The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

made to the time of Henry IV. The bon. and learned mem-
ber (Mr. Collier) even talked about Cod years ago. (A
laugh.) I should have thought Lop-Able to bring for-
ward precedents dating from that eralT pe”ild of history, or,
at all events, I should have -..hought that precedents then
were as much in favour of the L.irtis as against them. But,
instead of examining into precedents let us consider this
question as it bears upon the interests of the people of 1861.
(Hear.) I know that among some hon, gentlemen on this
side of the house it is an unpopular thing to consider the
interests of the middle and the lower together with those
of the upper classes. The hon. member for Birmingham
has over and overagain said he conceives that the interests
of the lower classes are best consulted by raising them up
in antagonism to the middle and upper classes. (Opposi-
tion cheers.) I think, on the contrary, that all classes
should be considered, whether financially or politically, as
one complete entirety, and that in administering the affairs
of this country there should be nothing like class legis-
lation. (Hear, hear.) With the permission of the house
it would be perfectly competent for me to enter into a full
discussion of the budget of my right hon. friend. The
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) talked about bricks and soap
and glass. I will net, however, deal with any of these
subjects now, but will merely express, as many others
have expressed before me, my admiration at the facility
and ability with which my right hon. friend embel-
lished his financial statement some months ago. We
know that he had a difficult task to perform. There was,
he admits, a deficit last year of £822,000, whereas now,
with only a reduction of £1,000,000 in the army and navy
estimates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is a
surplus for the present financial year of £1,900,000. I con-
fess I do not see how to dispose of the deficit of £822,000,
because, if you deduct that old deficit from the surplus of
the present year, instead of £1,900,000 you have only
£1,100,000, so that in reducing the income tax and in re-
mitting the paper duty, if you do nct get the indemnity
from China, you are in a deficit of more than £300,000, in-
stead of having a surplus of £llO,OOO. (Hear.) Then the
Chancellor of the Exchequer finishes by depreciating unne-
cessary expenditure and by lauding retrenchment, admit-
ting at the same time that the expenses of the country have
increased something like £20,000,000. Nevertheless, the
right hon. gentleman looked hopefully to the future. His
opinion on this matter was so very clear that he sneered at
the hon. member (Mr. T. Baring) for venturing to enter-
tain dark forebodings of the state of Europe. The hon. gen-
tleman below me (Mr. Bright) also expressed his surprise
that a man should look with such dread at the aspect of
foreign affairs. But I agree with those who think that
nothing can well be darker or more dangerous than the
present state of Europe, and as this has an important bear•
ing upon the finances of the country, I think the Govern-
ment should have considered the subject in a different spirit.
(Hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Bright) said that people
used very desponding language, and raised up
"Gorgon; hydras, and chimeras dire."
_ _ _

I do not know whether ho has ever read a play of Shake-
speare called " Tinzon of Athens." This Timon, who was a
very expensive man, had a Chancellor of the Exchequer,
named Flavius, whom he asked to supply the ways and
means for his extravagant expenditure. What was the
answer of Flavius ? He had not the abundant eloquence of
the right hon. gentleman, but he said in plain, simple lan-
guage--

"What will this come to ?
He, commands us to provide, and give great gifts,
And all out of an empty coffer."
(Laughter.) Now Ido not know whether the coffers of the
State may be empty, but I do say that to make the year's
surplus dependent upon the receipt of money from China is
a state of things of which I for one cannot entirely approve.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed us that
there existed a surplus, I admit that, as I had entertained
apprehensions of so different a character, I listened with
unqualified satisfaction ; but I was surprised to find that
other gentlemen who had considered this subject should
have arrived at conclusions differing entirely from those of
the right hon. gentleman. Nevertheless, when he told us
that there was an estimated surplus of income over expen-
diture, and that we might look forward to a considerable
balance in hand, together with a reduction of taxes, I was
satisfied until the right hon gentleman came to the subject
of paper. Now I must say that I, in common with my hon
friend, was sorry to see this contest begun again, because'
my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had distinctly stated to
a deputation which had waited upon him that he could hold
out no expectation what ever of the remission of the paper
duty. (Hear.) Calling to naiad also the resolutions passed
last year by this house, entirely approving the policy of the
Lords, I say it is a slur upon my noble friend to re-open
this subject so soon after last year, and, if handled at all, it
certainly requires to be handled with most extreme caution,
circumspection, and conciliation. (Hear, hear.) Ido not
think that has been done here. What are we now discuss-
ing? Not whether there is or is not a surplus of revenue
over expenditure, but whether it is desirable to remit a tax
affecting the interests of a limited industry at the expense
of the general public—(cheers)—whether it is desirable to
remit the Excise duty on paper and the Customs duty also
levied thereon, and for that purpose to increase the burdens
pressing upon the great body of the taxpayers of this coun-
try. (Cheers.) It is, iu fact, almost a question between
direct and indirect taxation. (Hear.) The noble lord made
the other night a remarkable statement. In 18 years, he
said, we have increased the indirect taxation of the coun-
try from £33,000,000 to £10,000,000, and, he added,
" Does that look as though we were destroying
all our revenue from indirect taxation ?'' Now it has never
been urged that you are endeavouring to destroy all your
revenue from indirect taxation. What is said is that you
are resorting to direct taxation as one of the principal means
for raising the revenue of the country. It may be true
that in 18 years indirect taxation has increased by
£70,000,00,), but how has the expenditure of the country
increased meanwhile ? In 1813-4 our estimated expenditure
was £49,387,000, but in 1861-2 it is £70,003,000, so that in
these 18 years the expenditure of the country has increased
£20,000,000, whereas the indirect taxation has only in-
creased £7,000,000. (Hear, hear.) It is singular enough
that 18 years ago there was an indemnity from:China for the
ransom of Canton amounting to £725,000; but the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I Will, it is true, ac-
cept this indemnity, but I will take care to keep in hand
enough to counterbalance that sum if it should not be re-
ceived." (Hear.) The then Chancellor of the Exchequer
estimated the national expenditure at £49,387,000, whereas
he made the revenue £50,150,000, so that he retained a
balance of £763,000 to meet any contingencies which might
arise, and he certainly did not make his surplus depend upon
the receipt of the Chinese indemnity. (Hear.) Now, if there
was one hon. gentleman in this house whose opinion on
such a subject should be entitled to respect, it was an hon.
gentleman who, sitting on the Treasury bench, might be
supposed thoroughly conversant with the actual state of
affairs when he gave his opinion in favour of the measure.
I allude to the President of the Board of Trade, the Milner
Gibson of 1853. He is a man who has always advocated
the repeal of what he calls the taxes on knowledge, and a
more fallacious mode of describing this tax could not be
conceived. (Hear, hear.) Will the right hon. gentleman
say that the education of the country has been held back by
the Excise and Customs' duties on paper ? (Hear, hear.)
Within a very short time the grant for education has more
than doubled. (Hear, hear.) I will admit that there is a
hardship on the authors and publishers of books. It is well
known that not half of the books published pay the cost of
publication,but ask in Paternoster-row whether these "taxes
on knowledge" have at all curbed the furor scribencli, or
have in any way affected the confidence of authors.
(Laughter.) So much claptrap has been talked about these
taxes on knowledge that if the committee will spare me a
few minutes I should like to point out one or two circum-
stances which show the fallacy of the arguments used.
(Hear, hear.) One great argument which has been used to..
night is, that you don't know what paper is, The member
for the Tower Hamlets told us that in these days it is im-
possible to define what paper is. He talked about fibrous
materials. I really can't recollect exactly what he said, but
went into a series of mechanical descriptions,which no doubt
were perfectly accurate ; but I can only refer to Dr. John-
son, who gives a definition• of paper which until some new
dictionary is written must stand good. The duty on paper
enters very slightly into the price of a book. It is at pre-
sent, as hon. members know, lid. per lb., which comes to
about 3d. on an 18s. volume. On two volumes of Lord
Macaulay's history,which cost 365., it would be 6d. (Hear.)
The Paper Daly seldom forms more than one 24th part of the
price of the cheapest work, and not one 50th of the price of
the dearer books. If you repeal the Paper Duty to-night
a ls. book will never cost less than 111 d. nor a 20s. book
less than 198. 6d. (Hear, hear.) These are facts, and I
should like to hear any one get up and deny them, particu-
larly the President of the Board of Trade, who, I hope,will
make a good speech in 'favour of the proposition. The
noble lord the member for London talked about the hob-
goblin penny press. The penny press, I presume, is as re-
spectable as the press of a higher price, but no one will
make me believe that the penny press pays except as a
speculation for advertisements. It is sold to the trade for
id., and it is quite evident that it never can be made and
never will be made to pay at the price except as a specula-
tion for the purpose of advertisements. (Hear.) In 1853
Milner Gibson—(laughter)—the President of the Board of
Traie—l must call him the historic Milner Gibson—
brought forward resolutions for the remission of the paper
duty, and he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer "You
are only snaking use of the stock arguments of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer ; bat I'll tell you what it is—the
man who is debarred of his penny paper is as badly off as
the slave in the Southern States of America." He was an-
swered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day—Mr.
Gladstone—who said "As steward of the public revenue,
and guardian of the public credit, upon an impartial con-
sideration I prefer the claims of all interests to the economy
of a particular reduction ;" and he went on to say " I de-
precate the dangerous practice of flattering the passions, as
the acute but mischievous member for Manchester—
(laughter and cheers)—is now doing, by endeavouring to
induce the house to pass these resolutions for the repeal of
the paper duty." But the right hon. gentleman on this
occasion has been supported by the Prime Minister, who
tells us that, upon the whole, he thinks it would be better
to apply the surplus to the remission of the paper duty, but
he spoke in such terms of faint praise that I thought.ry
he
a
very much mistrusted himself. (Hear.) Under ordinary
circumstances, the house would probably be very much in-
clined to adopt a measure supported by him and MLA by