The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-20 00:00:00

pression, speaking from memory after ten years' experience
in the affairs cf the country, was, that the penny in the
pound was proposed by himself as Chancellor or the Ex•
chequer to Lord Aberdeen's Government, not i n compen-
sation duty on rage, but because it was their ht fair that
they should proceed by transition from state of protection
to a state of free trade, and likewise becave i his was a plea
for the continuance of the duty as long as fl o principle of
that duty could not be brought into question. Then the
hon. gentleman said they had departed from the free trade
principles of Sir Robert Peel ; the policy of Sir Robert Peel
was that they ought not to subject theßritish manufacturer
to competition unless they gave him free access to the raw
material. And here the hon. gentleman must admit he had
fallen iato language likely to mislead. Did he mean that we
were to restrain free trade in this country until foreign coun-
tries had adopted it? Were we to deprive our people of the ad-
vantages of free trade because foreign countries were not able
to follow and seize the advantages of that policy? Were we to
do that? Was there to be no free trade till every Government
in the world had come up to free trade principles ? At the
same time it was a matter of duty that in exposing people
to competition they should give them the advantage of free
access to the raw material, but he could not admit that free
trade in this country was to wait for the halting proceedings
of other Governments in the world, while our own people
were subjected to the evils of protection. As t• the state-
ments attributed to him by the hon gentleman, both the
facts and figures were quoted by him as those of others, and
not as his own. The hon gentleman's speech had consisted
of particular facts and general descriptions. He could not
question the lion gentleman's particular facts; but his par-
ticular facts were one thing, and his general descriptions of
the state of trade were another. If he complained of any-
thing, it was the hon gentleman's repeated and pertinacious
statement that he denied the distress of the paper trade. He
had never stated that the state of the paper trade was one
of prosperity. The statement of the hon member referred
not to the state of the paper trade, but to the business of
particular persons. But it might well be that the business
of those persons might be in an unfavourable state, and yet
that the trade generally might be prosperous. He said this
the rather that the hon gentleman's statements referred to
one particular branch of the trade, that concerned with the
manufacture of middling printing papers. There was nothing
to show that other parts of the trade were in the same con-
dition. He quite admitted that there was a good deal of
suffering in the paper trade, but not more than might be
expected while it was in a state of transition from protection
to free trade. If it was true that the paper trade generally
was in a declining state, how was it that up to the repeal
of the paper duty the number of papermakers had steadily
diminished, while this decline had been arrested since the
repeal of the duty ? But the honourable member had
referred to the exports, and had said that one-fourteenth
of our production was little or nothing to export. But it
was certainly a material fact that we exported that one-
fourteenth part of our production to neutral markets, where
it encounteredithe competition of the German and the French
producers. Besides, it appeared that, while in 1859 we ex-
ported 115,000 cwts. of paper, in 1864 we exported 190,000
cwts. That showed clearly that there was increased em-
ployment and increased production. Nor was it immaterial
to remark that, while in 1859 we imported 115,000 cwts. of
materials for paper, in 1861 we imported 731,000 cwts. of
the same articles. That clearly showed an extending
manufacture. He, therefore, must say that he was not
prepared to join in the dismal anticipations of universal
ruin in the paper trade in which the hon. member had in-
dulged. The hon. gentleman said that it was the duty of
the Government to find a remedy for the state of things in
the paper trade. But he denied that. The true remedy
lay in improved processes and more economical modes of
manufacture. He could not assent to so mischievous and
retrograde a measure as the reimposition of a customs duty
on paper. Then it was proposed that we should appeal to
foreign Governments to reduce the export duty on rags.
But the Government had at all times recognised that duty.
Even if that were true, the barren agitation carried on by
the papers makers had been a great cause of that want if
success. What was the effect of such debates as that ?
The foreign paper makers read that the men of influence in
that house had decla:ed that the English paper makers
were driven out of the market by the export duty on rags.
The natural consequence was to bind the foreign makers
together in an organised agitation to maintain those duties.
The efforts of the Government to bring about a reduction of
the duty were thus frustrated. The hon. member said that
he had made promises. He admitted that in the financial
statement of the present year he had said that he hoped for
a disposition towards the reduction of the export duty from
France. Considerable progress had been made in the nego-
tiations with that object—and he believed that it would have
been attained within a few days and the end would have
been gained, had it not been for the motion of the hon.
member. The Government were not disposed to resist any
inquiry into the subject in a future session, but he was con-
vinced that it would have been for the interest of the paper
makers to have allowed this question to rest, and to have
left it to the Government to make those representations
with foreign Governments which they would have felt it
their duty to make without any parliamentary incentive.
Mr SUB:TEES expressed the satisfaction with which
he had heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer.
Lord R. MONTAGU did not think that Mr Maguire
had made out a case for inquiry, and saw no good in having
little battles upon a question that had been fought on a
large scale some years since, unless there was reason to sup-
pose that the decision of the house had been erroneous.
The discussion was continued by Colonel Dickson, Mr
Norris, Mr Black, and Sir M. Farquhar, all of whom urge
on the Government the importance of granting a committee
of inquiry.
Mr WATKIN hoped that, if there was to be an investi-
gation into the condition of the paper trade, the select com-
mittee would call for the production of the income tax re-
turns of the 400 papermakers in the United Kingdom before
and after the French treaty.
Mr MAGUIRE, in reply, said that the case which he
had prit forward was that of trade generally, and that, if
their statements were exaggerated, he was not personally
responsible for them. His own opinion, however, was that
the case which he bad presented to the house was unfortu-
nately but too true.
The motion was withdrawn.
Sir F. SMITH moved "That a humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to issue a commission to consider the various sys-
tems now existing of constructing and armour plating ships
of war for the British navy, as well as for the navies of
other maritime Powers, and to report what, in the opinion
of such commission, should be the system to b 3 now adopted
for the British navy." The hon. and gallant gentleman
criticised the proceedings of the Admiralty, and complained
that no fixed principles of construction and armament had
been laid down, whilst the expense incurred by the country
in mere experiments was enormous, without any commen-
surate increase of efficiency to the service. He wished to
know whether the Admiralty were aiming at speed, at
weight of armament, or at power of resistance.
Lord C. PAGET defended the course which, in the midst
of constant changes and improvements in the construction
and armament of ships, the Admiralty had adopted. With
regard to the relative merits of the French and English
armour-plated ships, he assured the house that the latter
were quite equal, if not superior, to those of any other na-
tion. He could not deny that our ships cost more, but
that disadvantage was fully counterbalanced by their supe•
rior workmanship and durable qualities. As to the use of
steel shot, the matter had not been lost sight of in connec-
tion with the construction of guns ; and he believed that
both in:shot and guns we were not at all behind any other
Power.

Sir J. HAY thought it would be desirable that a corn •
mission should issue to inquire and report upon the de-
scription of ship that would be most available, first, for
our protection at home, and next, for the protection of our
commerce abroad. The requirements for ships were, a high
rate of speed, great weight of armament, and facility of
movement when in action. With these were also combined
the questions of draught for our iron ships, and how they
were to be coppered. As to targets, guns, and shot, he
considered that these were matters over which the Govern-
ment had been too long pausing.
Mr LAIRD obser-ed that at present we were in so unsafe
a position that if we were to go to war with. the Federal
States of America we should have to 11.90 all our dockyard
resources to obtain vessels capable of crossing the Atlantic
and competing with the so-called turret ships. If we had
merely such ves.els as those employed in the African
squadron, the fate of the Alabama would soon overtake
them.

After some remarks from Sir S. M. PETO and Sir J.
PAXINOTON (the latter in opposition to the proposition of
Sir F. Smith), the motion was withdrawn.
Sir F. KELLY obtained leave to bring in a bill fJr the
further prevention of bribery at electionsot members to serve
in Parliament.
Leave was also given to Mr VILLIERS to bring in a
bill to make provision for distributing the charge of relief
of certain masses of poor persons over the metropolis.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, leave was given to bring in a bill to amend an act
of the present session relating to certain stamp duties.'
Tha other business on the paper was disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock.

THE FALL OF A BUILDING IN AGAR-TOWN—Dr.
Lankesfer yesterday held an inquest at the Clarendon
Arms, Clarendon-square, on the body of Alfred William
Copeland, aged 10, who was killed by the fall of a house at
Agar-town. The jury returned a verdict of "Died from
accidental causes."
[ADVERTISEMENT.]--Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Old sores, wounds, and ulcers.—It is surprising how quickly
any sore, ulcer, or wound drains away the body's strength,
and unfits it for the duties of life; but it is no less wonder-
ful to watch how these topical afflictions improve on the
application of Holloway's healing ointment. It has achieved
tho surest and most glorious triumphs over bad legs, foul
ulcerations, and knotted veins, which had confounded
the faculty, and well-nigh worn, out their victims. It cre-
ates sound flesh, and therefore makes its cures complete.
When this ointment is properly applied, and assisted by ap-
propriate doses of the pills, the pain, inflammation, and
other morbid manifestations, soon disappear from the
affected part, and health and etrenztb, return.