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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Greetwell District Drainage, Leeds rnd Ealand Road, Scottish Widows Fund, and Life Assurance and Midland Railway (Additional Powers). The Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway Bill was read a third time. BANKRUPTCY BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR brought up the report of th e committee on the Bankrupt3y Bill, and in doing so recommended some important alterations in it. PETITION. The Earl of BELMORE presented a petition from the Inhabitants of Armagh and Tyrone for an alteration in the Irish Marriage Law of 1854. THE GALWAY CONTRACT. The Marquis of NORMANBY postponed his motion on this subject till Monday next. MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. This bill passed through committee. OFFICERS OF RESERVE (ROYAL NAVY). The Duke of SOMERSET moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to enrol a certain number of persons from the merchant service as masters and mates, with a view to their employment in the Royal Navy on anY emergency. [he Earl of HA_RDWICKE objected to the bill, as cal culated to inflict injury on the rights of officers in the navy. Earl GRANVILLE defended the bill. After a few words from the Duke of SOMERSET, tb.eir lordships divided, when the motion for the second reading was carried by a majority of 59 to 56. SAID BEY AND THE DRUSE CHIEFS. The Earl of CARNARVON called attention to the death of the Druse chief Said Bey in prison at Beyrout, and asked what steps were intended to be taken in reference to the remaining prisoners. Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE also asked whether the telegram announcing the appointment of a Christian governor of the Lebanon was true, and if so, Whether arrangements were in an advanced state for secur ing the evacuation of Syria by the French troops. Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had re ceived positive assurances from Lord Dufferin, the British Commissioner, and the Turkish authorities, that the death of Said Bey had arisen from natural causes, and not from Poison. Fuad Pasha had also guaranteed that the pro perty of the Druse chief should not be confiscated. With regard to the question of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, he believed that the Conference at Constantinople iwere at Present considering a proposal for the appointment of a Christian governor of the Lebanon, but that nv decision had yet been arrived at. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS— YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Clifton Suspension Bridge; Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail way ; New Ross Port and Harbour ; North Eastern Rail limy (Castleton and Grosmont Branch, &c.) ; South Eastern Railway (Folkestone Harbour, &c.); Uxbridge Gas; and West Cornwall Railway. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of suppressing knday traffic in intoxicating drinks ; from the members of the Waterford Chamber of Commerce expressing regret at the course pursued by Government in withdrawing the subsidy from the Galway Company for conveying mails to America, stating that persons had been induced to take Shares in the company from a conviction that this subsidy Would be continued, and praying for an inquiry into the ci rcumstances connected with the withdrawal of the sub sidy; for the adoption of means fJr the development of the resources for growing cotton in India, so as to sender this country independent of the supply of that article from America ; against the abolition of church rates ; for affording greater facilities for the edu cation of pauper Roman Catholic children; from the inha bitants of Coventry, praying that the duty on tea should be remitted before the repeal of the duty on paper; from the inhabitants of Dublin, expressing indignation at the withdrawal of the Galway Contract, and praying for full izquiry into the subject, &c., &c. GOVERNMENT STOCK TRANSFER (IRELAND). Sir E. GROGAN moved for copy of the correspondence between the president of the Stock Exchange, Dublin, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the month of April last, relative to the transfer and re-transfer of Government Stock between England and Ireland ; and, return of the amount Of the various stocks and annuities transferred from Eng land to Ireland, and from Ireland to England, pursuant to the Act 5, Geo. 4, C. 53, 'in each year, from 1848 to 1850, both inclusive, specifying the various descriptions of stocks and annuities transferred in each year.—Ordered. MONEY COINED IN SYDNEY. -Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Under Secretary of , State for the Colonies, what steps had been taken, if any, towards making the colonial sovereign coined by the branch of the Royal Mint at Sydney, New South Wales, a legal tender throughout her Majesty's dominions. Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that no steps had been taken hi reference to the subject. THE DISTURBANCES AT MILAN. Mr. C. 33.13NTINCK ached the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he should lay upon the table any official accounts he may have received relative to the late disturbances at Milan ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that there was nothing in the correspondence that justified his laying it upon the table. SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS. Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the * Rome Department whether it was his intention to proceed, during the present session, with the Appropriation of Seats (Sudbury and St. Albans) Bill ? Six G. C. LEWIS answered in the affirmative. ORNAMENTAL GATES AT HAMPTON COURT. Mr. C. BENTINCK asked the First Commissioner of Works at whose request and for what purpose certain or namental gates had lately been removed from Hampton Court Palace Gardens, and whether it was intended to re °tore such gates to their original position ? Mr. COWPER said that the gates in question had be come much deteriorated, and were removed to London for t he Purpose of being renovated, after which they would be teetered to their former position. THE GALWAY CONTRACT. htr. LANIGAN. asked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether the representations made to her Majesty's Govern- Inent on behalf of the Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, relative to a recent letter of the Postmaster , fieneral in reference to the Galway contract, had been con tidered, and with what result ? Lord PALMERSTON said that the communication re ferred to was very long, and was received only yesterday afternoon. The statement would have to be considered by her Majesty's Government, but would be laid on the table 'With the answer of the Postmaster-General. In reply to Mr. BEAMISH, Lord PALMERSTON said he had no hesitation in stating that it would be most advantageous to the interests of the United Kingdom to have the most rapid communi cation with the north of America. He was of opinion that Ireland was that portion of the United Kingdom from Which such communication should be established, and her Majesty's Government would be ready to adopt a plan for that purpose, provided it was founded upon the principle of °Pen competition. Col. FRENCH asked if it was the intention of the Go- Vernment to withdraw the subsidy for the Galway contract? Lord PALMERSTON said that the house was already In possession of what had taken place on this subject. Mr. KER asked if the Government had received a memo rial from the inhabitants of Dublin and Waterford against the withdrawal of the subsidy. Lord PALMERSTON said that some petitions to that effect had been received from certain parts of Ireland, but those in question had not reached the Government. BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AMERICA. Lord J. RUSSELL, in reference to a question which had been asked him the other evening, said he had received a communication from the British Consul at New Orleans, stating that some British subjects in that part of America had been forced to enter the militia, but they were now l iberated, and redress was promised. THE PAPER DUTY.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. MELLOR resumed the adjourned debate on going into committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. The hon. and learned member contended that the argu ments against the 4th clause of the bill for the 'peal of the paper duty were fallacious, and the 4)Pposition of some honourable members to the remis sion of that impost was most inconsistent. It Vas said that there would be no surplus, and therefore it Would be most inexpedient to remit this tax. But if that Were true, how, then, could they advocate the repeal of the tea duty, which was much larger in amount ? It was said that the tea duty was a war tax, and therefore should be the first repealed ; but he contended the most objectionable tax should have the precedence in being remitted. Moreover, the paper duty was a war tax, and on that ground was 48 much er titled to rep ea l as the tea duty. The effect of removing the paper duty would increase employment by i ncreasing the productive property of a certain branch of industry, and enable the paper manufacturers to compete Vith those on the continent, who were exempted from any fi nancial restrictions. He denied that the repeal of this tax would cause a collision with the House of Lords, and he —f ed Lord Monteagle on the subject. The hon. gentleman ell went in detail through the arguments used a ga i nst the „ 4 i" clause of the bill, and urge d some ar g u ments in its av'nur which were not very novel or effective. i sl t r • DISRAELI—Sir, I cannot but think that if hon. st 7443 ers would on this occasion think less of their con we ZiLs and more of the interests of th eir constituen ts , would be assisted at arriving at a more satisfactory epa Alth ough on the question before us. (He ar, hear.) he w as perfectly ready on Monday nig ht to have e, bie for a division, I shall avail myself of the opportu ty—, theler which we are indebted to the interpositio n of e hoe th e • and learned r entleman, to place succinctly bef ore Nee the views which I and (hoe friends who act with me take on the immediate issue in question, and on those subjects with which it is now inevitably an inextricably associated. After the financial statement of the Minister which was the origin of these protracted debates, several gentlemen in this house whose opinions deserve respect en tertained some suspicions as to the solidity of the surplus on whist' the measures of the Government were founded. I am yet at a loss to understand that the House of Commons was exercising any function foreign to its highest duties when on such a subject theydid not hesitate to express their suspicions, or to submit the statement of the Minister t) the most severe scrutiny. I apprehend they were only perform ing their duty in so doing, and that they pursued the course which their predecessors had always followed. I take it that the principle which should guide the house upon such a question as the existence or non-exist ence of a surplus is one which may be accurately defined. If there be among hon. members a general conviction that the Government have been guilty of such financial and poli tical negligence as not to have duly provided for the public service and the possible exigencies of the State, I apprehend that the house has but one course to follow and one duty to fulfil. It will be due to the Government and to the charac ter of the house, under such circumstances, that they should call on the house to declare, in a manner which can not be mistaken, their want of confidence in the Ministers, who, after such negligence, are clearly incompetent to dis charge the great duties and to bear the heavy responsibility of government. (Cheers.) But if, on the contrary, that be not the case, I do not understand bow, as practical men, we can do otherwise than accept the statements of the Minister and act as those statements justify us in doing. (Hear, hear.) On the first night of the debate, on the question of the adjournment, I said that for my own part I had not made up my mind on the question, and that I waited for the explanations of the Ministers upon the question of sur plus. I thought that I had on that occasion taken a usual course, and I know that I was influenced only by the desire of fair dealing. I was therefore surprised that the noble lord the First Minister should have challenged the propriety of my conduct. The criticism that was offered on the ele ments which form the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were of a grave character, and required con sideration and the explanation of the Minister. These points were ably stated to the house, and we had the ad vantage of obtaining the answer of the Government upon the main questions which were raised in that discussion. On the one hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in regard to the money due from China that he had con templated all the objections which had been urged against his estimates, and that he had no doubt that the money on which he counted would reach him at the proper time. The noble lord at the head of the Government, on the other hand, stated that the objections to the Budget, founded on political considerations, had been well weighed by the Cabi net, and that he saw no reason to believe that an unexpected event in an important part of the globe would lead to in creased expenditure. Having received these assurances, and not being prepared to challenge the Government upon those great matters, and to ask the house to decide whe ther or not they could repose confidence in her Majesty's Ministers, I felt it to be my duty to accept the surplus of the Government as a natural surplus, and to hold that the question at issue was how should it be appropriated. There is another point upon which I wish to make one or two ob servations. The charges which have been made against us of wasting the public time in considering whether the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was or was not justified are charges which cannot for a moment be sustained ; I do not believe that any Minister would in his cooler moments, and after due reflection, seri ously contend that the institution of a scrutiny into the existence or absence of a surplus is not a legitimate duty of the House of Commons. We have also been charged with wasting time by the discussions which have take?' place in the course of these protracted debates, as to the form of the bill in which the policy of the Government is embodied. That also is a charge which, as it appears to me, is entirely devoid of justice. It cannot be denied that the procedure adopted by the Government with regard to th it financial measures this year is of a novel character. (Hear, hear.) When the resolutions which were to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means were placed upon the table every one perceived at once that their form was unusual, and every one necessarily connected that change of form with the grave difference between the two houses which occurred last year. Surly that was a combination of circumstances which justified on the part of the house inquiry and con sideration—inquiry into the reasons which induced the Government to adopt this form, and consideration whether it was a constitutional or legitimate form. I cannot con ceive any subject with respect to which discussion and deliberation in this house could be more legitimate or more necessary. (Hear, hear.) I do not want to introduce any cor troversy on that subject on the present occasion, but at the same time, I do not want to conceal my opinion upon it. I believe that by our precedents upon our Journals her Majesty's Government were fully justified in putting their measures in the form which they have selected. (Hear, hear.) I go further than that—l believe that there might be occasions upon which it would be highly conve nient that the policy of the Government should be em bodied in a single measure, and it is still my opinion that had the financial measures of last year been brought before the house in that form they would never have passed. (Hear, hear.) But although the course pursued by the Minister in this respect may be justified by precedent, and though it may, under certain circumstances, be even recom mended by convenience, at the same time, in my opinion, its adoption and application this year is unwise —(hear, hear) —unnecessary—(hear)—and impolitic, and that instead of leading to conciliation it will tend to an opposite result. (Cheers.) In the first place, what is there to con ciliate ? There is no quarrel between the two houses. I should look upon such a quarrel as a great misfortune, and although I am, I hope, as anxious to maintain the pri vileges of this house as any gentleman in it, I should be prepared to make any concession consistent with our rights and dignity in order to prevent the occurrence of anything so unfortunate as a misunderstanding between the two Houses of Parliament. But I do not understand that there has been any such misunderstanding. I conclude from all that I have observed and all that I have read that the con duct of the House of Lords with respect to the measure for the repeal of the paper duty last year was justified by every legal and Parliamentary authority. Certainly, if there are any persons who are of a contrary opinion it can not be her Majesty's Ministers. The speech of the noble lord at the head of the Government, the resolutions adopted by this house in consonance with that speech, would be strong indications of that fact, but when we remember that her Majesty's Ministers were last year obliged by the force of circumstances to introduce a second Budget, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer availed himself of the Excise upon Paper as part of his Ways and Means, it is quite clear that it is not her Majesty's Ministers who can impugn the right of the House of Lords as exercised last year. (He sr.) How far it was justified in policy is not a question which I wish to introduce into this discussion. This house and the country are, I believe, agreed upon that point. Well, then, what is there to conciliate ? If there has been no misun derstanding, if there has been no collision, if the House of Lords has only done that which the law and usage of Par liament justified, and which her Majesty's Ministers have entirely sanctioned by their speeches, by their resolutions, and even by their financial measures, why should we this year unnecessarily make a change in the form of our pro ceedings, the only apparent result of which can be to pro duce a collision and to render conciliation impossible F (Cheers.) I will not proceed at length into this controversy, because I think that upon the present occasion it is entirely unnecessary to do so, and I only touched upon it because I think that when so grave and delicate a question is brought before the house and debates arise upon it—debates which have been maintained on both sides, and with great learning and ability—the country ought not to be told and led to be_ lieve that while we have been endeavouring to arrive at prudent and wise decisions of policy we have been wasting the public time. (Hear, hear.) It is of the very greatest importance, even for the House of Commons with all its power, to be upon terms of good and cordial understanding with the other House of Parliament. We live in an age of very rapid transition. The character of this house has been greatly changed within the memory of man. The power of this house has been very greatly increased ; the power of the House b of Lo r d s h as , as we are o ft en rem i n d e d, diminished. T lost a The House deal o of power,fLords butavewi the thin house thela willst 30 make agreat mistake or more mistake if they fail to observe that the Lords have also gained something. The Lords, indeed, can no longer exer cise the power which th e ancient baronsexercised, because there was in this country b u t ono kind s of property, and ec they s were almost the sole possessors of it. The House of Lords cannot, indeed, exercise that power which was exercised by the great nobles who invented the Constitution of 1688 and established an oligarchy in this country. No doubt all that is changed ; but the House of Lords derive a great and growing influence from the conviction in the national mind that the existence of a body which may intervene between the popular branch of the Legislature and absolute legisl a _ tion is a great security for public liberty and for temperate government. (Cheers.) The people of this country feel that the existence of a body of that kind is a great blessing, and, the experience of Europe having proved that such a body should cannot be artificially created, they consider it a great good fortune to England that such an intermediate body have gradually risen up, supported by pr operty, tradition, and experience, and ready to act with the _ critical faculty which is necessary when precipitate legisl ation is attempted, and at least to obtain time, so that the ultimate decision all questions of importance shall be in accordance with the matured opinion of an enlightened people. This is a great influence, and if the House of Lords continues to be influ enced by the wise and temperate feelings which have go • verned its conduct of late years, it is an influence that will increase ; and I believe that our discussions upon the rela tions between ourselves and the House of Lords with re ference to this very legislation has assisted the house and the country to arrive at sound opinions upon the subject. Who, then, has a right to say that we have been wasting the public time when we have been discussing questions involv ing considerations and consequences of so important a cha racter? Therefore, with respect to both the topics upon which we have of late been so frequently taunted by the House of Lords. I hold that the House of Commons is free from blame. We have been told that we have denied the surplus, and yet proposed a remission of taxation. I deny that they can apply to myself, of to any gentleman who sits upon this bouclz, Nothing of the )iikit A?4gf occurred, 1 have never denied the surplus—(Ministerial . cheering)— and I have counselled a remission of taxation upon that surplus. But if I wanted authority for at the same time denying a surplus and yet recommending a remission of taxation, I could find very high authorities, and it does not become the occupants of the Treasury beach to indulge in taunts of this kind. I shall not enter largely into that sub- ject now, because my purpose at this moment is not to in dulge in any recrimination of that character, but to place clearly before the house the course which we on this side intend to pursue; but I remember that in the year 1857 the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary, who was then charged with the care of the finances, taunted one of the most distinguished members of this house, then in Opposition, with denying the surplus and at the same time recommending a reduction of taxation, and he received from that distinguishod member a most vigorous and able reply. If any one likes to read it— because I will not load these few observations with extracts from Hansard—he can refer to a speech delivered by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1857. Having said this much in vindication, not merely of myself and my friends, but of the House of Commons, from the charge brought against us by the Minister of wasting public time, because we performed two of the most important func- tions of members of this house—those of scrutinising the data on which a surplus was estimated, and examining mi nutely whether our proceeding was justified, regard being had to the privileges of the other house and our own, I will proceed now, merely reminding hon. members that I myself have never for a moment disputed the existence of a surplus, to state the principles on which I myself think that surplus ought to be apportoned. I lay it down as a principle of our financial system which ought invariably to be pursued, that in the remission of taxation, war taxes should have the preference. (Cheers.) That is a sound and a popular doctrine—(hear)—and it is popular, I think, because it is sound. I am led to that opinion by considera tions of high policy. If, in an emergency—and war is the greatest of emergencies—you apply to the people to bear ex traordinary imposts, it is of the highest essence of policy that when that emergency is past you should free the people from these extraordinary imposts as quickly as the state of the public revenue will permit. (Cheers.) And for this unanswerable reason, should the emergency recur, and you have again to appeal to the patriotism and high spirit of the people, you will apply to them with much less chance of success to bear extraordinary imposts, if they can turn round to you and say,—" A serious addition has already been made to our taxation, and this in a great emergency we cheerfully incurred ; but the emergency has passed away, and you have remitted, reduced, and repealed other taxes in preference to those extraordinary imposts which, under the circumstances, you appealed to us to bear." (Cheers.) I say, if that be your policy you cripple the energies of the country, and you diminish the power of ' the Minister in appealing in future to the spirit of the country, and you do this totally irrespective of the con siderations of finance and political economy which should exercise paramount influence over the Minister in entering into public contracts with the nation, and which, when en tered into on solemn occasions such as that to which I have referred should be rigorously and rigidly fulfilled. (Cheers.) Now, assuming as I assume and maintain it to be a princi ple of our financial policy that in the remission of taxation war taxesshould have the preference let us apply that prin ciple to the surplus claimed by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. Although the income-tax was introduced into our modern system of finance merely as an instrument to accomplish the reform of the tariff, I do not think any War Minister should hesitate to look on the income-tax as essentially a war tax. The existence of such a resource, not drawn upon, in the possession of our Sovereign, is a greater security for the maintenance of peace than fleets and armies. The very fact of the income-tax in what I may calla virgin state among the resources of our country would govern the decisions of foreign Cabinets and make them hesitate before they took a course which might offend the pride—the honourable pride, or endanger the inter eats of this country. It should therefore be a point of policy to draw as little as possible on such an instrument, to keep it at a very low figure, or, if possible, not to trench at all on its resources. Therefore, had her Majesty's ministers come forward with this surplus of £2,000,000, and after providing as they might think fit for the requirements of the country, pro posed to appropriate even the entire of this surplus to the reduction of the income-tax—(hear, hear)—as it at present exists, I should not have questioned the course which they were taking. It ought to be borne in mind that there is no tax the remission of which so greatly stimulates con sumption. (A cry of " Oh, oh I" followed by loud cheer ing.) The hon. gentleman seems to be incredulous, but I am sure the house has not forgotten that in 1857, when we had a commercial and monetary crisis, when we had the highest rate of money known for many years, our revenue never decreased, but throughout the year was sustained en- \ tirely owing to the remission of £9,000,000 of income-tax, impossed to carry on the Russian War. (Hear, hear.) How ever, as there is at present no controversy among us as to the apportionment of the entire surplus to the reduction of the income-tax, it is unnecessary to pursue this point. Ido not pretend now to express any positive opinion with re gard to the relative advantages of remissions of direct and indirect taxation : it is enough that her Majesty's Govern ment have considered that question. But assuming that a portion of the surplus is to be appropriated to the relief of indirect taxation, then I maintain that the principle which I have ventured to lay down applies, and that regard ought first to be had to those imposts which are absolutely or effectually war taxes, and that relief ought to ha granted from those extraordinary imposts respecting - which you vir tually entered into a contract with the people that they should be relieved as soon as the opportunity for doing so should arise. I thought gentlemen, not merely on this, but cn the opposite side of the house, were of opinion that in dealing with indirect taxation by way of remission we ought to fix on those indirect imposts which were war taxes, and on due reflection the house was asked to come to a decision on that question, and at the same time to declare whether it was more politic to repeal the indirect taxation on paper or to reduce the indirect taxation upon tea. Totally irre wzoiretthehtitevhreed pw o e f eol the h, ea fi nh r d s i tg ofh c o p n roe s lim i d e iy. e ration, on which I need not t t n f g keeping w h when n your opportunity engagements offers the taxes which under extraordinary circumstances you have placed on their articles of consumption—l say the considera tions which influenced us to propose the reduction of the tea duty were such as deserved the attention, and, I think, the acceptance of the house. The commercial considera tions were of the highest character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of one of the debates, said that my only view of financial change was to reduce duties on articles of general consumption, and that I thought of no thing but the more obvious interests of the consumer. Sir, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unjust in these observations. Ido not think the interest of the consumer is one which ought in any way to be neglected. A financial measure which greatly consults the interests and advantages of the consumer has much to recommend it. (Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that in all these remissions and reduction* you should look to the means by which you can occupy the people, and that it was among those which afford in creased occupation to the people that the best measures are to be found. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Why, who doubts it ? And, reviewing what has taken place in these debates, I would ask the house whether, by reducing the duties upon tea, you are not contributing more to the employment and occupation of the people than by the mode which is recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I do not despise the benefits which must accrue to those who acquire occupa tion and employment by the abolition of any excise. Every body admits that the abolition of an excise, if you can afford it, is an advantageous course. (Ministerial cheers.) I myself have said so twenty times in this house, and the hon. and learned gentleman has just read a speech of my lamented friend Lord George Bentinck, which as strongly as possible lays down the same principle. But, if we look at the employment of the people of this country, we must look at it on a large scale—we must look at our foreign trade; and, in the present disordered and dis turbed state of the European and American markets, it is in the highest degree expedient that we should study our position in reference to those great markets, including that population of 400,000,000 whose commerce has been o;ened to us by the skill of our diplomatists and the valour of our troops. (Cheers.) And the employment of the great mass of the people of this country will be much more assisted by increasing our commerce with the empire of China than by relieving a limited industry and trade from the interference of the Excise. (Hear, hear.) At this moment we greatly depend on the China trade. The subject engages the at tention of all commercial men who are carrying en large transactions with the East. The fact is, that the consump tion of the great staple of China is at present fixed in this country; it does not increase; and the obvious policy to pursue would be by reducing its price to stimulate its con sumption, and thus obtain a larger market for our manu factured goods. It appears to me perfectly idle to place in competition the great advantages the working classes of this country would derive from a great impulse given to the Chinese trade with the limited advantage to be derived from abolishing the Excise on paper. However, the house was called on to give a decision on this question, and it decided not to reduce the duty on tea, But under what circumstances was that decision taken ? It was cer tainly taken, not only in a very full, but almost a complete house. But it does not follow because this decision was come to under these circumstances, that we should give up every opportunity we may possess of urging on the house the adoption of the policy we think ought to be pursued. It does not in the slightest degree shake my faith in the principle that, if there is to be a remission of taxation, war taxes ought to have the preference in that remission. ( H ear .) We have therefore to consider the position .in w hich We are now placed. The right hon. gentleman calls on us to repeal the paper duty. I do not for a moment pre. tend to say that the Excise on paper is not a disadvantage to the paper trade. But lam not at all prepared to main tain that the Excise on paper is a greater disadvantage to that trade than an Excise duty would be on any other manu facture. No argument T have heard in this discussion has shaken my conviction as to the financial policy we have en deavoured to urge on the house on this subject. Ido not believe that with the present general aspect of circumstances Novtelcetrnitolou.lurgeeixnpeanndy diturrr l o t f i t o t y speedy a o s y r c t :ll d s u id a e t r e a ob there- THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAC''' 31, 1861. importance of such a reduction, and as a question of popu larity and his own ease uo man in the house is so interested in effecting a reduction of expenditure as a Minister. But I know no panty in the house that at this moment would recommend any great reduction in our military expenditure. Then, in dealing with a remission of taxation we have to consider whether it is wiser to reduce a duty on an ai tick of general consumption cr repeal a duty of Excise. In one case, if an emergency should arise, you can again appeal to the same source of revenue; in the other case, you can only substitute an equal amount of direct taxation. Now, this is a grave question ; it is not to be met by light arguments, or stifled by taunts from the Ministerial bench. (Cheers.) It is said we are precluded from offering any opposition to the measure of the Government, because the house has come to a resolution on the subject. No one is more ready to regard a resolution of the House of Commons with sincere respect and deference than myself. It is, at the same time, unwise and indiscreet to mistake the character of a resolution of either House of Parliament. A resolution of either house —and especially of the House of Commons—is an expression of opinion, and nothing more. Though it is an expression of the opinion of an assembly well entitled to confidence, yet like the expression of the opinion of an individual, it is subject to the inexorable conditions of time, circumstances, and maturity of thought. If time, if changes of circum stances, and mature reflection affect the opinion of indivis duals, so time, circumstances, and thought will influence and change the opinion expressed by a resolution of the House of Commons. (Hear.) And it is unwise on the part of the house to strain too much the character and influence of its resolutions. We have seen within these few years— I might almost say within a few months—the Sovereign recommend from the Throne an important policy to the house, and both houses passed addresses thanking her Ma jesty for that recommendation, and pledging themselves to consider the measures necessary to carry that policy into effect. Have not those measures been brought forward by the Ministers, and have they not also been withdrawn by the Ministers ? (Cheers.) And who blames them ? (Cheers.) They were withdrawn because it was ascertained that the general opinion disapproved that policy. After an instance like this, on a question so important as the distribution of the political power of the State, it is too much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues —it is too much for the men who felt justified, and, as I think, were fully justified, in neglecting a pledge of such im portance—to rest the chief defence of the policy theyare now bringing forward upon a hesitating resolution, passed in a languid House of Commons. (Cheers.) I can therefore offer a sincere opposition to the clause before us. (Hear, hear.) In doing so I do not think it necessary to vindicate myself and those I act with because we take this opportu nity of testing the opinion of the house on this subject. Throughout the discussion of these measures, it has been my most anxious desire, while wishing to consult the con venience of the Government as much as possible, to reserve our right to oppose the measures of the Ministry. On every occasion I have reserved that right; and I have done more than it was necessary to do. I have repeated our intention to oppose that policy; and I believe the occasion we have have taken to oppose it is a legitimate one. I do not wish that course to be mistaken. There may be hon. gentlemen who feel themselves justified in opposing the clause repeal ing the Paper Duty because they have no confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. 1 do not recede from the ground I first took on the question, and I pursue a course that is perfectly consistent. I am not prepared,by rejecting the clause, to place Ways end Means in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which he avows he has no use. I oppose the clause that we may pursue the policy we think advantageous to the country; that when called on to remit a certain amount of taxation we should remit war taxes in preference to any others, and maintain our faith with the great body of the people. I do so upon high political as well as upon commercial and fiscal consi derations, and my purpose therefore cannot be mistaken. I wish, if I possibly can, to carry into effect the financial policy which was enunciated in 1858, which was then adopted unanimousls by the house, and which was sanc tioned and supported by the present Chancellor of the Ex chequer. (Hear, hear.) I wish to terminate, if possible, and at all events to take every opportunity of reducing, the income-tax, because I think its reduction, and, if possible, its abolition, would add materially to the power of this coun try, totally irrespective of the great relief which would thus be given to important classes. (Cheers.) But I acknowledge at the same time that the claims of war duties which take the form of indirect taxation are of so weighty a cha racter that they must in some degree divert us from the great policy then recommended. I say, then, reaffirming thepolicy which inlBsB wa s supported by an unanimous Par liament, that the first object which a Minister should have in view in the reduction of taxation is the income-tax and the war duties on tea and sugar; and when the hon. and learned gentleman talks about this sleepy resolution come to by the House of Commons upon the paper duty, can he forget what, perhaps, it is convenient to forget, that the house arrived at that conclusion a few days only after they had unanimously affirmed the policy of reducing the war duties on tea and sugar in preference to all others? It is to that policy I refer, and it is that policy which I am now attempting to vindicate and strengthen in the course which I am recommending. (Hear, hear.) I maintain that there has been no other course for the house to pursue than the one they are now debating. Hon. members who, 'perhaps, do not even trouble themselves to read the bill have said to me, " Why, the clauses upon tea and sugar are passed." But when they read the bill they will find that if they wish to renew the struggle for the reduction of the tea and sugar duties—if they wish to originate an effort for the reduction of the sugar duty —that opportunity, instead of having passed, has not arrived. (Hear, hear.) All you have done by passing the second clause is to agree to renew the tea and sugar duties, but the rates at which you will renew them mast be settled at a period subsequent to the clause which we are now considering, and it is only when you come to the schedule in the bill that you really can ask the opinion of the house upon the question. (Hear.) This clause, then, is an obstacle to the policy which I am recommend ing, and unless we can induce the house to reject the clause they cannot act on the rule, which ought never to be de parted from, namely, that in all remissions of taxation war duties should have the preference. It may be expedient to ask the opinion of the house again upon the question of re ducing the tea duties, provided this clause is rejected. That is a grave question, but, following the course of Parliamen tary procedure, I think there has never been an instance yet known where, after a great struggle on a question of taxa tion and after an important tax has been passed in one stage by so slight a majority in so full a house, there has not been a renewed effort to effect the purpose of the minority. (Hear.) That is a question entirely for future discussion. But there are some who object to this course. There are gentlemen who say, "We entirely agree with the principle of the budget of 1858, that we ought to remit war duties, but then the opinion of the house has been taken upon tea, dounot o u t p and that opi n i on oug ht t o b e definitive. " But there are other boonentet whicherof to g reduceyoure a t have th teo importance w d a e r c i d ?e duty Is it on t h sn e uogt war aa y war n dutiesgaort do r most legitimate and pr o p er subject of discussion whether we ut should n rather than remit the pap er d uty ? (Hear, hear.) These are questions which I hav e no d oubt will be brought before the house if the opportunity be giv en , b ut no opportun i ty can be given till this clause is rejected. (Hear, hear.) When, therefore, we are charged with mere l y oppos i ng t h e remis sion of a tax in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be embarrassed with ways and means for which he has no use, I say there i s no f oundation for the charge, and that we are acting now for a distinct object, which is to establish and preserve the financial policy which we have always upheld. (Cheers.) There is one subject to which I would not have adverted had it not most unnecessarily been imported into the debate by the hon. and learned gentle man, who, I apprehend, although he is not sitting on the Treasury bench, represents the opinions of the Government upon this matter. The questions before us are of so grave a nature —they are questions which touch so nearly the inte rests of all classes in this country, and which may exert hereafter such an influence upon the social condition of the people, the principle upon which the taxation of the coun try is established being really the gravest question which can be brought before the house—that, but for the remarks of the hon. and learned gentleman, I should have thought it unnecessary to mention this subject to the committee, who have to-night a great duty to perform, and who, I am sure, will discharge it with a full sense of its importance. - Whatever might be the ru mours I had heard in lobbies and in ante-chambers— (laughter)—l did not think that from an hon. and learned gentleman who had moved the adjournment of the house, and who therefore spoke with all the advantage of due de liberation, we should have had insinuations founded upon snch miserable topics as he has introduced, as though the opinion of the house and the conduct of a gr ea t par t y were to be influenced by such considerat ions. (Cheers.) I under stand from the hon. and learned gentleman that in his opinion this motion has been brought forward in conse quence of a Ministerial squabble upon some subject. (Cheers and laughter.) That is the statement which the hon. and learned gentleman after mature deliberation thinks he is justified in making. All I can say is that our deter mination to take the opinion of the house upon the policy of the Government was announced weeks before this rumour reached us. (Cheers.) Nor do I know that it was possible for us to have asked the opinion of the house respecting that policy on an earlier or a more convenient issue than that now before us. I hope that the great party with which I have the honour to be connected are as sensible of the re sponsibility of their position as those who sit o p pos i te t h em, but nevertheless we are charged with being influenced by those undignified considerations, and with taki ng a course actuated by wholly unworthy motives. I fi n d s t a t emen t s made of my having had interviews with individuals deeply interested in these enterprises, and of my having promised them the support of the gentlemen who honour me with their confidence. Sir, I have had no interview with anyone. (Hear.) It is an impudent fabrica tion—(hear)—and I am bound to say, with regard to a most respectable gentleman whose name has been mixed up with mine in these reports, that he, unsolicited, stated to me i n th e most solemn man ner that befitted a gentleman of ' his sacred calling, that he had neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned such reports, and that he had seen them with indignation. (Hear, hear.) I know nothing of thi s ques ti on . Wh en the papers respect ing it are placed before the house I shall read them, as sub. jects of this kind deserve to be read, in a perfectly impartial spirit, and, notwith4taudiug the insinuations ?ad charm P which have been made, I shall decide upon them in the same spirit, with a due regard t - ) the just claims of Ireland and to the general welfare of the country. (Cheers.) I hope I have now placed before the committee my views as to the clear issue before us. It is one of no mean importance. It involves in the policy whichyou pursue the question whether you will maintain good faith with the public, who, in a moment of generous confidence, trusted and supported you. It involves another question of scarcely less importance— namely, whether you will pursue a financial policy which, in my opinion, will render it inevitable to substitute for in direct taxation an equal amount of direct taxation, thereby disturbing what is already in danger,—that true balance be tween the two great sources of supply which should always be maintained. With these views, and feeling that the committee to-night will decide upon these great questions alone, and not upon subjects which have been so improperly mixed up with them, I shall certainly oppose the insertion of the clause now in question. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, before I enter on that which is the immediate question before the house I feel bound to advert to the last of the topics to which the right hon. gen. tleman the member for Buckinghamshire has referred, and upon which I do not enter for the purpose of making any charge against the right hon. gentleman. I make no charge whatever against him, because I have heard from common rumour what I have no doubt is true—namely, that after the last division on the subject of the Paper Duty the right hon. gentleman said the majority was so scanty that he should probably en some future occasion again take the sense of the house on the question. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I make no charge against him of bringing forward this ques tion for the purpose of obtaining the support of a certain number of gentlemen who, it appears, are discontented with a recent decision of the Government with regard to a local matter. (Hear, hear.) But, Sir, it is necessary to vindi cate the honour of the Government to which I belong. (Hear, hear.) I believe that my noble friend at the head of the Government and the whole of the Cabinet stand per fectly free from imputation on this subject—(cheers) —but imputations have been made. (Hear.) Those imputations have been referred to in a newspaper which is universally read, and therefore they cannot and ought not to be passed over. (Hear.) Sir, the decision of the Government on this subject was made and communicated to the parties interes ted ; and my noble friend at the head of the Government was asked by a person who seemed entitled to put the ques- tion whether he would receive a deputation of Trish mem bers with reference to this matter on Monday morning last, the day on which the proposition for the repeal of the paper duty was to be brought forward in committee. My noble friend absolutely refused to receive that deputation. (Hear.) My noble friend saw at once what imputations, what mis conceptions, what false accusations might arise from the deputation, though nominally on the subject of the Galway Contract, and he absolutely refused to receive it. (Cheers.) The company on whose behalf the reception of the deputa- lion was sought -have since made a long representation with regard to their case. That representation will be answered by the Postmaster-General or his Secretary, and the com munication will be laid before this house; but as to the imputation that the Government intend to pospone for six months their decision on the question, wit* view of giving the sum of £36,000, which has been mentioned, for the per formance of the postal service for six months, that imputa tion is totally devoid of foundation. (Loud cheering.) I at once repudiate it as a calumny on the character of the Government. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, in respect to an other question, with regard to which my noble friend was asked a question before this debate was resumed this even ing, I have this observation to make—that, supposing this contract to be at an end, and it was considered that there ought to be a communication with America from the nearest point of the United Kingdom, it would evidently be unjust to Ireland to say that the question was to be summarily concluded without a consideration of all the circumstances affecting the case—affecting the public money, affecting the trade of the country, and affecting the convenience of the transport of the mails to America ; but that is a totally different question from the question of the Galway Contract, on which the Government will act coolly and deliberately. (Hear.) And, sir, with reference to the matter of the Galway Contract, 1 say that rather than the Government should make any concession on that question in order to obtain votes to-night, it would be better that ten Ministries should be defeated. (Great cheering.) It would be better that ten Ministries should be defeated and that the House of Commons should be ten times dissolved than that such a stain should be cast on the Government of this country. (Renewed cheering.) And when I say that it is better that ten Ministries should be defeated, and the House of Commons ten times dissolved, that is'a conse quence that would not be avoided ; on the contrary, it is a consequence that would be brought on, if any Government in this country were to act in so profligate a manner, be cause it is not to be supposed that this is a question in which one part only of the United Kingdom is interested. (Hear.) Galway contracts might spring-up in other parts of the kingdom, and if any 10 or 20 gentlemen in the di vided state of the house, or of the great parties which are represented hero, found that they had defeated one Minis try by this means, the new Ministry would soon experience a similar attempt to make them stoop to this degradation; they in their turn would be defeated, and would be obliged to resort to a dissolution. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say, that whether we regard the honour and character of the Government, or whether we look to the general advantage of the country, it is quite impossible that any proposals on this subject can be looked to with a view to any division in this house. (Cheers.) Sir, I repeat again, that 1 make no imputation, no charge against the right hon. gentleman, or against the great party to which he belongs—(hear, hear) —but at the same time I think it is matter for tht mem bers of that great party how far they should give any coun tenance or favour to—how far they should support even in directly—any attempt, such as that to which allusion has been made, to force the Government into an opinion contrary to their convictions. (Hear, hear.) That, how ever, is a matter which I leave entirely to their own sense of the public interests, and their own sense of that honour which belongs to all public men. (Hear, hear.) I proceed now to the general question raised in this debate, and upon which the right hon. gentleman has thrown an entirely new , light. I confess that on Monday evening I thought we were discussing the question whether, there being no surplus, the House of Commons might not very well refuse to repeal the paper duty, and thereby enrich the public Treasury. It appears, however, that the right hon. gentleman thinks that there certainly is a surplus, but that there might be some other way of disposing of it besides repealing the paper duty. When my noble friend and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of a waste of public time, it was not of the time occupied in dis cussing the great measure of my right hon. friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to the house his views with respect to the finances of the country; he has made elaborate calculations; he has stated to the house what were the results of last year and what were his expec tations for next, and I think it became gentlemen who have been in the service of the Crown, and more especially those who have been connected with the finances of the country, to consider the proposal of my right hon. friend. They might have said, " You are very imprudent ; you have no surplus, and you ought not to reduce the revenue of the country to such an extent as you propose." That was one point. They might, on the other hand, have said, "That there is a con siderable surplus has been proved to us, but your applica tion of it is unwise. We have a plan for a better application of it, and we will propose it to the house." Either of these courses would have been not only constitu tional, but perfectly proper; but what they have done is this—for three nights they have discussed the question whether there was a surplus or not, without coming to any decision, evidently trying to catch what was the opinion of the house as expressed in a vague and desultory discussion. At last they came to the de cision that there was a surplus, and then they said that the surplus ought to be applied to a reduction of the tea duty. lam the last person who ought to find fault with that proposition. It gave rise to a benevolent struggle between two parties, the one endeavouring to re lieve the industry of the nation by removing a tax on an article extensively manufactured in the United Kingdom, and the other trying to obtain at a cheaper rate one of the luxuries of the poor people of this country. When this question was discussed and decided one would have thought that it was nearly time to come to a final resolution as to the manner in which the surplus was * to be appropriated ; but no ; another question was raised ; and let me refer to the manner in which it has been treated, for it is one of great importance. The House of Lords having interposed in an unusual manner, and rejected a bill sent up by this house by which the industry of the country was to be re lieved from one of its burdens,we submitted it would bo wise this year to consider in one bill the whole of the financial measures proposed by the Government, and to send them up to the other house in that shape. Well, hon. gentlemen have said that this is not a fair proceeding towards the House of Lords; that it interferes with the privileges of that house ; and that this was not the manner in which our propositions ought to have been made ; although the au thority of my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle, that of the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni versity of Cambridge, and that of my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote), were in favour of the view taken by her Majesty's Govern ment. Nay, the right hon. gentleman himself last year said that it was advisable that all the financial propositions should be put into one bill. The question, however, was stillopen for discussion, and the hon. member for North Warwick shire, with that honest directness of purpose which always distinguished his conduct in this house—(hear)—deter mined to bring the question to an issue, and proposed that it should be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill, so that each tax should be embodied in a separate bill. Nothing could be a clearer or a fairer mode of bringing the question to an issue; but, instead of supporting it, the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, who is one of those who set up for us an entirely new Constitution, and who proposed that the Loz ds should exercise a power:which they have never exercised in the whole of our history, gave some very good reasons why the motion should not be entertained ; and when it came to a division those who were to defend the privileges of the House of Lords against our aggressions slunk out of the house—(cheers)—and the hon. member for North Warwickshire was left with only 34 members. One would have thought that there would haae been an end of the constitutional question then, and that those who did not Tentnre to support their opinion by their votes, who had shrunk from a decision by which they might have been committed to 'an opinion —would never mention the constitutional question again. But n 4; we had no sooner got into the discussion on the Paper Duty than up jumped the constitutional question again—(hear, hear)—and we were told again that we were going to insult the House of Lords. I must ask for one of two things— either let gentlemen bring the question to a decision in any form which they may think best, or let them refrain from taunting the majority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen tleman opposite has alluded to the times when almost all property belonged to the barons, and when what he called an oligarchy established a Government in 1688. But in those times, when the barons were so powerful, they yielded to the House of Commons on this subject, and, though frequent attempts were made to obtain a control over the taxes, yet on various occasions when it came to a contest they yielded to the privileges of the House of Commons. And, as for this oligarchy, they submitted to a tack to a money bill rather than not allow the privileges of the House of Commons. How, then, can any one believe that at this time of our Constitution wo should introduce new practices, that we should ask the House of Lords to be our partners in the financial scheme of the year ? But be it observed in this case that gentlemen like the hon. member for the West Riding, who have been so tender of the honour:of the House of Lords, have asked for that house something which they never asked for themselves. (Hear.) What they did last year—unwisely, I think, but still it was a question for their own discretion—was this :—A bill was sent up to them which they had a right to reject, and they said, " You are engaged in a war with China which may be extraordinarily costly, and you ought not to part therefore with any means by which this cost may be met," and they refused on that ground to sanction the repeal of the Paper Duty. (Hear, hear.) There is no such case at present. For what I know, and for what anybody knows, the House of Lords may be as much agreed that the Paper Duty should be repealed as the Government themselves. But hon. gentle.. men say—and reallyl was astonished when I heard the lan guage of the hon. memlret for the West Riding the other night—the Lords may have an objection to repeal the tax; they had an objection last year, and though that was an exceptional case, and circumstances have since altered, yet they may object again to repeal the paper duty, and we must approach them, therefore, in such a way that it will be no humiliation to them to agree to that repeal. (Hear.) I can conceive the House of Lords saying that though last year, when there was a China war, they did not think it prudent to part with this tax, yet this year, as there was no war, they would cheerfully give their consent to its re peal. I can understand that being the language of the House of Lords, but whether it is or not, I submit to the house that their ancient privileges oblige them to consider what taxes shall be remitted and what kept on without any reference to the previous consent of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) It would be an utter absurdity to say that the House of Lords shall be judges as to the amount of taxes, and to say that they shall not be judges of the amount of expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Every year we send up to them an Appropriation Act, containing the whole of your army, navy, and civil service expenditure, in one bill, which they must take in a lump or reject in a lump. (Hear, hear.) If you say that every tax is to go up in a separate measure, then every branch of the expenditure must go up in a separate bill. (Hear, hear.) For all we know there might be branches of the expenditure which the House of Lords did not approve, and you would then get your financial arrangements into a state of utter confusion, and the present admirable provisions of our constitution would be totally nullified by this attempt to make a new constitution. (Hear, hear.) Having disposed of this con stitutional question by 190 to 34—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Horsman)—when it was brought forward in a constitu tional manner—because I say larding a speech about the impropriety of repealing the paper duty and the state of Accerica with commentaries about the power of the House of Lords is not the way to decid% a great question. (Hear, hear.) The way to decide a great question is to come down with a resolution like the hon. member for North Warwick• shire, and take the sense of the house upon it. (Hear.) That is what we did. We-190—affirmed the power and privileges of the House of Commons, and those who were against the power and privileges of the house slunk away. (Cheers.) Mr. HORSMAN—I voted with the majority. (Hear.) Sir J. RAMSDEN—The noble lord does not seem to be aware that I also voted in the majority. (Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL—Then, that makes the matter more extraordinary still. (Hear.) Having deeply considered both last year and this year this question of the privileges of the House of Commons and the power of the House of Lords and having started certain new and startling theories which they were convinced were improvements in our old Constitution and the views of our forefathers when this question was sub mitted to the house in a substantial form they actually voted against the opinions which they had advanced. (Hear, hear.) . , I come now, however, to the main question before us. Last year the Government had to consider, having a sum at their disposal for the relief of the taxation of the people, in what manner that sum could be best applied ; they came to the conclusion that the best mode would be to apply it to the total repeal of the Paper Duty. Various motives have been found for the Government, but I believe that the ground on which their decision was come to was, that it would be the remission which would give the greatest relief to the country. If they had been of the opinion that the remission of the tea duties or of the sugar duties was preferable, my right hon. friend would no doubt have proposed it. The Government decided in favour of a repeal of the Paper Duty, and, having been defeated by the House of Lords last year, they this year consistently ask again to have that duty repealed as a relief to the industry of the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is too well acquainted with the finances of the country not to admit that the abolition of this tax will be a relief to the industry of the country, and, for my own part, I have never heard any argument which separates this Excise duty from other Excise duties which we have repealed. It is, perhaps, not so onerous as those on salt, leather, candles, and soap, which were Excise duties on the necessaries of life; but it isone which interferes with the employment of the people, and which increases the price of an article of very general consumption. Those appear to me to be quite sufficient reasons for its repeal, and the argu ment against it is stated in a very singular manner. It is said, in the first instance, this is a tax which does not weigh on the people at all ; and it is said, in the next, that if we repeal this duty we shall never be able to re-impose it. I should say that one or the other must be true. (Hear.) If the tax is no burden on the people, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able at any future time to say, " The State is in want of money ; the navy must be increased to meet the contingency of war, but here is a tax which is no burden on the people, and, therefore, we propose to lay on lid. per pound on paper ;" and to that the House of Com mons will universally assent. Or I can understand a per son saying, " This is a tax which does so affect the industry of the people, and the abolition of it has given so much em ployment, that it is impossible to ask the House of Com mons to re-impose it." But then the other ground must be abandoned, and those who say that the tax can never be re-imposed must allow that it is a great benefit to take it off, and that the feeling of benefit would in fact be the obstacle to its being re-imposed. (Cheers.) I have •looked to see the general result, in a financial point of view, of 10 years' experience of the repeal of taxes of a similar kind. In those 10 years we took off the glass duty, £624,000 ; the brick duty, £456,000; and the soap duty, £l,l26,ooo—total, 4206,000. There were certain Excise duties put on, amounting to £1,764,000 ; so that the amount taken off above the amount imposed was £442,000. Therefore you might expect that the revenue would be worse off by nearly half a million. But what was the fact ? The whole amount of the Excise in 1844 was £14,450,000, and the net amount of the Excise in 1854 was £17,007,000, being an increase of £2,557,000. (Hear, hear.) Even to the revenue the con sequence of taking off taxes which affect employment is to increase the consumption of other exciseable articles, and to increase the amount of revenue not only from the Excise but from the Customs, upon which you could not otherwise reckon. (Cheers.) A noble lord in the course of one of these debates said that in France the increase of revenue had been as much or more, although they had not taken off any of these taxes. But those who speak like that con sider that the relief to the people goes for nothing. (Hear, hear.) But it is the duty of the house always to consider the advantage of the people, and if they can find a less burdensome system of taxation, though it produce not a farthing more or a farthing less, it is their duty to adopt it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman who spoke last said that there are othq , ,taxes which we might take off with greater advantage, and as I understood him, he seemed to intimate that when we come to the schedules of this bill we may take off something more from the income tax. With regard to that, I think my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair proposition when he said, " a penny shall be taken off the income-tax and the duty on paper shall be remitted. There is a direct tax reduced, and an indirect tax abolished. There is a fair dig ision." Mr. DISRAELI—I did not intend to intimate that I should move any remission of income-tax. Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad to hear it. But in sup port of what my right hon. friend has done in taking off part of a direct and the whole of an indirect tax, there re mains in my memory what happened in the year 1816, when the Government of that day proposed a repeal of the income tax, and we of the Opposition, who were not used to majo rities, obtained upon that occasion a majority. We were very much pleased, but two days afterwards, Lord Castlereagh came down to the House of Commons with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement that the Government were going to make another reduction. Lord Castlereagh, I find, is reported to have said, " But when the members of the house thought proper to relieve themselves —I do not use the expression in any invidious sense, but because the income-tax is one which affects more particularly the upper classes—then Ministers found it necessary to make some change in their measures for the relief of t he p eo p le." And th e change which Lord Castlereagh proposed was a remission of £2,000,000 of the e xcise duty on ma lt. I thi nk it would be some reproach to r us in these days if we were to say we ag ree to the remission o f a penny of income-tax, but we refuse the remission of a t a x which more especially affects the industry and employ ment of the people. (Cheers.) Every body was glad to hear in 1816 that the G overnment would make a further reduc tint Therelytta certainly 110 surplus then but the Govern- ment borrowed the money in cr der t 3 J it. (Hear, hear.) We heard the other night a good deal of political considerations upon which the argnraentwas founded—that it isveryimpru dent to give up this tax. But that argument comes to this, that we ought to maintain the paper duty and not reduce the other taxes. Those considerations are mere vague apprehensions— apprehensions of the interruption of trade or of the disturb ance of that peace which this country now happily enjoys with all the nations of the world. But if mere apprehensions are to justify the refusal of any remission of taxation, the time may never come to relieve the country from any existing burden. (Hear.) I really think that the decision should be left to the Executive Government. If the Executive Go vernment see that danger is near, that it will be necessary to increase our armaments, surely they will be the first to wish that there should be sufficient funds in order to meet these requirements. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire alluded the other night to one sulject in a tone which I was very sorry to hear used by any one. (Hear.) My hon. friend said that " the great Republican bubble in America had burst." For my part, I confess that when I find that a dark and tyrannical des potism has been abolished. and that people are likely to en joy free government in its place, I rejoice. (Hear.) It is my duty to represent her Majesty as friendly to all existing States; but if a despotic Government fall, and the people who have been suljected to it are likely to obtain better and freer government, I cannot conceal that it gives me satisfaction. But I own that I have very different feelings when a great Republic, which has enjoyed for 70 or 80 years institutions under which the people have been free and happy, enters into a conflict in which that freedom and hap piness is placed in jeopardy. (Hear.) I mus t say th e j oy which I felt at the overthrow of some of the despotisms of Italy is counterbalanced by the pain which, and le thatxperi I still ence at the events which have lately taken /Alice freedom t in America n . think, (Cheers.)that in la t d h m is it oo t un ha t t ry l w h e a e v n e joy th in ou or g e h r t the United States have ever done. I admit also that the great founders of that Republic, wise and able men as they were, had not the materials at hand by which they could o in orr ter o p et o i s o e n , o a f s r w e e ns a o r n e in abl o e rd to or d t o o in re t s h ns is in co t un ho try, vas t s h io e curbnatooauntd fbauortstths n o t f t t h h e e R p o o p p u u b l a l i r e w h i a l l s . b een e t f o w r Yemcannot ars be blind i gr n d o a t o t a t n h a e free State, exhibiting to the world the example of a people in the enjoyment of wealth, happiness, and freedom, and affording bright prospects of the progress and improvement of mankind. (Hear.) When I reflect that the reproaches which are cast by the States of the North upon the States of the South, and the resistance which they have called forth, have arisen from the accursed institution of slavery —(hear)—l cannot but recollect also that with our great and glorious institutions we gave them that curse, and that ours were the hands from which they received that fatal gift of the poisoned garment that was flung around them from the first hour of their establishment. Therefore, Ido not think it just or seemly that there should be among us anything like exultation at their discord, and still less that we should reproach them with an evil for the origin of which we are ourselves to blame. (Hear, hear.) These are the feelings with which I heard the remarks of my hon. friend the other night, and I must say that I believe the sentiments which he expressed form an exception to the general impression in England. (Cheers.) Indeed, I think nothing could be more honourable to our country than the prevailing pain and grief which have been occasioned by the prospect of that great and free people being about to rush into arms to destroy each other's happiness and free dom. (Cheers.) I have few words more to say. It is neces sary I should assure the house that neither with regard to America, nor with regard to any of the great European na - tions, do I see at present any prospect that our pacific rela tions will be disturbed. The world, however, is in a state of change, and far be it from me to make any prophecy that peace will, in all the changes, be preserved. All I can say is that as far as I know the feelings of all States towards this country are friendly, that there are no questions pending upon which any conflict is likely to arise, and that as far as my humble means can promote the cause of peace and good will upon earth, I will exert them to that end. (Cheers.) Sir J. RAMSDEN assured the noble lord that no word had escaped from him that could be taken as an expression of exultation in the recent events in America, which the committee would remember he had spoken of sFecifically as calamities which he most earnestly deplored. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Peacocke and Lord Dunkellin rose together, amidst cries of" Dunkellin, Dunkellin," but Mr. Peacocke caught the Speaker's eye, and Lord Dunkellin gave way. Mr. PEACOCK E said that the conduct of the Opposi tion in first denying the surplus, and then proposing the reduction of the tea duty, was not so inconsistent as ap peared at first sight. He must venture still to express doubts as to the surplus. But assuming its existence, he then said that the paper tax was not the ono that ought to be selected for repeal. In case of war, the abolished tax could not be reimposed. The reduction of the income tax was a boon to the upper and middle classes, but. the Budget gave no relief to the poor. Though one hon.. member said they should have cheap band-boxes, and an other promised them paper clothes, he thought cheap tea and sugar would be better appreciated by the poor. Capt. TALBOT objected to the abolition of a permanent source of revenue such as the paper duty, in the face of the threatening clouds which lowered over the Continent, and the calamitous state of things which existed in America. Sir J. SHELLEY said that the country had now come to the conclusion that the question was not wh ther the paper duty should be repealed or not, but whether the present Government should be superseded by another to be formed by Lord Derby. Upon that point he thought there could be no doubt on the part of the public that it would be pre ferable to have Lord Palmerston at the head of the Govern ment than the Earl of Derby, and the noble lord the mem ber for the city of London at the head of the Foreign-office than the Earl of Malmesbury. F or hi s par t , h e would give his vote on the ground of keeping the present Government in office. (Hear, bear.) Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the paper makers had but little hope of obtaining any benefit from the repeal of the duty ; those only who would obtain any advantage from the proposed abolition were the proprietors of the penny newspapers. At the present time these persons were driv ing a flourishing trade, as was evident from the number of competitors who were starting up among them ; but the profits which they at present derived were not sufficient to satisfy them, and they were anxious to obtain cheaper paper no matter from what source it might come, so that it was duty free. If the Opposition expressed doubts in the exist ence of a surplus, he thought that was not very much to be wondered at, and he should feel it his duty to give his vote in opposition to the proposal of the Government. (Hear.) Mr. LINDSAY argued that the paper duty was one which imposed considerable restrictions and inconveniences on the paper makers ; and in support of this proposition he referred to the numerous regulations required by the Excise, and the numerous systems of fines and penalties which were imposed upon the makers by the officers of the Inland Re venue. The hon. baronet who had last spoken had said that the repeal of the paper duty would benefit only the proprietors of the cheap newspapers. What, however, were the facts of the case ? Take a penny newspaper, cir culating say 50,000 copies per day; the amount of benefit which the proprietors would receive from the repeal of the duty would be about £11,500 a year. But could any one suppose that the whole of that sum would go into the pockets of the proprietors ? Far from it. The competition. which existed, and which would then no doubt be increased, would have the effect of securing to the public a very larger portion of this sum. The public would have the benefit of a better sheet of paper ; and as knowledge was a marketable article just as paper itself was, the public would have better means of obtaining information than was the case even at present. There would be a greater amount of talent employed on the cheap papers, and they would have information of greater value provided for the readers of those papers. Of the £11,500 from which a penny news paper with a circulation of 60,000 would be relieved, not more than £3,000 would go into the pockets of the while the public would have been benefited to the amount of £8,500 a year. (Hear.) He begged of hon. members on both sides to take the question on its merits, and on its merits alone. (Hear, hear.) Sir M. FARQUHAR thanked the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) for having vindicated the honour of both sides of the house in the course of the speech which be had delivered. He (Sir M. Farquhar) did not insinuate for a single moment that the noble lord at the heal of the Go Go vernment had made, or that h e was a b ou t t oma ke,any bar gain with the Irish m em b ers , b ut he still thought Irish members were q u it e j us tifi e d, if th e y believed it to be for the good of Ireland, t o vo t e f or the remi ssion of the tea duties instead of that of the d u ty on per T helnhYat right hon. the in positive terms member for Buckinghamshire denie d had .oa Galway—and yet the Lion from Ireland on the e t l s h u e b ha j m el t received e t i h v e ed w ay dfa co l of the Board presidentof Trade right. hon. gentleman the that denial. seemed to shake his heed at so N said that the words of the right hon. Mr. T. M. GIB that he r for Buckingha ,,,,,hi re were, had had no in terviewmemb with Ir i s h gentlemen on the subject. FARQUHAR said it was splitting straws to carp Sir M.OO language used , lie had been much surprised at the Pre , . on Sunday morning to marab.ounu: see an organ in the pi:ess--a great admirer of the noble lord (and he was a great admirer of the noble lord himself)—state, in reference to the adjournment of Monday night, that it was owing to the tactics of the Conservative party. A great d ea l h a d b een. sa id a b ou t the effect on the c ountry, and what would happen if they went He, for on e , was qu it e ready to go to th e to the count ry . country, and so were all gentlemen on his side (A• the house, and the advance of Conservatism during the pa st 1.2 months gave them every prospect of success. He could not believe that on the part of the Government there was a unanimous feeling, and he felt bound to oppose the meErsure as being Opposed to the true interests of the country. Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there waa one point with which the majority of the house would agree, and that was, the wish to go to the country or any where else so as to be rid of this endless discussion. He thought that the Govern ment had no cause to complain of the course adopted by the hon. member for Dorsetshire, which was something refresh ing after the aimless debate which had taken place . He had been twitted for not having voted on a previous occasion, and the hon. member who had just sat down heed quoted certain expressions which he had used. If the quinition now was solely a financial question he would adhere to. those ex pressions strictly, but the question had become owe not of a Iwo], character, and in order to settle a ditforencei better