The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-03 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 3.

Ms House of Commons had become hungry and
exhausted last night before the hon. Member for
Liverpool rose to move his amendment; so that
while Mr. H t • MIARD addressed hisirrelevant remarks
to a crowded House, poor Mr. Honsrau, who led
to dismal the real point at issue, talked for the most
part to empty benches. Ho was compelled to
address the House at the critical dining hour,
when nothing rare the charm of the highest elo-
quence or the pressure and excitement of a pre-
mature division will keep members in their places.
Another mute, it is true, also contributed to
throw the honourable Member for Liverpool
so late. The CNIANCSLLOa of the EXCHEQUEII
did Dot satisfy himself with simply moving the
resolution on the paper continuing the existing
duties on tea and sugar. He took the opportu-
nity of vindicating the course which the Govern-
ment had decided to pursue in a brilliant and
conclusive speech, to which the Member Mr liwF
pool offered no reply, and which we wester, to
assert is, on commercial and financial grounds,
unanswerable. Mr. GLADKrOris frankly 1112 r
plained at tho outset the reasons whisk
had induced him to make this preli-
minary statement and defence. The strange
conduct of the Opposition in proposing the removal
of the tea duties, after an elaborate attempt to
show there was no surplus at the disposal of the
Government, had decided him to justify at the
outset the particular resolutiou thus unexpectedly
assailed. After stating, as a justification of this
course, that Mr. DIUMELI had, on • similar oc-
casion eight years ago, asked for a preliminary
statement, Mr. OLAINITONIaddedb--" But another
" reason leads me to the same conclusion. We
" have had • considerable change of eirournehances
" since Monday fortnight. We then made • pro-
" position which we considered to be a proposition
" of conciliation, but the proposal in our view of
" conciliation has been received as • proposal of
" controversy and of war. We thought that we
" were offering the olive branch, and it has been
" received as if we had been throwing down the
" glove ; and if that be so, I am bound to say on
" my own behalf, and on behalf of my colleagues,
" that we do not decline the oombat. We have
"no reason to, and we do not, complain of
" the discussions that have already taken place."
The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to dis-
cuss point by point the absolute merits of the tea
duty, and the effect of the proposed amend-
ment upon revenue, upon trade, and upon the
consumer ; and then its relative claim to remission
as compared with the tax on paper. It is im-
possible to follow Mr. Gtrosroos in his forcible,
elaborate, and convincing discussion of these
essential points. One only may be men-
tioned in passing, as it is 'of considerable
practical importance at the present moment. He
effectually disposed of the common notion that a
renkbeliell of the duty on tea would be an imme-
diate benefit to the consumer to the whole, or
nearly the whole extent of the remission. Mr.
GIALMITONI proved by a careful analysis of the
results of previous reductions of the duty in 1853
andllBs7 that at most not more than • fourth of
the whole reduction reaches the consumer. This
disposed of the main ground on which Mr.
HOU/ALL urged his amendment. While wholly
usable to reply to the commercial and financial
branches of Mr. GLAUSTONZ'S argument, the hon.
Member for Liverpool endeavoured to make eat
a strong case for his motion on social grounds. It
would be • vast boon to the great mass of the
people. In support of his plea Mr. Hossrau. read
stetter fronts Birmingham paterfamilias, thanking
him for his motion, and 'eying that if it passed,
the reduction of the duty on tea would save
more to the writer in • week than the abolition of
the duty on paper would in • whole year. Now,
how doss the matter really stand I Mr. HOIXFALL
proposes to take off fivopence a pound of the duty
on tea. Only a fourth of this amount would, for
a year or two to come, reach the consumer. The
writer of the letter read by Mr. 11068741.11. says
he and his family use nearly half a pound of
tea weekly, so that the total saving, if the hon.
gentleman's amendment were carried, would be
just one halfpenny a week. But paper, especially
the coarser kind of paper, is used in so many
ways, is employed to wrap up so many articles of
family use, that at least this amount of saving
would be realised in every family of any size
throughout the kingdom if the tax on this useful
article were abolished. For the rest, Mr. GLAD-
NTONE oonclnsively proved that, in the present
position of the two duties, paper has incomparably
higher claims for immediate reduction than tea
can possibly prefer. The right hon. gentleman's
review of the actual position of the former duty in
Parliament and in the country, as well as his
sketch of the future prospects of the trade, are
quite conclusive on this head. The House scarcely
needed, indeed, this eloquent and unanswerable
vindication of the comas which the Government
had adopted in proposing to abolish the paper
dntyst once. It was quits prepared, as the
division list demonstrated in the 1110111 praelltal
form, to redeem its edema pledges, vindicate Ii
°obliged privileges, and sustain in a fitting man
nor its honourable and responsible position as
guardian of the nations' resources. Mr. Hone-
'Am.'s amendment, on which the Opposition hid