The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-13 00:00:00

repeal. We wera the only people in the world who im-
posed a urea pper.
Mr. HUME wiAled to remind the House that the
questioa was not that they .;liould immediately repeal
the paper duty, but that financial arrangements ought to
he made which would enable Parliament hereafter to

dispense with that duty. The next proposition was, that
the newspaper duty ought to be abolished. The Chan-.
cellor of the Exchequer had shown a balance in hand of
460,0001. What he (Mr. Hume) proposed to do with
that balance was to repeal the advertisement duty, not
the duty on paper, nor even the stamp duty on news-
papers, because he would transfer that latter duty by
making it a postage charge. How did the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, however, propose to appropriate the
surplus? Why, by paying a bounty to 80,000 militia-
men. That was an appropriation of which ho (Mr.
Hume) did not approve. There were about 60 papers
now published with or without stamps—that is, they
were stumped ii intended for the country. They were
not stamped if intended fur local circulation. Ho was pre-
pared to show that the increased amount derivable from
the revenue if a stamp were put on all papers going by post
would enable the duty to be reduced without any great
loss to the revenue.—(Divide, divide!) They had but
2,000,000 of advertisements in our papers, as opposed to
10,000,000 or 12,000,000 advertisements iu the United
States; but he was satisfied if there was an alteration in
the duties the advertisements in our papers would be
trebled or quadrupled. Considering newspapers as the
best possible instructors., he would be sorry to see any
restriction placed on their circulation. In the United
States every log cabia had its paper full of various mat
tars of news or instruction, and sold for one cent each.
In the United States tht ro were 16} newspapers pub-
lish( d to every man, woman, and child; in England there
was only one paper for every 12. If the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would only risk 600,0001., he would
find that in the end the revenue would not lose. He
could toll them there were at this moment persons ready
to embark 20,000/. in a daily newspaper to be circulated
throughout the whole country, to pay the same rate as
the best papers, and to have the same amount of talent
to furnish political, historical, and general information
for every class. The Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Dis-
raeli) having had so much to do with literary matters,
the country expected ho would be the first to patronize
the spread of literature, and be (Mr. Hume) was satis-
fied, if he, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed to
the change, he would lose nothing by it.—(Cries for a
division )

Mr. KER SEY MER objected to the paper.duties, in
the first place, as being Excise duties, and in the second
place, as interfering with the circulation of cheap publi-
cations; but considering that it had been agreed
among the Honourable Gentlemen opposite that the
whole question of taxation should be left to the conside-
ration of a new Parliament, ho should now oppose the
present motion.
Mr. WAKLEY taunted the Honourable Gentleman
for having voted in favour of this proposition when Lord
John Rueselt's Government was in power, and voting
against it when his own friends sat upon the Treasury
benches. The motion did not pledge the House to any
immediate arrangement; it was simply an affirmative
proposition. Out of doors great anxiety was expressed
upon this subject. It was anticipated that a literary
man holding so high a position as the Right Honourable
Gentleman would have looked at this question with an
earnest desire to remove every obstacle trom the educa-
tion of the people. Th© House and the country were
left completely in the dark as to the intentions of the
Government. Ile thought that the conduct of those in
authority was extremely reprehensible in renewing the
prosecution against the Household Narrative. Instead
of expressing their gratitude to the man who amused
and instructed the people of this country, he was se-
lected by the Government for punishment.—(Hear.)
Instead of giving hm the benefit of the doubt, he was
now to be driven into a court of error. There was no
doubt upon the minds of the jury, there was no doubt
upon the minds of the judges. And who was this man
selected for persecution, he could not call it prosecution
—Charles Dickens.—(Elear, hear.) He thought that
the author of " Viviaa Grey" ought to blush at such a
proceeding.—(hear.) The solicitor for the Stamp-office
stated in his letter that the Queen's Speech was news,
but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was
not news; and also that a price current was not liable to
penalty for being published without a stamp. Such were
the absurdities of the present system.
Mr. KNIGHT admitted that booksellers and paper
manufacturers would be entitled to the abolition of the
duty if the duty on the importation of foreign books and
paper were repealed, and if they were placed in the same
position as that of the farmers in regard to the importa-
tion of corn. Farmers were subject to free trade
and had great burdens to bear, but the particular inte-
rests aff,cted by this question were not so, and yet it
was proposed to relieve them from taxation.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, in conformity with the
wish of an Hon. Member, he would add these words to
the original motion—" That such financial arrangement
ought to be made as would enable Parliament to dispense
with the duty on paper, as early as may be with refer-
ence to the safety of the revenue." The second division
would be taken upon this question—that the newspaper
stamp ought to be abolished, because there was an ade-
quate surplus. The third division would be taken on the
abolition of the advertisement tax, which amounted to
160,0001. To meet the deficiency occasioned by such a
loss, there was also mere than an adequate surplus.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER might
perhaps be permitted to say a single word in answer to the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, who had represented to the
House that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
stated that these particular taxes were under the
consideration of Government. What he stated was
that they were being considered as parts of the
general system of taxation; he guarded himself from
saying they were being specifically considered.—
(Hear, hear.) As he was on his legs, he might remark
upon the charge made against him, that he had made
a diversion from the decision of the House by stating
that he would give his opinion on the subject when the
budget was produced. The same charge was made by
the Honourable Member for Dublin with respect to the
spirit duties. The Honourable Member seemed also
under the impression that he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) had engaged to give a specific answer on that
question when he made the financial statement. What
he wanted to convey to the House, and what he believed
he did convey to a majority of the House, was that he
could not state in detail the views of Government upon
any particular tax until the financial statement was
made—meaning that Honourable Gentlemen would re-
ceive an answer with the financial statement, because
it would prove that, instead of a large surplus, which
existed only in the imagination of those gentlemen
who were urging the repeal of ,different items of
taxation, there was a mere nominal surplus. With
regard to the margin, for he could scarcely call it
a surplus, in the statement he had made to the
House, he thought the statement of the Ministers of the
Crown ought to be received with some consideration.
—([Tear, hear.) Any gentleman might get up and say,
" The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us there will
only be a surplus of 300,0001. or 400,0001, but I can
prove the surplus will be double or treble that amount."
But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said the
statement ho had made us the person responsible for the
financial condition of the country ought to be received
as a statement which had been maturely weighed.—
(Cheers.) He might ask, in vindication of that state-
ment, how it was received by the person who would
have been most apt to criticise, and who possessed the
most knowledge on the subject—his predecessor in office?
([Tear.) The Hon. Member for Halifax had said the
only fault in that statement was, that it placed the sur-
plus at much too high a figure.—(Hear, hear.) That
was the criticism of the late Chancellar of the Exchequer,
and ho warned the House not to come to any preciptate
conclusion in the manner proposed, under the impres-
sion that it pledged the House to nothing. It did
pledge the House in a most important respect, and
might exercise a most inconvenient effect upon the state
of the finances of the country.—(Hear.)
Three divisions then took place:—
The first, upon the resolution as amended, with regard
to the paper duty—
Ayes ,„
..• ••• ••• 107
Noes ..„ 195
Majority against the resolution ... ---83
The second, upon the resolution with regard to the
stamp duty—
Ayes ... ,„
„,
•• ... 100
Noes ...
••• ... 199
Majority against the resolution --99
The third, upon the resolution with regard to the
advertisement duty—
Ayes ... „,
••• •• ... 116
Noes ... ,„
• ••• ... 181
Majority against tho resolution ... --65
TRUSTEES' ACT EXTENSION BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION