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

THE ATLANTIC MAIL CONTRACT.

The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that on
Thursday next he should move for the production of the
correspondence between the Government and the Lord-
Lieutenant relating to the Atlantic Royal Mail Contract.

EPSOMRACES.—(This Day.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
CRAVEN STAKES.

_ .
Dead hea` with Cape Flya*ay and Cantine.
Eleven ran. Stakes divided.
ROUS STAKES.

Curlew ..........
Lava

Sixteen ran.
WOODCOTE STAKES.

Wingrave
Carisbrook ..
Coulon
Twelve ran.
BRIGHTON STAKES.

Touch Me Not
Palaiseau ..........
The Don .......... 2
..... 3
Eighteen ran.
HORTON STAKES.

Southport
Revolt
HEATHCOTE PLATE.

Little Lady
Baliverne 2

Eleven ran.

LATEST BETTING.
THE DERBY.
5 to 2 agst Dundee (taken)
4to 1 agst Diophantus (taken)
Bto 1 agst Dictator (taken)
9to 1 agst Klarikeff (taken)
11 to 1 agst Kildonan (taken)
12 to 1 agat Kettledrum (taken)
16 to 1 agst Royallieu (taken)
16 to 1 agat Rouge Dragon (taken)
20 to 1 agat Imaus (taken)

AnitrvED.—Rouge Dragon. Neighbour, Imaus, Dio-
phantus, Dundee, Russley, and Gallus.

LONDON GAZETTE-(THIS EVENING).

TREASURY CHAMBERS, WHITEHALL, MAT 28.
The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury hereby
give notice, that the Right Honourable Lord Monteagle,
Comptroller-General of Her Majesty's Exchequer, and the
Right Honourable Sir Edward Ryan, Assistant Comp-
troller, are authorised to sign the Exchequer Bills to bo
issued under the authority of the Act 24 Vict., cap. 5.
BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED.

William Francis and James Hooper, leather factors,
Bermondsey. .

BANKRUPTS.

George Westbury Hall, merchant, Lime-street, City.
James Lemere, oil and colousman, Old Ford North, Bow.
Thomas Owens, grocer, Holyhead.
Patrick Preston, boot and shoe manufacturer, 'Liverpool.
James Clarke, Benjamin Clarke, and John Richard
Clarke, cotton spinners, Woraley, Lancashire.
Richard Jury Bayfield and Joseph Vernon Needham,
gun manufacturers, Birmingham.
William Whitthem, grocer, Meriden, Warwickshire.
Benjamin Gadsby, grocer, Birmingham.
Samuel Wilmott, lace manufacturer, Nottingham.
Thomas Taylor Butterworth, corn dealer, Birmingham.
George Simons, fancy hosier, Leicester.
Emil A. Burger, merchant, Aristol.
Robert Edmeston and Thomas Higham, stuff manufac-
turers, Birstal, Yorkshire.
John Savile, jun., patent manure manufacturer, Leeds.
William Seymour Marshall, cooper, Durham.

25
25 75
25 75
39t
1173
117 i
52,1
524

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
INLAND AND CUSTOMS REVENUE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 2, which relates to the income tax,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that on the rewrt hewould call

attention to an excise regulation which had been introduced

East year, and which he should be able to show had greatly

added to the hardship and injustice that were inherent in
the collection of income tax. He hoped that at the eleventh

hour such modifications would be introduced into the taxa-
tion of the year as would enable the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to remedy the evil, of which he should have at a
future stage to complain.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed

hat the course which the right hon. gentleman proposed to
ake was one that would involve great irregularity of pro-

ceeding, and great inconvenience. He supposed the right

hon. gentleman was alluding to the quarterly collection of
the tax. If he was, then the present was the proper stage at
. . _

which to discuss the question ; but he warned biro that it

was one of two millions and a half of revenue; and he could

not conceive by what art the right hon. gentleman would
carve that sunk out of a surplus of 1450,000. No doubt
there was a select committee sitting on the income tax; and
no doubt the subject was a very important one, and one
extremely fit to be brought under the cognisance, not only
of the house, but of a committe2 that might hear parties
conversant with the subject, and able to say whether a half-
yearly or quarterly collection was more convenient to the
taxpayer. Last year the change was really
equivalent to a
considerable addition of taxation within the year; but that
inconvenience had now been wholly surmounted, and to
recur to the former practice would therefore involve the
surrender of a considerable amount of the year's revenue.
The house had given an income tax of 9d., of which three-
fourths would be collected in addition to one quarter of las t
year's 10d. ; but of course if that arrangement were altered,
it would involve the loss of a considerable portion of the
year's revenue. The right hon. gentleman spoke of the
change as a matter of Mere excise regulation ; but in point
of fact, in order that there might be no mistake about it,
he had introduced it into the income tax bill of last year.
It was, indeed, previously the law of the land that the tax
should be collected quarterly, but there was no sufficient
authority to bind the revenue officers to account quarterly,
and it had therefore been determined that the change should
be effected by actual legislation. It was the opinion of the

authorities that the alteration made the system much more
effective and manageable, and it was of course the duty of
those who wished for a change to point out the nature of
the alteration which they desired. Last year the change
was naturally felt to bear hard upon the taxpayer, but that
was because an additional amount of tax was levied. Apart

from that, however, it was believed that the public would
find it more agreeable to pay the money in four sums rather
than in two. (Hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM thought it was a hardship upon the
railway companies, that they alone should be obliged to
collect the income tax payable by such of their servants as
were paid by weekly. wages.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the hon. gentleman was not quite accurate in supposing
that the railway companies stood alone in the respect to
which he referred. No complaint had been made by the
companies, but the matter should be considered.
In answer to Sir S. NORTHCOTE,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER added that
the assessment for the present year would be a new one,
and would not include the same years as the last.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE repeated that he would bring the sub-
ject of his former remarks before the house at a later stage.
Mr. RICARDO was glad to hear that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would consider the case of the railway com-

panics, which had often to pay the tax for their servants.
Mr. BRISCOE thought that the returns should be made
to the officer of the district, as such hardships often arose
from the necessity of persons going with their appeals to
Somerset-house.

Mr. CONINGHAM pointed out a difficultyin deducting
he tax from persons in the receipt of weekly wages, who
might be one week working for a railway company, and the
next for a private yard..
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 3 was agreed to.

PAPER (EXCISE) DUTIES.
On clause 4 (the Paper Duties),
The C lIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER added
some verbal amendments.
Mr. K. SEYMER said that his constituents were univer-
sally opposed to the clause now before the committee. In the
same way as noble lords who generally supported the Govern-
ment in the other house had last year voted against the repeal
of the paper duty, many of the electors in his (Mr. K. Sey-
mer's) district, who were on the same side,were now inclined
to look unfavourably on the budget. The fact was that
when the budget was first published people were so agree-
ably surprised at finding there was to be a reduction instead
of an increase of taxation that they were not inclined to in-
quire too curiously into the existence of a surplus, or as to
how that surplus was to be disposed of. Since then, how-
ever, cooler counsels had 'wavered their influence. The
lamentable accounts from America, which must affect the

revenue, and the protest of the China merchants respecting
the indemnity, had thrown great doubt upon the surplus,

and with regard to the paper duty had decided the people
as to the inexpediency of its remission. He could say for
his constituents that their unanimous feeling was that an
injudicious moment had been chosen. (Hear, hear.) As to
the constitutional question, the people were so satisfied that
the House of Lords had actel rightly last y ear that it had
been found quite impossible to get up any excitement on the
subject. Even this year, notwithstanding all the interesting
discussions they had had, the people remained equally ap4-
thetic. The fact was, that the constitutional question was
one which they cared little about; they 'allowed it to be
fought out in that house, but it was beyond their range of
thought, and they were content that it should be dealt with
by that house. What was the objection which existed to
the paper duty l Why, that it was an excise duty. Every-.
one knew that excise duties were most objectionable. He
had himself voted for the repeal of the paper duty ; he had

voted for the repeal of the malt tax—(hear, hear)—but it
did so happen that that was a year and a half ago, before ,
this question of the paper duties was discussed. He had
lately addressed his agricultural constituents, and had
told them that although the paper duty and the malt
tax were most objectionable, yet they must not
expect him to repeat either of those votes on this occa-
sion. Whatever mystification there might be in Ihe hOuse,

there was none in the country. (Hear, hear.) People in
the country very well understood how it was that a man
might vote for the repeal of a tax generally, and yet not
vote for iti repeal at a particular time. But if they had to
consider the question of excise duties in general the!•evr as
a case which he (Mr. K. Seymer) could not help thinking
irresistible, he meant the case of the hop duties ; and if the
right hon. gentleman were really in possession of a surplus,
he (Mr. K. Seymer) could not conceive how he could have
steeled his heart against the case of the hop growers,
which had been so ably argued by the hon. members for
Kent and Sussex in that house. They found no applica-
tions for relief from the paper makers—no application in
forma pauperis for a remission of duty, for a postponement
of duty, and the like. (Hear, hear.) Instead of complain-
ing of the excise duty, what they complained of was the
French treaty—(hear, hear)—and the peculiar position in
which they were placed by the requirements of the French
treaty. Indeed one honourable member had gone so far
as to say that the circumstance of the scarcity of the raw
material made the ordinary conditions of free trade inap-
plicable to the case. That circumstance fully disposed of all
the sanguine expectations of the right hon. gentleman as
to the increase in the manufacture of paper. The prospects
of the papers makers were that there would be an increased
Imanufacture, but that it would take place in foreign coun-
tries. There was no analogy between the case of the excise
duty on paper and the excise duty on bricks, glass, and
soap, because with respect to all those there was no scarcity
of the raw material. It was otherwise with regard to paper.
This was the great disadvantage to which the paper oak"
was exposed ; and as the hon. member for Birmining
_u..
said, it was not a competition to which the Bri_ti!.h___Tore,
facturer ought to be exposed. They objeo_tel, m""
tion in.
to the abolition of a permanent source e)f
The the face of a war expenditure. (Hear,
of the
extravagance
Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer complainedef
went on to say, " If
of the public expenditure, and these
will"—what ?—why
ary non sequitur. The
you will spend £70,000,0,00 biis appeared to him (Mr.
body of the people of this
—" take off the paper dutcrsordin
great body
Nor was this a duty
ll r of the Exchequer wish to in-
troduce
est eld rather have said, he would re-
K. Seymer) to be a rat:
right hon, gentleman should
illuinthecee:penditure ? If he attempted to
impose new taxes. Oa
to expenditure, and if he intended to
these he
introduce it by
increased means, certainly weuld find it
whichcountry
economy pressed
pid the u p
intoo u
reaedduction of expenditure bymakingtaxation •
odious,
the proper seat for him was below the gangway, and not
on the Treasury bench. (Hear, hear.)
The Government
that they would require in
were forming on the coast of Dorsetshire a perfect Gibralm
tar ; the fortifications at Portland were quite a study for
the curious in engineering matters; and the result would be
forcew oul would l
peace a very large additional
force of artillerymen. The same proems was going on else-
where ; in the Medway, at Portsmouth and Plymouth. Was
it in these measures that the Government calculated any
great reduction of taxation f The noble lord at the head of
the Government knew very well that the cuuntry must be
kept in a state of defence. The noble lord was popular in
the country, and the reason of his popularity was that
people believed the noble lard would defend the honour of
his country. They liked him because he had often stood.
against the hon. member for Birmingham.
up manfully against hon. members below the gangway,
And if there was any distrust of the Chart-
acillieldleoaerrs'opfhectehißarel.l)Eyxchequer, as he (Mr. Seymer) believed there
was_(hear, hear)—notwithstanding the high character
and splendid abilities of the right hon. gentleman, it was.
because he had shown himself rather inclined to the econo-
mical and financial doctrines of hon. gentlemen below the
gangway. What hon. members on that side of the house
said was—" If we are about to undertake this great earn,:
diture, you ought to relieve,the people of these duties which.,
press upon the necessities of life as they may be called"
tea and sugar." By this means also they watt; and
cover a great deal of the duty they were taking off,
give a 'Nat impulse to foreign trade, Le would ucW'

ever, discuss the tea question again ; but he could not avoid
saying a word or two with regard to our West
India inte-
rests. These interests had been most unfairly treated by
the house and by the country. Free trade had been applied
to them at a time when even Sir R. Peel thought the ap-
plication an unjust one. He (Mr. Sumer) knew the
house would never retrace its steps with regard to the
West Indian sugar legislation. But they ought to remove
these war duties from their produce, in order, if possit le,
that they might struggle on by means of the increased
demand given to the staple of their country. He felt no
scruple in advocating these interests, although he had a
personal interest in the question. (Hear.) He thought
before they voted away a large portion of the permanent
revenue they ought to consider the interests of the West
Indies. He thought there never was a question in which
people of different parties took so strong an interest as
they did in this question of the paper duties. They did
not do so out of any feeling with regard to the
penny newspapers ; as a rule, they were believed to be very
well conducted, and to confer great benefits on the coun-
try. But it was necessary to consider what taxes they
ought to take off and what they ought to retain in the pro-
bable condition of the country next year; and people were
widely of opinion that the duties on tea and sugar ought to
be relaxed, and the income tax brought down to a state
more consistent with the requirements of the country.
Having stated these objections, he could only express his
hope that the committee would join him in resisting the
removal of £1,200,000 of permanent taxation, and in voting
against the abolition of a duty which, though it was ex-
ceptionable as an excise duty, was not on the whole a tax
which operated with severity upon the great mass of the
people. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. MILNES said that after the vote he had thought
it is his duty to give last year, he could not present himself
as an enthusiastic admirer, either of the budget of last year
or the budget of this year. But it seemed to him that
the question did not deserve that great earnestness on the
subject of the paper duties which had been shown in the
speeches of many hon. members. On the subject of the
paper duties he had always thought it was a most painful
operation of the excise, and it was the duty of the House of
Commons to get rid of it ; but last year he thought they
could not legitimately do this ; last year they had no right
to get rid of that large sum of money in the face of a de-
ficit. Consequently, though unwilling to vote differently
from hon. gentlemen with whom he generally acted, he
could not support last year the proposal of his right hon.
friend. Ho therefore was not one of those who was disposed
to view the act of the other house in the same light as it was
received by many hon. members on that side of the house.
Although he could not blind himself to the fact that anything
like a division between the two Houses of Parliament was a
most unfortunate event, yet he did not see in that act of the
House of Lords the same precipitation, the same violence,
and the same desire to produce a rupture between two
branches of the Legislature which had been attributed. He
did see in that act a desire to conform to what they believed
to be the general feeling of the country, and taking that
view he seemed to himself to be justified in saying he
brought a perfectly clear and candid consideration to the
subject. He thought it would have been very difficult for
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have passed over the
question of the repeal of the paper duties, consistently with
his own opinion and that permanence of adherence to his
own views which was always estimable in a statesman. But
there was one circumstance which had great weight with
his right hon. friend and with the house. This question of
the paper duties was not new in the house. It had long
been agitated, and he thought with some exaggeration. It
had been treated as a question affecting the intellectual pro-
gress of the country, connected with what were called the
" taxes upon knowledge," and assuming an almost moral,
or at least an intellectual character. Those abstract resolu-
tions of the House of Commons had been quite sufficient to
place the large amount of capital that was employed in the
manufacture of paper in a most uncertain and un-
comfortable position. (Hear.) They could not go on year
after year talking about a tax, holding out prospects of its
repeal, dangling, as it were, an advantage before the eyes of
a large class of the community, without inflicting a vast
amount of present injury not only upon those connected
with this trade, but upon persons engaged in other branches
of commerce. (Hear, hear.) If then the house had the
means of remitting the duty without inflicting any injury
upon another class of the community, he thought it most
imperative on them not to keep this considerable interest
any longer in a state of uncertainty and suspense. He con-
fessed he thought the elaborate compliments which had
been paid to his right hon. friend last year, on his efforts in
carrying out the great policy of Sir R. Peel—that of
making increase of consumption pay for decrease of duty
—were a little misplaced. There was, it seemed to him,
another and a larger principle called into action,—one to
which the right hon. gentleman had already called attention.
It was this. They could not remit the pressure of taxation
upon a material of home industry without bringing into
play a correlative field of industry, without stimulating,
almost imperceptibly in particular instances, but on the
whole in a very palpable and distinct manner, the various
other interests which w ere connected with the remission of
this duty. He thought it would be scarcely possible to hit
upon an article is which relief would be felt in so very
various a degeeta as upon this. It was not the paper seller
who seemed to think that he would be the person most re-
lieved in this matter, It was the great trades of the coun-
try which believed they would be relieved in small retail
transactions. It was the vender of small wares, such as the
milliner with her bandboxes, who would mainly be bene-
fitted by the remission of the duty. At the same time he
confessed he hailed with satisfaction that passage in the
right hon. gentleman's speech in which he seemed to say
that he had come to the end of his tether in the path of
direct taxation. lie (Mr. Milnes) had sat long enough in
that house to remember the first attempt to introduce direct
taxation having been made, and he well remembered the
cheer which Sir R Peel gave him when he (Mr. Milnes)
declared his belief that a certain extent of direct taxation
had been fully and finally accepted by the people of this
country. He could not say, however, that be had shared
the sanguine hope expressed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that by this time the income tax would be abo-
lished altogether. He hope I the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer looked with anxiety to the dangerous weapon which
had been placed in his hands. The balance between the
two modes of taxation ought to be very fairly and carefully
adjusted, and any Chancellor of the Exchequer who, though
from the best motives and upon the jnstest grounds, yielded
up great public interests to personal feelings or to financial
necessity—what ver temporary advantage he might gain at
the time—would fail in doing his duty to the country, and
in earning that great reputation which he might otherwise
achieve in the eyes of posterity.
Mr. LYGON said the hon. gentleman had informed the
committee that the relief given to trade by the repeal of
the paper duty would be of a very undefined character.
He believed the repeal of the duty was wholly indefensible;
and when the right hon. gentleman the President of the
Board of Trade failed in all his efforts since 1350 to arouse a
feeling in his favour, he had no right to come to that house
and ask them to do so. The fact was, the measure was a pet
one of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ; but if anybody wished to read the strongest argu-
mentse against the repeal of the duty he had only to turn to
th
arguments
of the right hon. gentleman. It was an un-
necessary and Uncalled far proceeding, and totally distaste-
ful to the feelings and opinions of the country. The best
way to show that such was tie case
reee,.aesetteod refer
.to what
passed last year. The Rouse of Lords the bill, after
the majority in this house dwindled downi to nine,resa dand yet
not one sentiment of disap, robation was ex
by those immediately interested. It was not so in the case
of the Reform Bill, or the Corn Laws, when the whole king_
dom was agitated and scenes of violence even restored to, in
consequence of the course taken by the other house of Par-
liament. But who wanted on the present occasion the repeal
of the paper duty ? (Hear.) The proprietors of cheap papers,
and nobody else. (Hear.) Besides, it was not only not an
unpopular tax, but it had increased very considerably of
late years. In 1835 it produced but '‘''oo,ooo, while in 1858
it amounted to £1,110,000, and last year to £1,300,000.
That was, he conceived, a sufficient answer to those who
argued this duty was an obstacle to the paper trade ; and
as to its being a tax on knowledge, they had the evidence
of Mr. Bohn that no such effect was produced by the reten-
tion of the tax. lie himself believed the duty was no bar
whatever to the diffusion of sound knowledge; and as to the
consumer, it was clear he would get no advantage
eby
tihtse
repeal. The real answer to those who asked what
advantages of the paper duty was, that it produce-
venue of £1,300,000 a year, and annoyed nobody. (Hear.)
Nobody doubted but that in the present state of parties in
the house, the duty was proposed to be repealed in order
to gala over the votes of those who had been for years
clamouring for its repeal.* If the tax were taken off to-
morrow, it would not give a stimulant to the paper trade
of this country, but to the manufacturers of France and
Belgium. Ron. members should remember that £1,300,000,
the produce of this duty, represented the whole of the
charges on the civil list, except law and justice; and why
should they for the sake of a shadowy advantage throw away
BO large an amount of the public revenue, and at a time
too when other duties demanded a more immediate repeal.
There was a statesman in this country who stated that
there was no more unsatisfactory means
of
ascertaining
the revenue of this country than the Excise;
away and Sir
Reeled Peel, acting upon his own experience, swept
many articles upon which Excise duty was charged. Be-
tween 1822 and 1832 there were nearly £18,000,000 of
taxation remitted, and between 1832 and 1812, there was
a remission of £4,500,000. Admitting even that this policy
was wise, the Rouse of Commons were not to be precluded
from considering the present plan of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer upon its own
question of " privileges.. he
With regard to the
he believed that every member in
that house would be ready to vindicate the privileges in the ;
house if those privileges were really invaded. Those privi-
leges were dear to the house and the country, because they
had been wisely and justly used. Bat if they' allowed them
to be diverted from their high and legitimate
le, foripur hposes, in
order to Promote the interests of a noisyeolaici
pur-
poses of unnecessary agitation, thee imperilte theirw
position as an important portion of the Legislature—(hear)
--but if invaded by the House of Lords there was no doubt
that every man in the Commons and in the country would
be, ready to start up in support of them as the palladium of
their rights. (Hear, hear.) But their privileges had not
been invaded, and the assertion of them was intended to

' serve no other purpose than that of a noisy clique. (Hear,
hear.) He believed that the course they were pursuing
would have the effect of inflicting a slight on the other
House of the Legislature; in consequence of the course
taken by them last year. At .all events, in the position of
the finances of the country, the house would not be war-
ranted in remitting £1,300,000 of taxation on the four
grounds of matter, manner, measure, and time. (Hear.)
Mr. P. URQUHART said it appeared to him that hon.
gentlemen opposite, in continuing this, their fourth attack,
in the manner in which they were pursuing it, were very
likely to place the country in a difficult position. He was
afraid that, between tea and paper, John Bull might find
himself in the position of a donkey between two bundles of
hay, or a state of equilibrium and starvation, from not
knowing which way to turn. He believed that if the excise
duty on paper were swept away, it would give rise to in-
creased manufacture and increased consumption of the
article. It had been said there hadbeenno agitation through-
out the country in favour of the repeal of the paper duty ;
but were they, as the author of " Coningsby" (Mr. Disraeli)
had said, " to yield nothing to reason and everything to
agitation ?" The hon. gentleman concluded by adverting
to the repeal of the duty on other articles against which
noisy clamour had been raised, and by stating that he
should give his support to the proposal of the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. HENNESSY expressed a desire to call the attention
of the chairman to the construction of the clause. As now
amended, it included the resolution as passed in committee
of ways and meaas, and he was desirous to know whether
it was not very unusual for a Minister of the Crown to ask
a committee to pass a clause in a bill, a portion of which
repealed a duty which was not passed in committee on the
Customs Acts ?

Mr. MASSEY, in replyf said the resolution that affected
Customs, affected trade, and therefore it was necessary that
it should be considerbd in committee of the whole house.
But that resolution which referred to the Customs forming
part of the financial arrangements of the year, the 'Chan •
cellor of the Exchequer thought fit to put in committee of
ways and means as part of the financial scheme, and though
it was usual that resolutions affecting trade should be CO:4-
sidered in a committee appointed for that purpose, he could
not say that there was anything irregular in the course
taken by the right hon. gentleman in moving this matter in
committee of ways and means.
Mr. HENNESSY said he for one was as much in favour
of a repeal of the paper duty as any hon. member could be,
but in the proper time ; and the present, in his opinion, was
not the proper time to repeal it. The right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequei made the proposal to repeal
the paper duty now because he considered the time had come
when it was desirable to settle the quarrel which had arisen
between the House of Commons and the House of Lords,
and the hon. and learned member for Plymouth followed
and supported him in that view of the matter. The right
hon. gentleman said, if the House of Lords-had only exer-
cised their well-uaderstood privileges there would have been
no necessity for the discussion that had taken place. The
right hon. gentleman seemed, however, in the course he had
taken, to have forgotten the admission that the Lords had the
privilege to deal with such a question, and the arguments
which he used in that respect in the last session. Last year
it was admitted that the Lords had the right to amend bills
of this description, but this year the Government pressed
the consideration of the -present bill in globe on the ground
that the Lords had no right to amend the measure, that they
should either reject or adopt it altogether. Having shown
by reference to official returns that the manufacture of paper
was largely on the increase in Ireland, he contended that
instead of there being any benefit to that country from the
preceding legislation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the effect of his last budget had proved most injurious to
Irish interests, and that the butter trade especially had been
greatly injured by the reduction of the duty on foreign
butter. Such a result, no doubt, had not been expected by
the Chancellor ofithe Exchequer, or by those Irish members

who supported his financial proposals, but nevertheless;

that result was most disastrous to the Irish butter trade.
He believed that of the £1,300,000 paper duty which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer propo. ed to /emit, no less a
sum than £1,200,000 would go into the pockets of the pro-
prietors of penny newspapers, and the public at large would
only be benefited to the extent of between £50,000 and
£lOO,OOO. (Hear, hear) On Irish as well as on imperial
interests he thought it his duty to resist the financial pro-
posals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were not
based on the precedents of his predecessors who had entitled
themselves to public confidence, but on a precedent which
he himself was creating, and which he was sure the house
would be loath to follow. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORRIS remarked upon what he considered the
inconsistency of the course pursued by the hon. member
for Dorsetshire, and the hon. member for King's County,
who was himself one of the presidents of the society in
Ireland for the repeal of the duty on paper, He (Mr.
' Norris) utterly denied that it was the penny newspaper
proprietors who would be benefited to the extent calcu-
lated by the latter hon. gentleman. There was hardly an
article of manufacture connected with which duty-paid
paper was not used, and they should bear in mind that
paper of that description had to compete with foreign manu-
factured paper, which was duty free. There were scores of
articles now produced in this country which came within
the legal definition of paper, which not being sufficiently
identified as such, were exempted from the tax. In seven
different trades there were such exemptions, and this was a
great hardship on those who had to pay the tax. The only
remedy for this evil, according to the reports of the tax
collectors themselves, was the entire repeal of the paper
tax. In 1858 the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire said this tax should not be retained as a
source of permanent income. He said the same last year,
and added that the tax should be remitted as soon as there
was a surplus. Now, having come to the conclusion that
£1,700,000 might be remitted from the tea duties, surely
the right hon. gentleman was not consistent in opposing the
abolition of the paper duties. The surplus was admitted,
and the only question was as to what remission of duties
that surplus should be applied. He (Mr. Norris) thought
the paper duties had the first claim. He did not think the

other branch of the Legislature were much indebted to those
hon. members who had ventured on an ingenious and ela-
borate defence of the privileges of that honse. A noble lord
opposite (Lord J. Manners) said when he was a poet—
" Let wealth and commerce, laws and learning die,
But leave us still our old nobility."

The lords were able to vindicate their own privileges, and
hon. members should permit them to do so. There had been
within the last year a decrease of 55 per cent, in' the pro-
duction of paper in Ireland owing to the vexatious operation
of this excise duty on paper. Mr. Bohn was largely engaged
in the book trade ; most of his books were exported to Ame-
rica, and on these he had a drawback of the duty, and was
opposed to the proposed 'emission lest he should have to
encounter competition. The house had discussed this ques-
tion 10 nights, and he hoped they would conclude the de-
bate on this, the 11th occasion.
Sir J. WALSH thought this was rather an important
crisis in the history of the session of 1861, but one of rather
subordinate importance as compared with crises that oc-
curred during his parliamentary experience. The Opposi-

- -
tion had not been influenced by any factious motives, or
any desire to disturb her Majesty's Ministers or oust them
from their places. On the contrary, the desire of the Oppo-
sition was, so far as they could do so consistently with their
principles, to support the Government. They respected the
Premier, whom they believed to have the head of a states-
man and the heart of an Englishman. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.) The Conservative party, although num-
bering among them many able men, did not desire to at-
tempt to carry on the affairs of the country with a minority.
(Hear, hear.) The third reason was that the Conservative
party were growing in influence in the country, and he
hoped soon to see the day when the heads of that party
would be able to take the Government of the country into
their hands and hold it with the approval of the great body
of the people. This question was forced upon the majority
of the house by a sort of screw, by which a certain section
in the house was enabled to override the real majority in
the house.
made the question a very irritating one.
The measure before them was carried by a bare majority
ottb
hofe
echancet
athatCakboe
nhetas
hnoe house. Was seo
aoodi
on it
remission
reestiuet
ioatinsfhen,thei committeeotvnh e
ervoTefh fo
satl
uche tieqinopgutt st
eaysxletovaianotrani
Vas there
euhe
yleolpryfea, r
any
wouldt
nnhoydef
country ? The whole aspect of affairs both at home and
a
abroad was against the possibility of such
votst
itehmirvi lavesthVakom
He therefore contended that it was an occurrence.
most unwise on their
part to give up such a tax as the duty onpaper.
denied that the abolition of the duty would benefit, He
had been urged, the great body of the people.Theas
country was calling upon the house to defend its shores,
and the house had assented to this demand by having
passed resolutions in favour of fortifications, yet the effect
of the proposal before the house was, in a great measure,
to neutralise their effca is in this regard by giving up
means then in their hands by which they would be enabled
to carry out the wishes of the country. Entertaining those
h felt it to be his bounden duty to offer to that
opinions .e
measure, fraught, as he thought, with so many mischievous
consequences, and introduced under such unfavourable
auspices,
the most determined and most strenuous opposi-

tion.
Mr. AYRTON said he did not intend to follow the hon.
gentleman who had just sat down through the several ar-
guments ho had addressed to the. house, and still less to
reply to the imputations levelled by him at hon. gentlemen
sitting ( n that (the Government) side of the house, as he
considered that the hon. gentleman had himself given the
most complete answer to them. (Cries of "Hear,
hear,"
and " Oh.") First, the hon. gentleman charged them as a
party with compelling the Government to introduce that
measure in deference to the popular opinion.
Sir J. WALSFI—I did not say that. (Laughter.)
Mr. AYRTON—ThtI hon. gentleman charged them with
being popular agitators out of the house, at the same time
that he said the measure was one of the most unpopular
ever submitted to the house.
Sir J • WALSII—I am sure the hon. member does not
wish to misrepresent me, but I said he was a t olitical fana-
tic, not a political agitator. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. AYRTON—WeII, the term "fanatic" was ambigu-
ous, because it might be that they were sincere in the opinions
they
expressed. _On that side of the house at least their dis-
cussions had been prolonged for one purpose only, and that
was to consider fairly the merits of the question, But on the '

other side the object was to delay the measure in the hope
that some circumstances might arise which would enable
hon. gentlemen opposite to give a character and a colour to
the Opposition. (Cheers and counter cheers.) They had
carried them all over the world, to China, to India, to Ame-
rica, and Continental Europe, to Show how much they de-
sired some one circumstance that could deter the Govern-
ment from pursuing its course with regard to the measure
now before the committee. But the Chinese war had
ended, India was tranquillised, and Indian commerce likely
to recover. (Ironical cheers.) That at least was his own
opinion. (Hear.) Italy was settling down, and all Eu-
rope displaying an aversion to war. But a messenger had
arrived from Galway and announced trouble to the Govern-
ment from that quarter. (Cheers and laughter from the Op-
position.) That was the real secret of the revival of the dis-
pute upon the budget of the right bon. gentleman. The
very fact of the existence of a surplus had again been called
in question, and the proposal distorted in every manner that
party influence could suggest. The question should be
treated, however, as one purely, whether or net the paper
duty were not of all taxes the most obnoxious, and the one
which ought to be selected for remission. (Hear.) If hon.
gentlemen opt °site could find a tax for the remission of
which a better case could be made out, he was not so wedded
to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to
feel bound to support it in preference to a better one. Ile,
therefore, utterly repelled the idea that he and other gentle-
men near him were giving a mere factious support to the
Government, not for the sake of the budget itself, but be-
cause it would achieve some other object. Long before the
budget was introduced he went to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on behalf of many other persons, and repre-
sented to him all the objections that were incidental to the
maintenance of the tax, and those objections the Commis-
sioners of Excise were unable to gainsay. Of all those
objections there was one most worthy of notice, and, as it
appeared to him, most unanswerable. It was this—that
this was not a tax like most other taxes, levied upon at
article which could be specifically defined, like alcohol, malt
and hops, but a tax imposed in terms that were impractic'
able of fulfilment, and which occasioned an insuperable
difficulty in the collection. Had the Government not made
this proposition, the anomalous nature of the tax would
have been shown in the manufacture of boxes from paper
pulp not previously made into paper. Those boxes would
have escaped the duty; but had they been made from manu-
factured paper, they would have been liable to it. The diffi-
culty presented itself in several other shapes. Thus it was
first thought that the duty ought to apply only to vegetable
fibre, but presently it became a question whether animal
fibre was not embraced by the same definition ; and it ap
peered that felt was therefore liable to the duty, because it
consisted of animal fibre, just as paper consisted of vegetable
fibre. So there were two articles applied to the same
domestic uses, upon one of which the duty was chargeable,
because it consisted of vegetable fibre, while upon the
other it was not charged, because it consisted of animal
fibre. Liability to a duty arising in that manner was
necessarily a most serious consideration for any manufac-
turer, and however it might be urged that duty was not
intended to apply in such a case, yet if it did legally apply,
there was no authority vested in the Crown to remit an im-
post directed by Parliament. The paper duty was a duty
in the last degree repressive, and it appeared to him that
the proposal made by the Government to repeal it was only
the fulfilment of an obvious and pressing obligation. (Hear.)
The result of the tax was that competition being prevented,
the manufacture became a close one, and it was here espe
cially that the evil was felt. The interests of the public
were sacrificed to those of individuals. That was not his
own view, but of Lord 3lonteagle himself, who, when
Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding himself from the
state of his budget, unable to do more, remitted the duty of
lid. a pound on paper-hangings, and the result was that
paper, which, under the old duty, was charged 4d. a• yard,
was sold, when the tax was repealed, at ld. per yard. Such
facts were the true measure of the effect of keeping up
statutory and Excise duties upon articles of home manu-
facture, and what the advocates of the repeal of this tax had
in view, was to promote the progress of industry. Hon.
members opposite had spoken of an appeal to the country
in favour of the remission of the duty upon tea in prefe-
rence to the repeal of the paper duty. For his part, as the
representative of a large constituency, he was quite content
to abide the result of that appeal. He believed that the
worst taxes were those which were withdrawn from public
gaze, and that the more directly you could go to the pockets
of the taxpayer the better. This tax ought to be repealed,
and if hon. gentlemen opposite really wished to restore their
popularity in the country, let them apply themselves
earnestly and seriously to a duty which they could perform
with good effect, but which he was sorry to -say they
showed little inclination to attempt, namely, to force upon
the Government a reduction in the expenditure of the
country. They might then go to the hu tings with a far
better cry than tea versus paper, because they would be
enabled to make real remissions of taxation.

Sir J. RAMSDEN said that if he understood aright the
argument which had been addressed to the Committee by
the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, it amounted to
maintaining that the chief reason to be advanced in support
of the repeal of the Paper Duty was, that it was a burden
which nobody felt. (Hear, hear.)- He could, ho should
confess, attach no other meaning to tho statement of the
hon. gentleman that the test of a perfect tax was that it
should not be withdrawn from popular knowledge ; but, be
that as it might, there was one remark made by the hon.
gentleman—that in which he announced it to be his intene
tion to vote on the question at issue simply on its merits—
in which he entirely concurred, In that respect he should
be prepared to follow the hon. gentleman's example. He
had last year voted against the repeal of the paper duty for
two reasons—firstly, because in the position in which the
revenue of the country then stood, he was of opinion that
the tax could not be spared ; and, secondly, because if any
tax were at the time to be remitted, he thought the addi-
tion to the income-tax and the war duties which pressed on
the comforts of the poor were burdens which ought, in pre •
ference to the paper duty, to be removed. (Hear, hear.)
The opinion on which he acted last year he this year en-
tertained; but in the present case a new issue, the expe-
diency of repealing the war duties on tea, was raised, and
for the purpose of that issue the denial of the existence of
a surplus, if not expressly withdrawn by the leaders of the
Opposition, was at all events waived. The consequence
was that those who had voted for the reduction of the tea
duties were now told that they had, in doing so, admitted
the existence of such a surplus as justified the Government
in asking for the repeal of the duty on paper. Ile, how-
ever, contended that it was perfectly open to any member
to vote for the reduction of the tea duties, and yet not be
fairly liable to have such an inference drawn from the
course which he had taken. The reduction of the duties
on tea would not be a final and irrevocable abandonment of
revenue—(hear, hear)—and, moreover, following up the
doctrine of the late Sir Robert Peel, it might very justly
be argued that increased consumpton would be the result
of that reduction, and that, too, t) such an extent as to
turn what at first would be a deficit into a surplus. Those
who opposed the repeal of the paper duty, on the contrary,
must feel that they were objecting to a remission of a
tax which, once it was struck off the Statute Book,
would be irrevocably lost. (Hear, hear.) The revenue
derived from tea, notwithstanding the increase in our popu-
lation, was almost stationary, a circumstance which proved
that the high rate of duty checked consumption; and if
pledges to repeal taxes were of any avail, the duty levied on
tea had certainly a strong claim on the attention of Parliament
Moreover, that repeal would have been a benefit to every
one of the operative classes, and the advantage to them
would have reacted in a corresponding gain to the exche-
quer. (Hear.) The revenue we derived from the Excise
on paper was flourishing and increasing. That it was easily
collected and that it was inoppressive had been sufficiently
proved by admissions made in the course of these debates.
The papermakers, who were the persons most annoyed by
the tax, were not the persons who were the most anxious
for its repeal. (Hear.) On these grounds he justified his
vote for the reduction of the tea duty. He did not think
there was, or could be, the estimated surplus. (Hear.) How
was that surplus obtained ? We had this year a new defi-
nition of a surplus such as ho had never heard before.
(Hear,) Heretofore a surplus had been regarded as money
in hand, consisting of actual receipts—(cries of " Oh oh !"
and cheers)—or, at least, if he might be allowed to finish
the sentence, existing in some other form equally tangible
and secure. (Hear) He ventured to say, at all events,
that it was unprecedented in the financial history of this
country for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to close the year
with a deficit of more than £2,500,000, and then to propose
to remit taxes on the faith of a surplus which was not even
on paper—(hear)—which was not verified by facts or by
accounts, but which was!purely built on speculation, on cal-
culations, hopes, and conjectures, every one of which was
as liable to prove fallacious as the scheme of any speculator
on the Stock Exchange. (Hear.) The process by V; hich the
surplus was obtained was very arbitrary, and he was afraid
it might turn out to be very illusory. There were six great
branches of revenue which in the last year had produced a
a
certain sum. On each of these the Chancellor of the Ex-
d
fcre2or3ta,3ionsi,nooercie
;a. increase. .t h
eTeaokme
nf
go ryinstance,
wtehr
ee
e s ti
m revenueat e
dd3teor.pi vr
oe
Ex-
chequer calculated there would be in the coming year a
n
C2u3s,
5t oBms year thienerCeaussetoomf lodoeod.
, sO.OO showingln the
past
n estimated
ducme
So with the other five items. The total amount of 'esti-
mated increase on these six branches of revenue, after de-
ducting one item of increase under the head of Miscel-
laneous Receipts, amounted to more than £750,000.
But on what assumption was this calculation based ?
It could be only on one—viz., that the coming year
would be a better year for trade and for crops than
the last. Were Loth these events so certain—were they even
now so very probable? Yet, coupled with the very ques-
tionable receipt of the indemnity of China, they constituted
the surplus which the house was now asked to give away.
(Hear, hear.) A merchant sending vessels to foreign ports
might calculate on certain profits, but ho would not spend
them before they were realised ; or a gentleman might buy
railway ;Leek anticipating increased dividends at the close
of the
year, but he would rot give them away until they
were actually paid. Yet that was precisely what the house
was now e
doine.• It first assumed a speculative surplus, and
then proceeded to give it away. (Hear) 'Where did this sier-
plus exist !
t In the visions of the Chancellor of the Ex•
chequer. (Hear.) If that was what Parliament was here-
after to accept as the definition of a surplus, the financial
condition of tho country must very much depend on the