The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

racnt borrowed the money in of dcr to do it. (Hear, hear..) We
heard the other night a good deal of political considerations
upon which the argunientwas founded—that itis veryimprue
dent to give up this tax. But that argument comes to this, than
we ought to maintain the paper duty and not reduce the other
taxes. Those considerations are mere vague apprehensions—
apprehensions of the interruption of trade or of the disturb-
ance of that peace which this country now happily enjoys with
all the nations of the world. But if mere apprehensions are
to justify the refusal of any remission of taxation, the time
may never come to relieve the country from any existing
burden. (Hear.) I really think that the decision should
be left to the Executive Government. If the Executive Go-
vernment see that danger is near, that it will be necessary
to increase our armaments, surely they will be the first to
wish that there should be sufficient funds in order to meet
these requirements. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member
for the West Riding of Yorkshire alluded the other night
to one sutject in a tone which I was very sorry to hear used
by any one. (Hear.) My hon. friend said that " the great
Republican bubble in America had burst." For my part,
I confess that when I find that a dark and tyrannical des-
potism has been abolished. and that people arc likely to en-
joy free government in its place, I rejoice. (Hear.) It is
my duty to represent her Majesty as friendly to all existing
States; but if a despotic Government fall, and the people
who have been sutjected to it are likely to obtain better
saantdisfafrceteiorng. OVEctuntleio-tnlt
hcaatn
In oht
acvoen
very
eearyl
dt hati i
e retngt ifveeesl i
nng, es
when a great Republic, which has enjoyed for 70 or 80 years
institutions under which the people have been free and
happy, entersinto a conflict in which that freedom and hap-
piness is placed in jeopardy. (Hear.) I must say the joy
which I felt at the overthrow of some of the despotisms of
Italy is counterbalanced by the pain which I experience at
the events which have lately taken place in America.
(Cheers.) I admit that I have thought, and that I still
think, that in this country we enjoy more real freedom than
the United States have ever done. I admit also that the
great founders of that Republic, wise and able men as they
were, had not the materials at band by which they could
interpose, as we are able to do in this country, the curb and
correction of reason in order to restrain the passionate out-
bursts of the popular will. Yet we cannot be blind to the
fact that the Republic has been for many years a great and
free State, exhibiting to the world the example of a people
in the enjoyment of wealth, happiness, and freedom, and
affording bright prospects of the progress and improvement
of mankind. (Hear.) When I reflect that the reproaches
which are cast by the States of the North upon the States
of the South, and the resistance which they have called
forth, have arisen from the accursed institution of slavery
—(hear)—l cannot but recollect also that with our great
and glorious institutions we gave them that curse, and tha
ours were the hands from which they received that &tag
gift of the poisoned garment that was flueg around them.
from the first hour of their establishment. Therefore, Ido
not think it just or seemly that there should be among us
anything like exultation at their discord, and still less that
we should reproach them with an evil for the origin of

which we are ourselves to blame. (Hear, hear.) These are
the feelings with which I heard the remarks of my hon.
friend the other night, and I must say that I believe the
sentiments which he expressed form an exception to the
general impression in England. (Cheers.) Indeed, I think
nothing could be more honourable to our country than the
prevailing pain and grief which have been occasioned by
the prospect of that great and free people being about to
rush into arms to destroy each other's happiness and free-
dom. (Cheers.) I have few words more to say. It is neces-
sary I should assure the house that neither with regard to
America, nor with regard to any of the great European na •
tions, do I see at present any prospect that our pacific relit-
tions will be disturbed. The world, however, is in a state of
change, and far be it from me to make any prophecy tha t
peace will, in all the changes, be preserved. All I can say is
that as far as I know the feelings of all States towards this
country are friendly, that there are no questions pending
upon which any conflict is likely to arise, and that as far as
my humble means canpromote the cause of peace and good-
will upon earth, I will exert them to that end. (Cheers.)

Sir J. RAMSDEN assured the noble lord that no word
had escaped from him that could be taken as an expression
of exultation in the recent events in America, which the
committee would remember he had spoken of specifically as
calamities which he most earnestly deplored. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Peacocke and Lord Dunkellin rose together, amids t
cries of" Dunkellin, Dunkellin," but Mr. Peacocke caught
the Speaker's eye, and Lord Dunkellin gave way.
Mr. PEACOCK E said that the conduct of the Opposi-
tion in first denying the surplus, and then proposing the
reduction of the tea duty, was not so inconsistent as ap-
peared at first sight. He must venture still to express
doubts as to the surplus. But assuming its existence, he
then said that the paper tax was not the one that ought to
be selected for repeal. In case of war, the abolished tax
could not be reimposed. The reduction of the income-
tax was a boon to the upper and middle classes, but
the Budget gave no relief to the poor. Though one hon.
member said they should have cheap band-boxes, and an-
other promised them paper clothes, he thought cheap tea
and sugar would be better appreciated by the poor.
Capt. TALBOT objected to the abolition of a permanent
source of revenue such as the paper duty, in the face of the
threatening clouds which lowered over the Continent, and
the calamitous state of things which existed in America.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that the country had now come to
the conclusion that the question was not wh ther the paper
duty should be repealed or not, but whether the present
Government should be superseded by another to be formed
by Lord Derby. Upon that point he thought there could
be no doubt on the part of the public that it would be pre-
ferable to have Lord Palmerston at the head of the Govern-
ment than the Earl of Derby, and the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London et the head of the Foreign-office
than the Earl of Malmespury. For his part, he would give
his vote on the ground of keeping the present Government
in office. (Hear, hear.)
Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the paper makers had but
little hope of obtaining any benefit from the repeal of the
duty ; those only who would obtain any advantage from
the proposed abolition were the proprietors of the penny
, newspapers. At the present time these persons were driv-
ing a flourishing trade, as was evident from the number of
compaitors who were starting up among them ; but the
profits which they at present derived were not sufficient to
satisfy them, and they were anxious to obtain cheaper paper
no matter from what source it might come, so that it was
duty free. If the Opposition expressed doubts in the exist-
ence of a surplus, he thought that was not very much to be
wondered at, and he should feel it his duty to give his vote
in opposition to the proposal of the Government. (Hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY argued that the paper duty was one
which imposed considerable restrictions and inconveniences
on the paper makers ; and in support of this proposition he
referred to the numerous regulations required by the Excise,
and the numerous systems of fines a .d penalties which were
imposed upon the makers by the officers of the Inland Re-
venue. The hon. baronet who had last spoken had said
that the repeal of the paper duty would benefit only the
proprietors of the cheap newspapers. What, however,
were the facts of the case ? Take a penny newspaper, cir-
culating say 50,000 copies per day, the amount of benefit
which the proprietors would receive from the repeal of the
duty would be about £11,500 a year. But could any one
suppose that the whole of that sum would go into the
pockets of the proprietors ? Far from it. The competition
which existed, and which would then no doubt be increased,
would have the effect of securing to the public a very
larger portion of this sum. The public would have the
benefit of a better sheet of paper ; and as knowledge was a
marketable article just as paper itself was, the public would
have better means of obtaining information than was the
case even at present. There would be a greater amount of
talent employed on the cheap papers, and they would have
information of greater value provided for the readers of
those papers. Of the £11,500 from which a penny 'news-
paper with a circulation of 60,000 would be relieved, not
more than £3,000 would go into the pockets of flireproprie-
tors, while the public would have been benefited to the
amount of £8,600 a 'ear. (Hear.) He begged of hon.
members on both sides to take the question on its merits,
and on its merits alone. (Hear, hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR thanked the noble lord epor
both
sides J. Russell) for having vindicated the honour'_
sides of the house in the course of the speech 7We- he had
sinuate for e.
delivered. He (Sir M. Farquhar) did thenot heal of the Go-
vernmentsingle moment that the noble lord
atabout to make, any bar-
gain
paper. The hon.
had made, or that he vaB
nfitifiec.7:3,iefsttihlleythhoeruigevhodt tihtattothbee
teheador tldreemredemiinssipoonsiotifvtehet
terms
with the Irish members, but ..
Irish members were quite
communication from Ireland on
for the good of Ireland, vote
t on right ea
onfydeisflreLbout Galway—and
t
rsthathieg3eehmi rtshe..udTehb.jtheoen:cfs'dth.groGa keefncieetßthevsci;awNhne
saidad a at
thatt h a that
the denial,
niduetimezeirnsfotrea=tinlhanai
the President yet the
of the Board of Trade
words of the right lion.
member for Buckinghamshire were, that he had had no in-
terview with Irish gentlemen on the subject.
Sir M. FARQUHAR said it was splitting straws to carp
at the precise language used. lie had been much surprised
on Sunday morning to see an organ in the press—a great
admirer of the noble lord (and he was a great admirer of the
noble lord himself)—state, in reference to the adjournment
of Monday night, that it was owing to the tactics of the
Conservative party. A great deal had been said about the
effect on the country, and what would happen if they went
to the country. He, for one, was quite ready to go to the
country, and so were all gentlemen on his side of the house,
and the advance, of Conservatism during the past 12 months
gave every prospect of success. Re could not believe
that
on the
them part
of the Government there was a unanimous
feeling, and he felt bound to oppose the measure as being
opposed to the true interests of the country.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there was one point with
which the majority of the house would agree, and that was,
the wish to go to the country or any where else so as to be
rid of this endless discussion. He thought that the Govern-
ment had no cause to complain of the course adopted by the
hon. member for Dorsetshire, which was something refresh-
ing after the aimless debate which had taken place. He had
been twitted for not having voted on a previous occasion,
and the hon. member who had just sat down had quoted
certain expressions which he had used. If the question now
Was solely a financial question hewould adhere to those

pressions strictly, but the question had become one not of a
fiNal character, and in order to settle a difference between