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

meneely and is much lower than at any former period.
Then have the duty and the price diminished the consump-
tion ? Why, my right hon. friend (Sir G. Lewis) has shown
you to-night, that the consumption between 1853 and last
year has risen immensely, has risen from fifty odd millions
of pounds to seventy add millions. Therefore you cannot say •
that the present state of things limits oppressively the power
of consumption. Then it might be said, " Your supplies aro
likely to fail you, and if your supplies diminish and your de-
mand remains the same, and your consumption at home in-
creases, the price will naturally increase, and the pressure -- .
will be felt by the consuming classes. But the right hon.
baronet has answered and removed that objection, because
he has reminded you that the treaty with China and the
treaty with Japan have opened large additional markets for
the supply of tea, and if that be the case your supply will
increase, and it is quite clear that the tendency of things
will be to lower the price with the newexisting duty. Well,
then, I say I admit, if we had nothing to consider except - -
this tax alone, it would be desirable at any time at which
it was practicable to do so, to lower the duty on that, as
well as any other article of general consumption by
the lower classes ; yet I say, on the grounds I have stated,
there is no such pressing case of urgency in regard to the
duty on tea, to lead you to reduce it in preference to any
other tax which has peculiar claims on your consideration.
It was represented that my right hon. friend the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer said a diminution of the duty would
not find its way into the pockets of consumers in the shape
of a reduction of price. Nuw, my right hon. friend never
said anything of the kind, but what he said was that from
the nature of the measure and the circumstances of the case
it would be a considerable time before the benefit was reaped
by the consumer, and that, therefore, the purpose for which
the remission was proposed would not be accomplished. My
right bon. friend could not be supposed by any body to beso
little conversant with the principles, of which he knows so
much, as to imagine that a diminution of duty did not in the
long run, by some means or other, produce a benefit to the
consumer. Then we come to the reason why we should pro-
pose the remission of the duty on paper. It is admitted that
an excise duty is a bad duty from its essential nature ; that
it interferes with the manufacture to which it applies; that
it renders that manufacture more expensive, and prevents
improvements in it, and also that it prevents other inven-
tions connected with the manufacture that would otherwise
come into operation. Myrighthon.friendstated an example.
He showed you a pipe made of paper, and covered with
other material, which would be exceedingly useful for many
purposes, and if the authorities of the Treasury had not
decided that, in point 01 fact, it could not be deemed to be
paper, that article would have been prevented from com-
ing into use. I happen to know another instance. In the
valley in which I live a very ingenious man three or four
years ago established a mill in which he was to make not paper
but parchment, to be made out of animal substance in the
same manner as paper by a pulping machine—the article
being applicable to a variety of useful purposes, which would
have superseded parchment in a great degree, being appli-
cable to binding books and various other useful purposes.
Well, that manufacture was stopped because it was decided
on appeal to a court of appeal that, inasmuch as it was made
in the same manner as paper, it ought to be liable to the
Excise duty on paper. (Hear.) No doubt there must be
many others of which we are ignorant ; but these two ex •
amples are sufficient as illustrations of the inconvenience of
these Excise duties, and of the desirability of getting rid of
them, if we can do so consistently with our financial posi-
tion. Well, I say that, taking the intrinsic merits of the
Excise duty on paper, it is a duty which stands in prefer-
ence to others for repeal, if you can afford it without incon-
venience to your financial position. (Hear, hear.) But this
is not the first time this proposal has been made to Parlia-
ment. Parliament is not altogether free to take its decision
on this matter. Individuals have been reminded of the opi-
nions they expressed at former periods under circumstances
in the country entirely different from those in which we
now stand, by quotations such es those which have been
given from speeches of my right hon. friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, which I must say are not applicable to
the present state of things. (Laughter from the Opposition.)
I say that if individuals are to look back to see what they
said or thought on former occasions this house has also
a character for consistency, and it ought to look back
and see what it has said and done in matters cone '
nected with the public interest. (Cheers.) Resolutions
have been passed by this house, and bills have been
passed decreeing the abolition of this excise duty as
soon as the circumstances and finances admitted. Surely,
then, if the consistency of individuals is to be regarded,
the consistency of an aggregate body ought also to be
regarded ; and if the house wishes to be consistent
with regard to the opinions it has frequently and deli-
berately expressed, we call upon it now to redeem the
pledges it has more than once distinctly given. (Cheers.)
We are told that there is no reason for doing this in conse-
quence of the difference on the subject between the two
Houses of Parliament. Why, last year the same language
was held. I remember that a great deal of irritation was
created, not in this house alone, but out of this house, in the
country—(loud cheers)—not by a violation—a technical vio-
lation—of the privileges of this house by the other House of
Parliament, because I ventured humbly to submit to the •
house, and this house concurred in the opinion, that techni-
cally speaking the House of Lords had a right to do that
which they did—that they were entitled to reject the whole
proposition sent to them, though we disputed their right to
alter or amend its separate parts ; but that feeling to which
I have adverted was to be attributed to a difference of opinion
on a great question of national policy. (Hear, hear.) N°
man can deny that when a difference of opinion exists be-
tween the two houses on a question connected with the finan-
cial arrangements of the country, with regard to which the
House of Commons has always expressed and maintained
the utmost jealousy as to its privileges—no one can dispute
that it is very desirable to get rid of the grounds on which
that difference rests. (Hear, hear.) We are told, and truly,
that the House of Lords acted last year in the belief and
conviction, as they thought, that there was not at the time
of their decision surplus enough to justify them in agreeing
to sacrifice a very large portion of revenue. We are told that
this year that objection does not apply, and that it will not
be repeated when the repeal of this particular duty comes
again before them for their acceptance. I accept that state'
ment with the greatest satisfaction. I believe it will turnout
to be true. I say, let us take the House of Lords when they
are in that mood. (Laughter.) Let us avail ourselves of this
golden opportunity for getting rid by mutual consent of that
which last year was a source of dissension and difference, and
may in a future year, if it be still allowed to exist, give rise
to some fatal differences between the two Houses of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet said he could see lee
political advantage in the course we propose; but in doing
so he took a very short-sighted view of the practice and
working of the constitution. There is nothing I should se
much deprecate as a permanent or established difference on
any material point between the two Houses of the Legisla-
ture. Most unfortunate would it be if that difference of
opinion were to arise on a matter which we think belongs
to our own exclusive and peculiar jurisdiction, but in regard
to which the other house may think it stands in the position
of a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, entitled to exec'
cise a separate and distinct opinion. I say then, on eyed
ground—on the ground that the tea duty is not a duty which
presses seriously on the lower classes of the community.'
on the ground that the price of the commodity is less than
it was in former years, and that there is a probability that
the increased supply will create a diminution in price—and
on the ground, on the other hand, that we have an oppor:
tunity of settling with the good will, assent, and consent of
the other House of Parliament a question of difference
which if left unsettled may at some future time produce
the same agitation which did exist during the last session
of Parliament—l say, on every ground, commercial, fines'
cial, and political, the proposal which we make is entitled
to your preference, and I cannot believe that the decision
of this house will be otherwise than approbatory of the re'
solution before it. (Loud cheers.)
The committee then divided—
For the resolution -
Against it
Majority for the Government —lB
After the division had taken place there was evidently
considerable anxiety on both sides to know the result. 00
the tellers taking their places to announce the numbers/
when it was perceived that the Government had a majority
there was vociferous cheering from the Ministerial bencheSt
and especially from the members below the gangway'
When it was announced that the " Ayes " were 299 there
was a burst of cheering from the Opposition side of the
house, which was repeated again and again when th°
" NoesTh r'
o'
swo
leortei
odne cwl aarse dt
hteo be 281.
The 21.
agreed
to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with
respect to the paper duty he could not ask the committee
at that hour to proceed with any resolutions that night'
which hon. members opposite were anxious to discuss,
ho wished to proceed with those resolutions which well
not require any protracted discussion. (Cries of No, 11°'
from the Opposition.) He only put the question for the
consideration of the house.

Mr. DISRAELI considered that at that hour of the night
it would be extremely inconvenient to proceedwith busine°ci
There were circumstances when a Minister was supported
by a triumphant majority—(derisive laughter and cho..rers
from the Opposition)—and exceptions might be made. e
did not wish to offer any obstruction to the progress of Pa"h-,
lie business ; but he thought after what had just tak°,
place, and that this question was carried by a very °lit
majority, it would be for the benefit of both sides of t';
house to have time to reflect on what had passed, and b-,"
thought it would be most unadvisable again to corara°ll
now considering resolutions which might lead probably 4.(d,
a protracted discussion. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I have not the least objection t°
give the right hon. g,nd therefore they would proceed 00
entle:nan time for reflection—(hear,
hear,
and a langb)—a
Monday with the resolution on the paper. (Hear.) „
The remaining orders were disposed of and the house tic'
joured at half-past one.

At Lloyd's to day war premiums were required °I
20s, to 30s. on American vessels that have sailed from NI,
Orleans, and £3 on ships that have yet to start. From
York the charge is only 10s.

I.oxoox : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at ME Sufi Office, No. 112,S
`vtr:ol,
in the Precinct of the Sam, in the County of /4144"
FrWaYi tray 3, tau,