The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-02 00:00:00

education, which might do very well for France or Prussia,
but which would never suit the people of England.

Lord J. RUSSELL wished to call the attention of the
committee to the state of the question as it stood. The
question had been filly debated at a period when there was
a good attendance of members, which unfortunately was
not the case at the present hour, and his right hon. friend
having then proposed to repeal two-thirds of the duty,
which was a very considerable reduction, ho could hardly
have expected that that would bring upon his right hon.
friend so much reproach. (Hear, hear.) His right hon.
friend the member for Manchester proposed a total repeal,
and in a house containing more than 200 members
the committee decided in favour of the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody then thought
that the question was decided ; and he thought that to at-
tempt to reverse that decision now, when the house was
so much thinner, was hardly fair or consistent with the
usual forms of the house. Then it was said that his right
hon. friend was proceeding against a former vote of the
house. That was no doubt true ; but the question really
came to this—whether the repeal or the reduction of taxes
was to be carried 33, separate votes of the house, or whe-
ther the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be listened to
in the first instanco, and his propositions to be accepted or
rejected. Undoubtedly, the house could take the former
of the two courses ; but in that case the office of Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer could hardly be one of much utility.
The other course had been taken in this instance—the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid before the house
his plan of finance for the year; and the qustion was
now whether the plan of his right honourable friend,
which had hitherto met with much favour—in the
country as well as in the house—should be reversed.
(Hear, hear.) The house had already decided in favour of
the proposition of his right hon. friend, and he submitted
that that decision, which removed two-thirds of the duty,
ought to be acquiesced in. He would not enter into the
question either of the advertisement duty or of the stamp
duty. He had no doubt that the preponderance of argu-
ment was in favour of the abolition of both. (Loud cheers.)
NV hen he was First Lord of the Treasury he had various
deputations coming to him, 30 or 40 gentlemen, pleading
against the continmnce of this or that tax; and really their
arguments in favour of the abolition of every tax were quite
overwhelming. (Laughter.) He never got up and said to
them in reply that the tax on paper, for instance, or on
soap, or on malt, was a useful tax; he never argued,beca,use
he never felt, as if there was anyadvantage in these taxes.
They were to be coasidered with regard to the general fi-
nance of the country. They had been so considered—the
committee had pronounced its decision—and he hoped
hon. gentlemen wild now attempt to reverse that deci-
sion by taking advantage of the absence of those who were
ready to urge arguments which at the time were not pro-
duced.

After a short pause,
Lord J. RUSSELL again rose, and said there was one
other matter which ho ought to have mentioned in connec-
tion with the question now before the committee. A re-
duction of duty was proposed. If the proposition should
be carried to make it nil, it would be necessary to bring in
a bill for the purpose of repealing the duty. Of course
that bill would be laid before the house, and the result
would be, that in the meantime the tax would remain
what it now was, ls. 6d. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said a par-
ticular request had been made to him, and he considered
it a just request on the part of the hon. member for Man-
chester, that whatever was done on this matter should be
done after full and clear notice. The hon. member gave a
notice which was understood to raise, and which did raise
distinctly, the question, whether the proposition of the
Government should be accepted, or whether the duty
should be totally repealed. He had met that question
fairly, and a vote of the house had been taken on it. The
hon. member did not give him notice that the vote was to
be taken twice on the same night, and he did not think
the hon. member was aware of any such intention. If he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been aware of it,
he should, of course, have been prepared to meet it. If
the hon. member wished to prolong the discussion on the
subject, he must have legitimate opportunities of so doing;
but he must appeal to the hon. member not to take part in
voting a second time on the same subject on the same
night. (Hear.)
The committee then divided on the question that 6d.
stand part of the resolution. The numbers were—
Ayes 63
Noes 6B