon. gentleman charged them with heing popular agit a t ors out of the house, at the same ti me that he said the measure was one of the most unpopular ever submitted to the house. Sir .1 misrepresent W A LS l 1 -- I m a e ra, butsure I saidthe hhon. wasm eamt,baehr.tidcaoie fana tic, a n n a o ... t t w ie i , sh no tc' t ' a political agitator. (Hear , and laughter.) Mr. AYRTON— WeII, the term, "fanatic" l wasn a ambigu ous, because it might b e that they were sin ce * ' the opinions they expressed. O n th at t ide of the house t least their dis cussions had been prolonged for one purpose only, and that was to consider fairly the merits of the questioq, But 94 the other side the object was to delay the measure in the hope that some circumstances might arise which would enable hon. gentlemen opposite to give a character and a colour to the counter China, cheers.) t eo India, to t They Ame rica, mhae. had carried world,d t rice, and Continent al Euro p e, to show how much the y de ppo themsi tiora tak., over (Che th er e s an de sired some one circumstance that could deter the Govern ment from pursuing its course with regard to the measure now before the committee. But the Chinese war had ended, India was tranquillised, and Indian commerce likely to recover. (Ironical cheers.) That at least was his own opinion. (Hear.) Italy was settling down, and all Eu rope displaying an aversion to war. Bnt a messenger had arrived from Galway and announced trouble to the Govern ment from that quarter. (Cheers and laughter from the Op position.) That was the real secret of the revival of the dis pute upon the budget of the right hon. gentleman. The very fact of the existence of a surplus had again been called in question, and the proposal distorted in every manner that party influence could suggest. The question should be treated, however, as one purely, whether or nct the paper duty were not of all taxes the most obnoxious, and the one which ought to be selected for remission. (Hear.) If hon. gentlemen opt °site could find a tax for the remission of which a better case could be made out, he was not so wedded to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to feel bound to support it in preference to a better one. He, therefore, utterly repelled the idea that he and other gentle men near him were giving a mere factious support to the Government, not for the sake of the budget itself, but be cause it would achieve dome other object. Long before the budget was introduced he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of many other persons, and repre sented to him all the objections that were incidental to the maintenance of the tax, and those objections the Commis sioners of Excise were unable to gainsay. Of all those objections there was one most worthy of notice, and, as it appeared to him, most unanswerable. It was this—that this was not a tax like most other taxes, levied upon an article which could be specifically defined, like alcohol, malt and hops, but a tax imposed in terms that were impractic-' able of fulfilment, and which occasioned an insuperable difficulty in the collection. Had the Government not made this proposition, the anomalous nature of the tax would have been shown in the manufacture of boxes from paper pulp not previously made into paper. Those boxes would have escaped the duty ; but had they been made from manu factured paper, thoy would have been liable to it. The diffi culty presented itself in several other shapes. Thus it was first thought that the duty ought to apply only to vegetable fibre, but presently it became a question whether animal fibre was not embraced by the same definition; and it ap peared that felt was therefore liable to the duty, because it consisted of animal fibre, just as paper consisted of vegetable fibre. So there were two articles applied to the same domestic uses, upon one of which the duty was chargeable, because it consisted of vegetable fibre, while upon the other it was not charged, because it consisted of animal fibre. Liability to a duty arising in that manner was necessarily a most serious consideration for any manufac turer, and however it might be urged that duty was not intended to apply in such a case, yet if it did legally apply, there was no authority vested in the Crown to remit an im post directed by Parliament. The paper duty was a duty in the last degree repressive, and it appeared to him that the proposal made by the Government to repeal it was only the fulfilment of an obvious and pressing obligation. (Hear.) The result of the tax was that competition being prevented, the manufacture became a close one, and it was here espe • cially that the evil was felt. The interests of the public were sacrificed to those of individuals. That was not his own view, but of Lord Monteagle himself, who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding himself from the state of his budget, unable to do more, remitted the duty of lid. a pound on paper-hangings, and the result was that paper, which, under the old duty, was charged 4d. a• yard, was sold, when the tax was repealed, at id. per yard. Such facts were the tine measure of the effect of keeping up statutory and Excise duties upon articles of home manu facture, and what the advocates of the repeal of this tax had in view, was to promote the progress of industry. Hon. members opposite had spoken of an appeal to the country in favour of the remission of the duty upon tea in prefe rence to the repeal of the paper duty. For his part, as the representative of a large constituency, he was quite content to abide the result of that appeal. He believed that the worst taxes were those which were withdrawn from public gaze, and that the more directly you could go to the pockets of the taxpayer the better. This tax ought to be repealed, and if hon. gentlemen opposite really wished to restore their popularity in the country, let them apply themselves earnestly and seriously to a duty which they could perform with good effect, but which he was sorry to say they showed little inclination to attempt, namely, to force upon the Government a reduction in the expenditure of the country. They might then go to the hu tings with a far better cry than tea versus paper, because they would be enabled to make real remissions of taxation. Sir J. RAMSDEN said that if he understood aright the argument which had been addressed to the Committee by the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, it amounted to maintaining that the chief reason to be advanced in support of the repeal of the Paper Duty was, that it was a burden which nobody felt. (Hear, hear.) He could, he should confess, attach no other meaning to the statement of the hon. gentleman that the test of a perfect tax should not be withdrawn from popular knowledge ; but, be that as it might, there was one remark made by the hon. gentleman—that in which he announced it to be his inten tion to vote on the question at issue simply on its merits— in which he entirely concurred. In that respect he should be prepared to follow the hon. gentleman's example. He had last year voted against the repeal of the paper duty for two reasons—firstly, because in the position in which the revenue of the country then stood, he was of opinion that the tax could not be spared ; and, secondly, because if any tax were at the time to be remitted, he thought the addi tion to the income-tax and the war duties which pressed on the comforts of the poor were burdens which ought, in pro ference to the paper duty, to be removed. (Hear, hear.) The opinion on which he acted last year ho this year en tertained; but in the present case a new issue, the expe diency of repealing the war duties on tea, was raised, and for the purpose of that issue the denial of the existence of a surplus, if net expressly withdrawn by the leaders of the Opposition, was at all events waived. The consequence was that those who had voted for the reduction of the tea duties were now told that they had, in doing so, admitted the existence of such a surplus as justified the Government in asking for the repeal of the duty on paper. He, how ever, contended that it was perfectly open to any member to vote for the reduction of the tea duties, and yet not be fairly liable to have such an inference drawn from the course which he had taken. The reduction of the duties on tea would not be a final and irrevocable abandonment of revenue—(hear, hear)—and, moreover, following up the doctrine of the late Sir Robert Peel, it might very justly be argued that increased consumpton would be the result of that reduction, and that, too, t> such an extent as to turn what at first would be a deficit into a surplus. Those who opposed the repeal of the paper duty, on the contrary, must feel that they were objecting to a remission of a tax which, once it was struck off the Statute Book, would be irrevocably lost. (Hear, hear.) The revenue derived from tea, notwithstanding the increase in our popu lation, was almost stationary, a circumstance which proved that the high rate of duty checked consumption ; and if pledges to repeal taxes were of any avail, the duty levied on tea had certainly a strong claim on the attention of Parliament. Moreover, that repeal would have been a benefit to every one of the operative classes, and the advantage to them would have reacted in a corresponding gain to the exche quer. (Hear.) The revenue we derived from the Excise on paper was flourishing and increasing. That it was easily collected and that it.was inoppressive had been sufficiently proved by admissions made in the course of these debates. The papermakers, who were the persons most annoyed by the tax, were not the persons who were the most anxious for its repeal. (Hear.) On these grounds he justified his vote for the reduction of the tea duty. He did not think there was, or could be, the estimated surplus. (Hear.) How was that surplus obtained ? We had this year a new defi nition of a surplus such as he had never heard before. (Hear,) Heretofore a surplus had been regarded as money in hand, consisting of actual receipts—(cries of " Oh oh !" and cheers)—or, at least, if he might be allowed to finish the sentence, existing in some other form equally tangible and secure. (Hear.) He ventured to say, at all events, that it was unprecedented in the financial history of this country for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to close the year with a deficit of more than £2,500,000, and then to propose to remit taxes on the faith of a surplus which was not even on paper—(hear)—which was not verified by facts or by accounts, but which waslpurely built on speculation, on cal culations, hopes, and conjectures, every one of which was as liable to prove fallacious as the scheme of any speculator on the Stock Exchange. (Hear.) The process by which the surplus was obtained was very arbitrary, and he was afraid it might turn out to be very illusory. There were six great branches of revenue which in the last year had produced a certain sum. On each of these the Chancellor of the Ex enert33oinsi:oooere;asin.e.theTcaokme chequer calculated there would be in the coming year a So with the other five the in f g orins . tance, the revenue derived , from Customs. In the past year the Customs yielded year they were estimated to'pro duce £23,585,000 showing one item ofamocurre an estimated increase of £280,000. items. The total amount of esti mated increase on one—viz., that these six branches of revenue,_ after de ductingnuder the head of Miscel laneous this than £750,000. But teouosn assumptionßeceipts, amounted calculation based ? conystated the for art they comingpa eventyheaanr It could be only would be a better year for trade and the last. Were both these events so certain-werenow so very probable? Yet, coupled with the very ques tionable receipt of the indemnity of China, they the surplus which the house was now asked to give away. (Hear, hear.) A merchant sending vessels to foreign ports might calculate on certain profits, but ho would not spend them before they were realised ; or a gentleman might buy railway stock anticipating increased dividends at the close of the year, but he would not give them away until they were actually paid. Yet that was precisely what the house was now doing. It first assumed a speculative surplus, and then proceeded to give it away. (Hear) Where did this sur plus exist ! In the visions of the Chancellor of the - Ex chequer. (Hear.) If that was what Parliament was here after to accept as the definition of a surplus, the financial condition of gag country must YerY much depend 07.1 temperament of the Finance Minister for the time being. If he should be of a sanguine disposition, every thing would go well. Parliament would be sure of a sur plus, and it might remit taxes. If, on the other hand, he should be of a desponding turn of mind, the house might expect a deficit and proceed to lay on increased taxation. (Hear, hear.) In the course of these debates the house had ; been more than once invited to observe the great change of circumstances which had taken place since the Budget was introduced—the rapid march of events on the other side of the Atlantic, and the gloom which was gathering and threatening every day on our commercial prospects. Our relations with America were now so intimate that it was absolutely impossible for American trade to be paralysed without the most serious consequences to England. These consequences, he was afraid, were already falling heavily upon us. The prospect of a short supply of cotton was already most alarming. No one could tell what six months hence the state of our manufacturing population might be. (Hear.) Too much evidence had reached him—all who were acquainted with the manufacturing districts knew— that the prospect of diminished employment, and conse quently of diminished consumption, was already sufficiently proved and acknowledged to do away with all hope of that small surplus on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so confidently reckoned. (Hear, hear.) A prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer might now reconsider his position. Six weeks ago, when the Budget was introduced, affairs in America were threatening ; but then we all hoped for the best. Now those dangers had broken out into calami tous events, and we might prepare for the worst. This Budget, made for fine weather, must necessarily be rent in pieces by such a storm, and it could be no discredit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit that he had been a second time beaten by events over which he could not pos sibly exercise any control. (Hear.) If he persisted in the proposal now before the house, he would be acting in the teeth of the real opinion both of that house and of the coun try—(hear, hear) —and exposing himself to the charge of rash and wilful imprudence, and, unless every probability was falsified, to future condemnation and reproach. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, in consequence of the new cir cumstances which had come upon us, he might yet retreat with dignity and honour, and among all reasonable men he would gain both popularity and respect by so doing. (Hear, hear.) But that was not the only warning which might be drawn from passing events in America. We were now witnessing the bursting of that great Republican bub ble which had been so often held up as a model on which to recast our own English Constitution—(hear, hear)—and the first lesson which these events ought to impress upon any English minister or statesman was the duty of preserv ing and strengthening that which had heretofore constituted the great distinction between the safe, rational, and tem pered liberties of England and the wild and unreflecting excesses of mob rule which had too often desecrated free • dom and outraged humanity in America. (Cheers.) The House of Commons, to which they were all proud to belong, and whose privileges it was their duty to uphold, did not derive its strength, its value, or its greatness from any in herent powers of its own, but rather from that association in dignity and in functions with those other great authori ties of the State with which it was so identified in character, in interests, and in responsibility that nothing could impair the honour of one, whether of the Commons, or of the Lords, or of the Crown, without detriment to all three. (Hear, hear.) Each of these great estates, therefore, was bound to regard the privileges and the dignity of the other, as inseparable from its own. Into the second question raised, the constitutional question, on which exception had been taken to the form of the present Bill, he would not then presume to enter. He was quite ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might be a great improvement in their practice in future years to combine the whole of the financial measures for the year in one bill. (Hear, hear.) He would assume that that had been proved. He would also, for the sake of argument, assume, what of course the Government anticipated, that the repeal of the Paper Duty would pass the House of Commons. Then would remain the question, how they could best combine the double object of carrying the repeal of the Paper Duty in the Lords, and embodying in future years the whole of the financial scheme of the Commons in one bill. He thought the safest, and certainly the most dignified course, for the House of Commons to pursue would be to confine itself on this occasion to precisely the same course as it adopted last year. (Cheers.) They might say to the Lords,—" You rejected our Paper Duty Bill last year; and we cannot deny that the country approved what you did, because, financially, you proved to be right ; but that occurrence has convinced us of the necessity of taking some means of avoiding all danger of future col ' lision ; therefore we will in future embody all our financial scheme in one bill. We might do this on the present occasion, but we refrain from doing se because our motives might be misinterpreted." It might seem discourteous to attempt to coerce the Lords into what they refused to do last year ; or it might be attributed to some other motive. To avoid all such unjust and degrading imputations they could send up the Paper Duty Bill to the Lords in its old form, reserving to themselves the right to adopt the new practice next year, when the object could be achieved with out danger of their motives being misinterpreted. (Hear, hear.) That would be a smooth and safe course; it would give rise to no unpleasant remembrances of the past, and isaaply OW, u.as as to the future. ( I hear.) It would cause no heat, no jealousy, no distur bance ; the differences that had divided the two houses on this subject would be forgotten ; and the country—that was in perfect good humsur with the House of Lords (hear, hear), and did not desire to see any quarrel between the houses—would view with satisfaction their harmonious co-operation for giving effect to a measure that had at length met with general acquiescence. (Hear, hear.) That would be, indeed, what an hon. gentleman in an earlier debate described as the "olive branch" offered to the House of Lords. But what they were now doing might rather be interpreted as a challenge. (Hear, hear.) Was it wise, was it necessary ? All resolved itself into this question of time, they might next year do graciously what they were going out of their way to do un graciously in the present one. Many would condemn the proceeding as ill-advised, some would consider it as petu lant, some as arrogant. If the Lords submitted it implied their humiliation, if they resisted it would provoke a con flict. (Hear.) And he thought that that Minister would be a friend neither to the country nor the constitution who went out of his way needlessly and wantonly to compel the House of Lords to choose between two such alternatives. (Cheers.) For these reasons he should feel it his duty to give his best support to the amendment, because this re newed attempt to repeal the paper duty on the faith of a surplus that events would perhaps prove to be as illusory as that of last year, was most unfair to the country that would be called on to make good the deficiency by an i ncrease i n the income-tax—(hear) — and beca use t h e t i me chosen to their mode o f l egislation was connected with. the p roceedings of last year as to Y measure a me an an d petulant cha racter—(cheers)—that was alike ill-advised and unworthy of the House of Commons ; that must prove embarrassing to the House of Lords ; and h e was quite certain would never be agreeable to the country. (Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said—As this issue has been raised to-night and though, as the hon. baronet opposite said, I am not aware whether " the pear is ripe" or not ; still, considering the question in a fair ani honest spirit, and not having given any vote on it this year, I will, with the permission of the house, offer a few observations on it. In considering if ldo vote, how I qualify it h : this question o I notwish v o t e t , o teoxsptlaatien , m y reasons for not giving it. (Laughter.) I am not at all surprised at this prolonged dis cussion. An hon. gentleman who spoke from these benches said that after 10 nights of discussion—perhaps more—he thought the house had had enough of it. The Prime Mi nister himself said the other night ho was really quite sur prised at this continued discussion. He understood it was not intended to dispute that part of the Budget connected with the income-tax, that it was not intended to revive the subject of the tea duty, and there was no intention of reject ing the paper duty. He said he considered these matters as disposed of and decided by the resolutions as matters of course. The noblelord has often availed himself of the kind assistance of the Opposition, to stem and curb the exuberant spirit of his own partisans—(laughter)—and I hope, under similar circumstances, he will never find the loyal support of the Opposition wanting. (Cheers and laughter.) But it is net our fault if, after Whitsuntide, and close on the month of June, we are still discussing this question. We might have had this discussion much earlier if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had desired it. I there fore think the noble lord was accidentally led into an error when he said all discussion had practically closed. I should not have risen to speak to the question to-night had it not been for a statement made by the noble lord the member for the city of London, who said he believed this discussion was carried on merely for the purpose of injuring the poli tical reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A more unfounded observation never came from the noble lord, though we know his habit of making use of these clap-traps occasionally—(laughter) —for the purpose of gaining 4, po litical capital." (Laughter.) I, for one, in discussing the question now, have not the least idea of throwing any slur on the political character of the Chancellor of the Exche quer. I wish to discuss the subject like any other indepen dent member of the house, and I believe the right hon. gen tleman is quite capable of defending himself. If I thought the discussion was carried on on the ground the noble lord supposed ; if I thought the poisoned arrow of personal malice was directed against the right hon. gentleman, I for one would take my stand by him. (Cheers.) Like the hon. baronet who has just sat down, I do not intend to enter on the constitutional part of the question. Thank God we have got rid of that, and got to the practical part of the subject—that part that affects the interests of the people and the country. The constitutional point has been most ably treated by hon. gentlemen competent to do it; among others by my right hon. friend, whom I was happy to hear addressing the house with so much vigour—the reverend Conservative of Carlisle. (Cheers, and laughter.) He treated that point in such an abl e manner t h at I cannot un d erstand h ow any one can entert a i n any d ou b t on the const i tAt i onal part o f t h e subject. H e said that, looking carefully and impartially at the precedents the Lord s h a d a cons titutional ri g ht 'to take the course th ey adopted. I thoroughly' concur with that opinion. And I should say, that any one who does not ad mit that the Lords were perfectly right must be very hard to satisfy. But we will let all that go by. Allu,siou Lae made to the time of Henry IV. The hon. and learned mem ber (Mr. Collier) even talked about 600 years ago. (A laugh.) I should have thought it impossible to bring for ward precedents dating from that early period of history, or, at all events, I should have thought that precedents then were as much in favour of the Lords as against them. But, instead of examining into precedents, let us consider this question as it bears upon the interests of the people of 1861. (Hear.) I know that among some hon. gentlemen on this side of the house it is an unpopular thing to consider the interests of the middle and the lower together with those of the upper classes. The hon. member for Birmingham has over and overagain said he conceives that the interests of the lower classes are best consulted by raising them up in antagonism to the middle and upper classes. (Opposi tion cheers.) I think, on the contrary, that all classes should be considered, whether financially or politically, as one complete entirety, and that in administering the affairs of this country there should be nothing like class legis lation. (Hear, hear.) With the permission of the house it would be perfectly competent for me to enter into a full discussion of the budget of my right hon. friend. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) talked about bricks and soap and glass. I will not, however, deal with any of these subjects now, but will merely express, as many others have expressed before me, my admiration at the facility and ability with which my right hon. friend embel lished his financial statement some months ago. We know that lee had a difficult task to perform. There was, he admits, a deficit last year of £822,000, whereas now, with only a reduction of £1,000,000 in the army and navy estimates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is a surplus for the present financial year of £1,900,000. I con fess I do not see how to dispose of the deficit of £822,000, because, if you deduct that old deficit from the surplus of the present year, instead of £1,900,000 you have only £1,100,000, so that in reducing the income tax and in re mitting the paper duty, if you do not get the indemnity from China, you are in a deficit of more than £300,000, in stead of having a surplus of £410,000. (Hear.) Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer finishes by depreciating unne cessary expenditure and by lauding retrenchment, admit ting at the same time that the expenses of the country have increased something like £20,000,000. Nevertheless, the right hon. gentleman looked hopefully to the future. His opinion on this matter was so very clear that he sneered at the hon. member (Mr. T. Baring) for venturing to enter tain dark forebodings of the state of Europe. The hon. gen tleman below me (Mr. Bright) also expressed his surprise that a man should look with such dread at the aspect of foreign affairs. But I agree with these who think that nothing can well be darker or more dangerous than the present state of Europe, and as this has an important bear. ing upon the finances of the country, I think the Govern ment should have considered the subject in a different spirit. (Hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Bright) said that people used very desponding language, and raised up " Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire." I do not know whether he has ever read a play of Shake speare called " Timon of Athens." This Timon, who was a very expensive man, had a Chancellor of the Exchequer, named Flavius, whom he asked to supply the ways and means for his extravagant expenditure. What was the answer of Flavius P He had not the abundant eloquence of the right hon. gentleman, but he said in plain, simple lan guage.— "What will this come to? He commands us to provide, and give great gifts, And all out of an empty coffer." (Laughter.) Now Ido not know whether the coffers of the State may be empty, but I do say that to make the year's surplus dependent upon the receipt of money from China is a state of things of which I for one cannot entirely approve. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed us that there existed a surplus, I admit that, as I had entertained apprehensions of so different a character, I listened with unqualified satisfaction ; but I was surprised to find that other gentlemen who had considered this subject should have arrived at conclusions differing entirely from those of the right hon. gentleman. Nevertheless, when he told us that there was an estimated surplus of income over expen diture, and that we might look forward to a considerable balance in hand, together with a reduction of taxes, I was satisfied until the right hon. gentleman came to the subject of paper. Now I must say that I, in common with my hon friend, was sorry to see this contest begun again, because• my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had distinctly stated to a deputation which had waited upon him that he could hold out no expectation whatever of the remission of the paper duty. (Hear.) Calling to mind also the resolutions passed last year by this house, entirely approving the policy of the Lords, I say it is a slur upon my noble friend to re-open this subject so soon after last year, and, if handled at all, it certainly requires to be handled with most extreme caution, circumspection, and conciliation. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think that has been done here. What are we now discuss ing? Not whether there is or is not a surplas of revenue over expenditure, but whether it is desirable to remit:a tax affecting the interests of a limited industry at the expense of the general public—(cheers)—whether it is desirable to remit the Excise duty on paper and the Customs duty also levied thereon, and for that purpose to increase the burdens pressing upon the great body of the taxpayers of this coun try. (Cheers.) It is, iu fact, almost a question between direct and indirect taxation. (Hear.) The noble lord made the other night a remarkable statement. In-18 years, he said, we have increased the indirect taxation of the coun try from £33,000,000 to £40,000,000, and, he added, " Does that look as though we were destroying all our revenue from indirect taxation ?" Now it has never been urged that you are endeavouring to destroy all your revenue from indirect taxation. What is said is that you are resorting to direct taxation as one of the principal means for raising the revenue of the country. It may be true that in 18 years indirect taxation has increased by £70,000,00:.), but how has the expenditure of the country increased meanwhile ? In 1843-4 our estimated expenditure was £49,387,000, but in 1861-2 it is £70,003,000, so that in these 18 years the expenditure of the country has increased £20,000,000, whereas the indirect taxation has only in creased £7,000,000. (Hear, hear.) It is singular enough that 18 years ago there was an indemnity from:China for the ransom of Canton amounting to £725,000; but the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I will, it is true, ac cept this indemnity, but I will take care to keep in hand enough to ipounterbalance that sum if it should not be re ceived." (Hear.) The then Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the national expenditure at £49,387,000, whereas 'he made the revenue £50,150,000, so that he retained a balance of £763,000 to meet any contingencies which might arise, and he certainly did not make his surplus depend upon the receipt of the Chinese indemnity. (Hear.) Now, if there was one hon. gentleman in this house whose opinion on such a subject should be entitled to respect, it was an hon. gentleman who, sitting on the Treasury bench, might be supposed thoroughly conversant with the actual state of affairs when he gave his opinion in favour of the measure. I allude to the President of the Board of Trade, the Milner Gibson of 1853. He is a man who has always advoCated the repeal of what he calls the taxes on knowledge, and a more fallacious mode of describing this tax could not be conceived. (Hear, hear.) Will the right hon. gentleman say that the education of the country has been held back by the Excise and Customs' duties on paper ? (Hear, hear.) Within a very short time the grant for education has more than doubled. (Hear, hear.) I will admit that there is a hardship on the authors and publishers of books. It is well known that not half of the books published pay the cost of publication,but ask in Paternoster-row whether these "taxes on knowledge" have at all curbed the furor scribendi, or have in any way affected the confidence of authors. (Laughter.) So much claptrap has been talked about these taxes on knowledge that if the committee will spare me a few minutes I should like to point out one or two circum stances which show the fallacy of the arguments used. (Hear, hear.) One great argument which has been used to.• night is, that you don't know what paper is. The member for the Tower Hamlets told us that in these days it is im possible to define what paper is. He talked about fibrous materials. I really can't recollect exactly what he said, but went into a series of mechanical descriptions,which no doubt were perfectly accurate ; but I can only refer to Dr. John son, who gives a definition of paper which until some new dictionary is written must stand good. The duty on paper enters very slightly into the price of a book. It is at pre sent, as hon. members know, lid. per lb., which comes to about 3d. on an 18s. volume. On two volumes of Lord Macaulay's history,which cost 363., it would be Gd. (Hear.) The Paper Duty seldom forms more than ono 24th part of the price of the cheapest work, and not one 50th of the price of the dearer books. If you repeal the Paper Duty to-night a is. book will never cost less than llid. nor a 20s. book less than 19s. Gd. (Hear, hear.) Those are facts, and I should like to hear any one get up and deny them, particu larly the President of the Board of Trade, who, I hope,will make a good speech in favour of the proposition. The noble lord the member for London talked about the hob goblin penny press. The penny press, I presume, is as re spectable as the press of a higher price, but no one will make me believe that the penny press pays except as a speculation for advertisements. It is sold to the trade for id., and it is quite evident that it never can be made and never will be made to pay at the price except as a specula tion for the purpose of advertisements. (Hear.) In 1853 Milner Gibson—(laughter)—the President of the Board of Trade—l must call him the historic Milner Gibson— brought forward resolutions for the remission of the paper duty, and he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer "You are only making use of the stock arguments of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer ; but I'll tell you what it is—the man who is debarred of his penny paper is as badly off as the slave in the Southern States of America." He was an swered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day—Mr. Gladstone—who said "As steward of the public revenue, and guardian of the public credit, upon an impartial con sideration I prefer the claims of all interests to the economy of a particular reduction ;" and he went on to say " I de precate the dangerous practice of flattering the passions, as the acute but mischievous member for Manchester — (laughter and cheers)—is now doing, by endeavouring to induce the house to pass these resolutions for the repeal of the paper duty." But the right hon. gentleman on this occasion has been supported by the Prime Minister, who tells us that, upon the whole, he thinks it would be better to apply the surplus to the remission of the he spoke in such term s o f f a i n t pra i se that I thought pa per duty, but he i ve ry much mistrust e d hi mse lf. (H ear .) Under ordinary circumstances, the house would probably be very much n- Clilled to adopt a racamg supported by him aid backod by the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we are now deliberating under extraordinary circumstances. There is - it feeling of uneasiness abroad, both in military circles and;inlthe public mind generally. I don't speak, like the hon, member for Birmingham, of " Gorgons or hydras," or things I never saw—(laughter)—but of what we all know and can perceive. There is a feeling of un easiness on the continent of Europe —our national security no longer depends on the character of our councils or our diplomatic prestige. We are not only spending enormous sums on our army and navy, but we are positively impo verishing the country by a vast warlike expenditure at a moment when we are assured by the Government that we are on terms of perfect amity and friendship with all the nations of the world. (Hear, hear.) More than that, we are engaged on a system of fortifications the rough estimate for which is £11,000,000, but which when completed will cost many millions more, and which if not completed tho roughly will be of no use whatever. (Hear.) For these reasons I am inclined to question the conclusions arrived at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the house will not be led away with the idea that this is a question of free trade in the ordinary acceptation of the term. (Hear, hear.) Of course I never would give a vote which could even by implication contravene that policy which was inaugurated in 1841, and has since been universally adopted. This is not a question of free trade in the ordinary acceptation of • the term, but it is a question of whether we are prepared to remit taxes in favour of a limited interest without any cor responding advantage which would justify such a course. (Hear, hear.) lam ready to admit that if the state of Eu rope permitted it I should be perfectly ready to consider a remission of taxation in a fair, liberal, and popular spirit, but to put on an eightpenny income-tax and then add another penny to it, making it 9d., in order to gratify a limited interest, is a thing I could never approve. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet who spoke last bade us consider how the different interests of the country are threatened at the present moment. The industry of Lancashire is threatened with a falling off of the raw material. You have disputes and strikes at Burslem. and Wolverhampton ; you have suffering in the coal trade, and suffering in the iron trade ; and is this a moment to make these reductions of taxation without any corresponding advantage ? (Hear.) Look abroad, and wherever you turn your glance the horizon is dark and forbidding, and I ask the house and the country is this a moment to indulge in these speculative arrangements of the finance ? (Cheers.) Look at France in the occupation of Syria against the wish of England, in the occupation of ,Rome against the wish of Italy, in the occupation of the southern slopes of the Alps, not only against the wishes of Europe but to the infringement of treaties. Look at Spain, slaveholding bucaneering Spain, which has just siezed hold of a part - of the Island of St. Do mingo at the instigation of France. Look at Hungary and Poland. Wherever you look you find a state of affairs which makes it necessary that a Minister should deeply consider before he makes any hazardous experiments. (Hear, hear.) Often has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted this house with his reckless expenditure, and if we were ever open to that charge surely this is the time and place when we should show that we know how to husband our resources and to preserve that immense wealth which Providence has placed within our grasp, in order to be ready to meet the eventualities which may any day imperil the trade and the commercial interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) It has been said that this is a diminishing tax, and therefore wo may remit it. I maintain the contrary—(cheers) —that in the years 1859, 1860, and 1861 it has been rapidly in creasing. In 1859 the net produce was £1,142,000, in 1860 £1,291,000, and in 1861 £1,305,000. (Hear, hear.) If you repeal this productive tax, you cannot reimpose it, and I be lieve that you are repealing a tax which presses less upon the people than almost any ether tax which you can men tion. (Opposition cheers.) It certainly is very little inju rious to manufactures. It is eas!ly collected, and it is in creasing in amount. (Hear.) These reasons will induce me to go into the lobby with the Opposition. There is one right hon. friend of mine who spoke last year whose opin ions I adopt. I shall go into the same lobby with him, un less he contravenes the opinions which he then stated, and that right hon. gentleman is the member for Coventry. (Opposition cheers.) My right hon. friend has not spoken on this question, but, taking the words which he used last year to represent his present views, he is bound to vote the same way as I do. The right hon. member for Coventry said last year that he thought it would be better to wait for a more favourable opportunity than to repeal a tax and raise a large deficit, which might render it necessary to impose other taxes to meet sudden emergencies and unforeseen ex penditure. That was a wise expression of opinion on the part of my right hon. friend, and until I hear him get up and state reasons which have induced him to change that opinion I must believe that he will vote on this occasion with the Opposition. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman oppo site, in a discursive speech, alluded to the volunteers. I am not going to make myself the apologist for the volunteers; but we underetand that they are coming to this house for a vote of money. What a capital opportunity to keep on the paper duty, in order to gratify them with £2 or a head, for which we should have the money in hand. (Laugh ter.) I regret very much that lam induced by these reasons to take the course which I am about to take, but I think it more honourable and more straightforward than not to vote at all. (Hear, hear.) lam inclined to support the amendment of the hen. gentleman—(cries of " Divide 1" and " Bar !")—the more so that I think we are unnecessa rily dragging this house into a quarrel with the other house, not for the benefit of the country generally, but for the benefit of a set of persons who will reap nearly 9-10ths of the advantage which will be derived from a remission of this taxation. (Cheers.) We have heard all kinds of abuse heaped on the House of Lords. (Cries of "Bar I") I know the house is impatient. At tha same time lam anxious to qualify the vote which lam about to give. I say that last year, quite against my wish, the House of Lords were grossly abused for their conduct in this matter. They were told that they were unpatriotic, that they were selfish, that they had not the interest of the public at heart. We must feel, and most of the working classes do feel, that it was said by men who only trade in keeping things in confusion that they themselves may profit by discontent. (Loud Opposi tion cheers.) I, for one, would have no part or parcel in that matter. I supported the resolutions of the noble lord last year. I thought it wise, I thought it judicious. But I think the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not what I should have desired. (Oh, oh.) I have been several years in this house. I have always given to my noble friend a cordial and warm support. Such has been my confidence in his ability justly to interpret the sense of the country and the drift of public opinion that I can safely say that on every occasion save one I have given mynoble friend my cordial and hearty support. Acting as his subordinate, I have entertained the warmest personal respect and affec tion for the noble lord, and nothing but a stern sense of duty and a deep-root3tl conviction that I was right would ever induce me to give a vote which could be considered in opposition to the sentiments which he advocated, and which he deemed necessary for the interests of the country. (Cheers.) Again, I may say with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no man entertains a higher, opinion of his personal character and brilliant political abilities, and it is with extreme caution, with extreme hesitation, and with many doubts that I place my humble judgment in opposition to opinions which he has emphatically advo cated. (Hear, hear.) But, as an independent member, I have no alternative. We are here to serve the public good and the interests of the country to the best of our ability. In great political discussions I place considerations of that character above any other, and therefore it is that I am in, duced, though with great pain and reluctance, neverthe less, from a conviction of the rectitude of the feelings which influence me, to decline to give my vote in support of the measure of her Majesty's Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, believing the repeal of the paper duty to be neither wi se , expe di en t , nor po liti c i n a financial point of view, nor just nor equitable to the great body of tax payers in this country. (Cheers.) Mr. MELLOR moved that the Chairman report progress amid loud calls fora division from the Opposition benches. Mr. DISRAELI said, —lt appears to me that if ever there was a night this is the night when we might come to a decision. (Cheers.) But as far as lam concerned lam unwilling to be an obstacle to free discussion. I trust, how ever, that if this adjournment is sanctioned by her Majesty's Government—(cheers)—we shall hear no more reproaches from that quarter of placing obstacles to the progress of public business, or of encouraging discussions when there is really nothing on which discussion is necessary. (Loud cheers.) We have really had the advantage of many nights' previous debate incidentally, and often directly upon this very question. The debate to-night has been conducted in a tone distinguished by its moderation, and it does appear to me that the house could with great convenience at once come to a decision. (Cheers.) 'lf the hon. gentleman who has moved that you, sir, report progress wishes to address the house I think I cat answer for his receiving a patient hearing from a silent and admiring audience. (Laughter and cheers.) If the only object of the adjournment is to hear his observations wo shall be most happy to consider them. (Cheers.) It does appear to me that we might come to a decision upon this question to-night, but if the leader of the house has sanctioned or suggested the motion of the hon. gentleman, why then I have too much sympathy for free discussion to use any influence which I may possess to induce the house to come to a deci sion. I trust, however, that from this moment we shall hear no more those frequent reproaches which have been very unjustly and very injudiciously urged by those who sit on the Treasury benches when we have requested occa sions to offer our opinions upon subjects of very great im portance. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—I certainly do not object to the m otion of the hon. gentleman—(derisive cheers from the Opposition)—which I think has been very distinctly sug gested by the silence of those gentlemen who sit on the opposite benches. (Oh, oh.) This, undoubtedly, is a subject of considerable importance—(laughter)—and one on which there are many members anxious to speak. The promise of the right hon. gentleman that they shall be listened to with silent admiration, however encouraging at the momenT, might not altogether be made good, if it were tested. (Ilear, hear.) I therefore cordially agree to the adjournment. I will not undertake so largely as the right hon. gentleman wishes to abstain in future from any remarks upon future attempts to procrastinate debates ; but, no doubt, the same attempts will not be displayed, and there will be no occasion to make the objection. Tin quevtivi Omit the chairmail repint progrog Iva., pqt, There were some threatening " Noes" called by the Opp° sition, but no division was demanded. The motion was agreed to, and also the motion that the chairman do now leave the chair. Mr. BENTINCK asked until what day the debate would stand adjourned ? Lord PALMERSTON—We shall put it for Thursday. The house then resumed. The Excise and Stamps Bill went through committee pro forma. The Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill and the Public Offices Extension Bill re. spectively passed through committee. The Report of Supply was brought up and agreed to. The Guildford Hospital Bill and the Tramways (Scot land) Bill were severally read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock. COUNTRY IkIABRETS. COLCHESTER —MAY 25. A fair supply of wheat, for which the trade was again slow, at prices is to 2s lower. Barley saleable at prices much the same as of late. Beans were rather cheaper. No peas. Wheat, white 6os to 66s 1 Beans, Mazagan..36 to 42s red 44s to 60s 1 Middle & small 42s to 48s Barley —s to —s I White peas .. 44- to 48s Oats — s t o —s Grey.. 33s to 440 CHELMSFORD -MAN 24. An average supply of wheat, but the dem an d s till s l oe , and best wheats barely maintained late rates ; inferior sorts is lower in price. Spring corn firm. Wheat, white 34s to 65s Peas, Partridge ..44s to 458 red 48s to 62s White 43s to 46s Barley 29s to 42s Boiling 43s to 471 Chevalier ....32s to 45s Dun 40s to 43s Grinding 26s to 37s Beans, Tick ... .39s to 48s Malt 61 s t o 67 s Harrow Ticks 39s to 501 Chevalier 64s to 69s Mazagan 33s to 46s Oats 26s to 31s STAMFORD--MAY 25. There was a fair show of wheat at market, and the trade ruled firm at former prices. Barley firm, and late rates were n)t exceeded. Oats sold readily at higher prices. Beans sold at 2s per qr. higher. Wheat ....... .... 54s to 60s Oats.. 24s to 32a White do 60s to 668 Beans . ! 44s to 50s Barley .• • • ..... ..288 to 428 Ditto, old •.. • ..• 5OB to 54e KIRKALDY—MAY 25. A fair supply of wheat, but small of barley and oats. Business brisk, and prices much the same as last week. Wheat I Barley O ats First.... 36s Od 32s Od 24s Od Second.. 55s Od 1 39s Od 30 s Od Third .. 62s Od 1 42s Od 32s Od COAL MAR .ET—MAY 27. the clime of the market (Prioes of Coal per Ton at s. d. Bell's Primrose .... .. 13 0 Byass's Bebside West Hartley . . ... 15 9 Carway and Duffryn Malting Do. Anthracite— 21 6 Wylam Lambert's West Hart le l5 6 Halb y eath Steam 14 6 Holywell 16 0 North Percy Hartley 15 0 Walker Primrose 12 9 Hastings Hartley l5 9 Peases West l5 0 Howard's West Hart- s. d. Kelloe South Hat= 17 6 South Hartlepool., 16 0 Walls End. Cassop Hartlepool. . ..17 0 Braddyll's Hetton 16 6 Haswell l7 6 Heugh Hall 16 0 Thorpe .. ..16 6 Hilda .. Stewart's.... l7 6 Hett0n........ l7 6 Thornley ....14 0 Byron ....16 0 Trimdon. Thornley.. .. 14 6 Trimdon Hartlepool ..16 9 Whitworth 16 0 Hedley 15 0 86; sold, 74. l Eden ey _ ..15Main 1 6 Tanfield Moor Butes 13 Ships at market, By a resolution of the So buyers will not attend market 29th inst., it being the Berl): Diety of Coal-merchants, the to-morrow (Wednesday) the r-day. THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) . June 18.' Do. (via Marseilles) June 12. Brazil and Cape Verde ... • .. 4, June 4. Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, & o. o. Cuba and Mexico . May 29. Canada, &c. (via L'der r y) .. May 29. Cape of Good Hope, &c. .. June 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via' S'ampton) June 1. Do (via Marseilles) May 27. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. .. June 2.E India (Calcutta), Ceylo n , &o, (via Southampton) June 2. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. June 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. June 4. _ _ -.0 0011 . June 1. • •• •• .• •• Malta, Egypt, • and Aden • (via • Southampton) .. May 26. Do. (via Marseilles) .. June 4. Vigo, and Oporto .. June 1 . United States, California, &c. .. May 29. Western Coast of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffe .. June 10. West Indies and Pacific, Carthagena, Cuba, &o. May 29. Litho , SHAKSPERE.—Whatever he touched succeeded; hatover he nut was perfect. He came up to London pen niless and a stranger. Within about 13 years he produced 28 or 29 plays, made a handsome independence, returned to his native town, wrote nine or ten plays more, including the most poetical, romantic, and youthful of them all—The Tempest—and died there on his 52d birth-day. His death, like his works, left nothing unfinished, no broken fragment of time to reckon up; it completed a circle, and might be thought to have been almost anticipated in his own affect ing lines— cc We are such stuff As dreams are made of, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep." —Robert Bell—in a recent lecture. ADVERTISEMENT.]—The possibility of abandoning medicine altogether is shown by the numerous extraordinary cures without medicine of indigestion, (dyspepsia) flatu lency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility effected by Du Barry's delicious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabic Food ; the following are not the least remarkable :—Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, timber merchant of Prim ley, of thirty years diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, partial deafness. —Cure No. 68,816. Mrs. Holze, aged 107 years, of dyspepsia (indigestion) debility, irritability and nervousness which had tormented her for seventy years.—Cure No. 46,814. Mr. Samuel Laxton, Leicester, of two years diarrhoea.--Cure No. 180. " Twenty-five years nervousness constipation, indi gestion, and debilit y, from which I have suffered great misery, and which no medicine could remove or re lieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time. W. B. Reeves, 181, Fleet-street, London." Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may bo avoided by using Du Barry's Fo od which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 titnes its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, without purging-, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervo us , bil ious an d liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. 'Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S. Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents • and the pretences that Nevill has a pat en t f or A ra bica 'Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 63. ; 51b. Ils. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The olf2l. Post - n o d fa U ee lb. orectitenriebteyraßaarrrye sent c ß a a r r r r y i a g a n e f d r e Co.,c, o 7 7e R eip e, t gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abble, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapaide ; 63 and 150, Ox• bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and. Co, tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William -street City : at 127 Hie -h Holborn and all erocere. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.-- Always Right.—A great and preciOus property possessed by Holloway's inestimable remedies is That no skill or experience is required for their successful administration. No education or intelligence is necessary for using them with advantage beyond the capacity of unierstanding the plain and intelligible " instructions for guidance" accom panying each box and pot of the medicaments for the cure of all internal and external aliments. Professor Holloway has beneficially placed such printed rules around his re medies that error is impossible after they have once been read with attention. In these pills there is nothing nauseous to the taste, or trying to the most tender age or most delicate constitution ; in the ointment nothing to annoy the most sensitive skin. BIRTHS. CARGIL.—On the 26th inst., at 14, Lansdowne-road, Not-. ting-hill, Mrs. Francis A. Cargil, of a son. HARRIS. —On the 26th inst., at Bedford-park, Croydon, the wife of Mr. George Harris, of Change-alley, London, of a son. MARSHALL.—On the 26th inst., at Tongham, Surrey, the wife of Captain Harry Marshall, 9th Royal Lancers, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. ABBOT—ROTHERY.—On the 27th inst., at St. Margaret's, Westminster, the Rev. Frederick James Abbot, Chap lain to the Forces, to Harriet, only daughter of William Rothery, jun., Esq., of 18, James-street, Buckingham gate, and Denbigh House, Halsmere. WRAY—BAGSHAWE.—On the 22d April last ; at Calcutta, Christopher George Wray, Esq., son of tha late Octavus Wray, Esq., Ist Bengal Fusiliers, to Francesca Maria Sforza, daughter of H enry R. Bagskawe, Esq., Q.C. DEATHS. ASHWORTII.—On tho. 25th inst., at Roche House, Roch.. dale, George Ashworth, J.P., aged 61. ARMSTRONG.—On the 25th inst., Isaac Armstrong, Esq., of Snowhill, aged 87. Bucx.—On the 25th inst., at Champion-hill, Camberwell, Richard Buck, Esq., aged 75. BOOTY.—On the 21st inst., Alfred W. Booty, Esq., of Manor-street, Clapham, aged 28. MOORSOM.—On the 26th inst., at 5, Montague-place,Russell-square, Vice-Admiral Constantine Richard Moorsom, aged 68. SMITIL—On the 23d inst., at his residence, 28, New Steine, Brighton, Timothy Smith, Esq., late Commander H.C.S. London. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SuN Office, No. 112,8trand, in the Precinct of the SIM% to the Cew►ty of Middlesex kW 2 81 Is4l. THE SUN, LONDON,' TUESDAYITVENING,7MAY 25, 1861.