The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-06-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONr3.—THURSDAY.
Tux Bums?.

In reply to • series of quedions put by Mr. Lanigan,
Mr. &mulish, Colonel French and Mr' Res fieymer, on
the subject of the Galway oontrset, Lord Palmerston
gave a serMs of general and very guarded asewen.
The Houie having again resolved itself into • Corn.
inittee upon the Customs end Inland Revenue Bill,
the debate upon the fourth clause of the Bill was re-
sumed.

—Mr:Mellor, after replying to the objections raised
against the repeal of the Paper Duty by Mr. Ker ,
Simper. Sir J. Sainsden, and Sir B. Peel, urged the
benefit which the remission of this Las—admitted by
Lord Derby to be bed in principle and practice—would
confer upon trade and upon the consumers of paper.
The objection founded upon the diSealty of obtaining
• supply of the raw material did not, be observed,
apply to the inferior dames of the manufacture, and
even the higher class did not depend altogether upon
• supply of rags.
Mr. Disraeli roes to state, he said, the views which
he and times who acted with his took of the question
immediately at issue and of the subject inextricably
involved in it. If the Bosse, he observed, entertained
• conviction that there had been on tlizerisceof the
Government such financial and political that
they bid net provided for the esigesisise the State,
it mould be its ditty to declare a want of confidence in
the Government ; but he thought it was in the present
mee bound to accept the statement of the Minister that
hAhmil• • surplus of revenue; the 4111111111ilon then was
Se what it should be With respect
alio to the in which hissPrZstiel moon had

been proposed by the Minister, he thought he was
justified ; bat that its adoption this' year was unwise,
unneconeary and impolitic, being calculated to provoke
• collision with the other House. Ammining, then, the
existence of a surpius, which he had never denied, he
Laid it down as • urinciphi in our financial policy that
IA the remission of timation war taxes Mould have the
pretenses, end that, upon every ground of policy as
well as political economy, • public contract with the
elation ciid be rigorously fulfilled. The income-tax
was 00i osantially • war tax, but if the whole surplus
had bees appropriated to its reduction he should not
have objected; the remission of the war duty on tea,
however,would nut only relieve consumers and stimulate
eniseumption„ but give an impulse to our trade with
China. Although the House had resolved not to remit
that duty, he insisted that they (the Opposition) should
not lose any opportunity of urging the inexpediency of
repealing an Excise duty upon paper, affecting only •
limited industry, rather thee reducing another indirect
lan which tad so many claims to a preference. Ifs gave,
therefore, his sincere opposition to this clause, which
stood is the way of the question whether the war
duties on tea or on sugar should be remitted. In con-
allusion he took the opportunity of contradicting certain
rummies referring to himself on the subject of the
Galway contract.
Lord J. Russell, adverting to the same subject, de-
clared that the imputation cast upon the Goverumeut
of an inteetion on their part to postpone the termina-
tion of the Galway contract for six months was totally
void of foundation and a calumny mon the Goreru-
meet. •ddressiug himself to the question before the
Committee, lie dwelt upon the inconsistencies mani-
fested by the opponents of the proposed financial
measures, and upon the confusion into which our trade
and fivances would be thrown if their views of the con-
stitutional question were adopted. This year, as well
as the last, the Government, he observed, had been of
opinion that the best mode of applying the surplus was
by repealing the Paper Duty, as a relief to industry.
It was objected that this tax was no burdea at all
upon the people, and in the tame breath it was said
that, if once repealed, it could net be re nipreed. The
proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mama
direct tax and to abolish an inditeet t,x, he insisted,
was • fair one. Noticing some remarks which had
fallen from Sir J. Itatesslen on the evepts now taking
place in America, be said he saw no pr.pect of our
pacific relations being disturbed.
Mr. Peacock argued against the repeal of the Paper
Duty, as conferring no benefit upon the working
chimes, while it would impair the financial prospects id
the next_year.
Mr. W. Talbot likewise 'bought it unwise in the
present state of affairs, to part with a large source of
revenue.

Mr. J. Shelley said be should vote for the clause to
keep the present Administration in office.
Sir. W. Jolliffe objected to the repeal of • duty the
remission of which would relieve only • moan section of
the community.
Mr. Lindsey enumerated the severe Excise rept-
'Alone to which the paper manufacture was subjected,
and pointed out how the public, as well as the trade,
would gain by • repeal of the duty.
Sir. M. Farquhar considered it impolitic at the
present moment to repeal the Paper Duty; and that
not only the tea and sugar duties, but the Income-tax
should be previously reduced as much as possible,
which would be • very great relief to the industry of
the country. He could not consent to the repeal of
this dnty, because he thought the proposal the result
of • political understanding, and because he did not
believe there was • unanimous feeling in favour of it
on the part of the Gov; rnment.
Mr. Osborne after lamenting the weariness of this
, protracted discussion, remarked that, retaining his
opinion as to the impolicy of repealing the Paper Duty,
he considered that it was taken out of the category of
fiscal questions' and placed upon • totally different foot-
ing, by what had occurred last year. His vote, there-
fore, should not rat on mere financial grounds ; it was
to put an end to • date of things which contained the
seeds of difference between the two Houses of Parlia-
ment that he should support the repeal of the Paper
Duty. During the discussion lie had been very much
pumled, lm said, to discover the object of the untiring
opposition effered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He concluded that it was not to break up the Govern-
ment as • whole, but to weaken it by ejecting one who
was the soul of the Cabinet.

Mr. Mound took • different view of the question
from Mr. Osborne, and should vote simply upon financial
grounds. He thought it unwise to contract the area of
Indirect taxation, and to throw away • revenue of
£1,300,000 • year. The obstacles to the paper manu-
facture were not the OZOide duty or the excise regula-
tions, but the difficulty of procuring a sufficient supply
of the raw material. The repeal of the paper duty was
not popular on that (the Ministerial) able of the
House or in the country, and he should vote against the
clause.

Mr. Bentinck, assuming the existence of • surplus,
the reality of which, however, he denied, maintained
that, coasidering the general aspect of foreign affairs, •
duty should not be repealed that could not be re-ius•
posed. The turning point of the question was wetber
the present state of affairs in America would not neces-
sitate an increase in our armaments, and be likely to
derange our revenue.
Sir J. Paxton, in snpporting the clause, showed, by
the exhibition of samples, the manner in which the
Paper Duty affected the manufacturers of Coventry.
Mr. Cobden said the proposal under discussion was
to repeal the Paper Duty. He thought the question as
to the tea and sugar duties had been disposed of, as
well as the question of • surplus, for which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was responsible. Never in all
his Parliamentary experience, he said, had he known •
case in which a party had stood out to prevent a
Chancellor of the Exchequer from repealing any tax ;
yet • sy4etuatic opposition was offered to the reuMaion
of she rarer duty. In whose interest It geoid not
be disguised that it was the large paper manufacturers
who originated this opposition. Was it a novelty that
they were now asked to repeal this duty? It was one
of the oldest questions before Parliament, and had been
discussed by Sir Henry Parnell 30 years ago. Other
Excise duties had been abolished with the most bene-
ficial results and it was a true policy to pursue the same
course. The only danger which menaced this country
was in the events on the other side of the Atlantic,
which might curtail our supply of cotton. Admitting
this danger, we could not do better than pursue the
path painted out by experience, and remove the shackles
from trade. After insisting upon the various
advantages that would result from a remission of the
duty in question, he entreated the opponents of the
clause to let the question pass, and the Budget be
settled.

Mr. T. Baring said be would tell Mr. Cobden, who
had asserted that the opposition to the clause originated
with monopolists, that the opinion of the country vu
that, if this vu • tine for the remimion of tezasio, it
was wit at the present moment the duty on p 5911 that
should be removed; that • tax which oould not be
reimposed should not be remitted, so as to make it
necessary to fall back upoa direct taxation. If our
financial prospects permitted the remission of taxation
at all, be thought that war taxes had the first claim.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after comparing the
pretensions of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Baring to be advisers
of the Committee upon this question gave the
preference to the former as the soundest counsellor.
Was there any thing strange, be asked, in the propo•
Nihon of the Government to repeal the Paper Duty.
This was the only Excise duty for which a constant
demand had been made by the country backed by
Members of Pailisuent. The reduction of the Customs'
duty on tea would not be attended with advantages
to trade equal to the relief afforded by the removal of
Excise duties and of restrictive regulations which not
merely burdened the manufasture, but in some of its
branches absolutely prohibited it. But it was said that
the tea and sugar studies were war duties, and that
Parliament was pledged to remove them. Was it true
that these were war duties! They were imposed in
time of pesos, and not for the purposes of war, and the
remission of the tea and sugar was duties (so
called) would sacrifice £2,500,000, or twice
the amount of the Paper Duty. The doctrine
of engagement, set up by Mr. Disraeli, was
a pare and perfect figment. Kr. Gladstone then
explained the motive* which bad influenced the
Government in deciding upon proposing the remission
of the Paper Duty, and called upon the committee to
keep faith with the country, and especially with the
trade, which had relied, and was justified in relying,
upon the vote of the House that the duty should be
repealed. After protesting against the manner in which
the questioa ol a surplus had been dealt with in the
discussion, he referred to an imputation repeated by
Mr. K. Reimer, that the proposition be had submitted
to the House vu made to conciliate Mr. Bright. Be
ed that it was meant that he had a covert
reumntion to change the burden of taxation, and that
this proposition was so insidious beginning of thie
project. Not one act or one syllable from lilni had
been cited to sustain this imputation, and, whether
or no this was the object of Mr. Bright., it was not his.
The proposition he had submitted to the Hones was
founded upon sound principles of finance sod of political
economy.
Sir. J. Ramadan, whose speech had been strongly
animadverted upon by the Chancellor of the Ex-
checivier, explained.
Sir J. Pakington said he had listened to these debates
from the first to the last, and bad heard nothing to
affect the opinion he had formed, and which was enter-
tained, he behaved, by • majority of the House and of
the country, that the Budget was open to three fatal
objections,—that the admission of taxation it proposed
was unwise ; that the Budget was no better than • party
mummers ; and that it offered an unnecessary offence,
if not insult, to the House of Lords.
Lord Palmerston, in reply to Mr. Bentinck, repeated
what he bad staled upon a former °coulee, that he
saw nothing in the ennts in America like') to lead to
the necessity of increased armaments, or to affect the
revenue of the country, the main sources of which.
connected with trade, had increased. Upon the
question at issue be expressed • hope that, in spite of
• fortuitous, concurrence of discordant atoms, the Com-
mittee, in deciding a most important question of
financial policy, would not be led away by the un-
founded arguments of the opponents of the clause.
The Committee hawing divided, the clause was
carried by 296 to 281, a majority of 15 for the Govern-
ment.

---
The other clauses were agreed to.
On the question that the Bill be reported.
Colonel French made • statement uoon the subject of
a communication with the Government regarding the
Galway Contract, and this led to a detailed explana-
tion from Lord Palmerston, which afforded some
amusement to the House.

The motion was agreed to, and the remaining busi-
ness haring been disposed of, the Blouse adjourned at
20 minutes to 2 o'clock.