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

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 ataantime
unjustwh one. when even Sir R. Peel thought the ap-
plicationHe (Mr. Selmer) knew the
house would never retrace its steps with regard to the
West Indian sugar legislation. But they ought to remove
those war duties from their produce, in order, if possible,
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 newspaper's; 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. He 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. Ho 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 ho 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. Ile con-
fessed be 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 were connected with the remission of
this duty. He thought it would be scarcely possible to hit
upon an article in which relief would DO felt in so very
various a degsee 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. He (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 It. 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 he 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 hopel 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 justest grounds, yielded
up great public interests to personal feelings or to financial
necessity—whatever temporary advantage ho might gain at
the time—would fail in doing his duty to the country, and
in earning that groat 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 duly 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 1850 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-
ments against the repeal of the duty he had only to turn to
the
arguments of the right hon. gentleman. It was an un-
necessary
and uncalled far proceeding, and totally distaste-
fulto the feelings and opinions of the country. The best
way to show that such
Houseuchwas o the eease was to refer to what
passed last year. T
Lords rejected the bill, after
the majority in this house dwindled down to nine, and yet
not one sentiment of disapi roba • was expressed except '
by those immediately iuterestedLa.t:lngt,wwashenot so in the case
of the Reform Bill, or the Corn
housereewstohroole king-
domwas agitated and scenes of violence evnetnh
in
consequence of the course taken by the other
Par-
liament. But who wanted on the present occasion the ofof the paper.duty ? (Hear.) The proprietors of cheap°repealpapers,
and nobody else. (Hear.) Besides, it was not onlvnot en
unpopular tax, but it had increased very eee,,,iderubi
y of
late years. In 1835 it produced but £796,000, while in 1858
it amounted to £1,119,000, 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. He himself believed the duty was no bar
whatever to the diffusion of sound knowledge ; and as to the
consumer, it was clear ho would get no advantage by its
repeal. The real answer to those who asked what were the
advantages of the paper duty was, that it produced a re.
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 gain 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
Belgtteat. Hon. 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
BQ 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 ; and Sir
Robert Peel, acting upon his own experience, swept away
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 1842, there was
a remission of £1,500,000. Admitting even that this policy
was wiae, the House of Commons were not to be precluded
from considering the present plan of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer
own merits. With regard to the
question of "Tin its
y i e ge,,
he believed that every member in
that house would
be ready to vindicate the privileges inthe
privileges house if those • •
leges were really invaded. Those privi-
leges were dear to the
houseand the country, because they
had been wisely and justly used. But if they allowed them
to be diverted from their nigh a
order to promote the interests of a noisythey
and legitimate purposes, in
poses of unnecessary agitation, clique, for the pur.-
they would imperil their
position as an important portion of the Legislature—(hear)
—but if invaded by the House ofh Lords there was no doubt
that every man in the Commons and in the
be ready to start up in support of them as thee°unpaltry
ladium wouldf
their rights. (Hear, bear.) But their privileges had not
been invaded, and the assertion of them Was intended to

I serve no other purpose than that of a noisy clique. (Hear,
I 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
isa
not
knowing which way to turn. He believed that if the excise
duty on paper were swept away, it would give rise toin-
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 means, 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 reply, said the resolution that affected
Customs, affected trade, and therefore it was necessary that
it should be considered 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 •
caller 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 con-
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 Exchequer 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-understood 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 globo 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 seduction of the duty on foreign
butter. Such a result, no doubt, had not been expected by
the Chancellor of the 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 remit, 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 Dorsetahire, 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 menu::
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 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 righthon. 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 remission 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. This made the question a very irritating one.
oThe measure before them was carried by a bare majority
to tak°ellgeas it, then, very factious on the part of
the etliCtt house.
W
Conservatives to discuss the whole question fully, and
another vote on it in committee ? Was there any
chance that in the a
" course of the ensuing year they would
be able to.
roah
remission of the taxation of the
country? The whole
aspect of affairs both at home and abroad was against the
possibility therefore contended ossibility of such an occurrence.
such
athattan as
it was most unwise on their
part to give up
denied that the abolition of as the duty on paper. He
duty would benefit, as
had been urged, the great the
defend its shores,
in a gi:eat measure,
country was calling upon the isoy of the people. The
and the house had assented to thistoa
ytheef wingf
ect
passed resolutions in favour of fortificatlona,mand. yebt
of the proposal before the house was,
which they weld tying np
to neutralise their efforts in this re
means then in their hands by
thoseb le
to carry out the wishes of the country. Entertaining
opinions he felt it to be his bounden duty to offer to that
measure, fraught, as he thought, with so many mischievous
consequences, and introduced under such unfavourable
ices, the most determined and most strenuous opposi-
on
Mr. AYRTON said he did not intend to follow the hon.
taiusp.
gentleman who had just sat down through the several ar-
guments he had addressed to the house, and still less to
reply to the imputations levelled by him at hon. gentlemen
sitting on 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. WALSH—I did not say that. (Laughter.)
Mr. AYRTON—The hon. gentleman charged them with
heing 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 .1
misrepresent W A LS l 1 -- I
ma
era,
butsure
I saidthe hhon.
wasm eamt,baehr.tidcaoie
fana-
tic, a
nn
ao
...t
twiei,shnotc't 'a
political agitator. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. AYRTON—WeII, the term, "fanatic"
l wasn
a
ambigu-
ous, because it might be that they were
sin ce * ' the opinions
they expressed. On that tide of the house t least their dis-
cussions had been prolonged for one purpose only, and that
was to consider fairly the merits of the questioq, But 94 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 counter
China, cheers.)
teo India, to
t They
Ame-
rica, mhae.
had
carried world,d
t
rice, and Continental Europe, to show how much they de-
ppo
themsi tiora
tak.,
over (Chetheres an
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. Bnt 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 hon. 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 nct 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. He,
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 dome 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 an
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, thoy 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-
peared 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 Monteagle 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 id. per yard. Such
facts were the tine 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, he should
confess, attach no other meaning to the statement of the
hon. gentleman that the test of a perfect tax
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 inten-
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 pro
ference to the paper duty, to be removed. (Hear, hear.)
The opinion on which he acted last year ho 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 net 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. He, 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 he 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 waslpurely 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 which 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
certain sum. On each of these the Chancellor of the Ex-
enert33oinsi:oooere;asin.e.theTcaokme
chequer calculated there would be in the coming year a
So with the other five
the infgorins.tance, the revenue derived,
from Customs. In the past year the Customs yielded
year they were estimated to'pro-
duce £23,585,000 showing
one item ofamocurre
an estimated increase of £280,000.
items. The total amount of esti-
mated increase
on one—viz., that
these six branches of revenue,_ after de-
ductingnuder the head of Miscel-
laneous
this
than £750,000.
But
teouosn
assumptionßeceipts, amounted
calculation based ?
conystated
the
for
art
they
comingpa
eventyheaanr
It could be only
would be a better year for trade and
the last. Were both these events so certain-werenow so very probable? Yet, coupled with the very
ques-
tionable receipt of the indemnity of China, they
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 stock anticipating increased dividends at the close
of the year, but he would not give them away until they
were actually paid. Yet that was precisely what the house
was now doing. It first assumed a speculative surplus, and
then proceeded to give it away. (Hear) Where did this sur-
plus exist ! 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 gag country must YerY much depend 07.1

temperament of the Finance Minister for the time
being. If he should be of a sanguine disposition, every-
thing would go well. Parliament would be sure of a sur-
plus, and it might remit taxes. If, on the other hand, he
should be of a desponding turn of mind, the house might
expect a deficit and proceed to lay on increased taxation.
(Hear, hear.) In the course of these debates the house had
; been more than once invited to observe the great change of
circumstances which had taken place since the Budget was
introduced—the rapid march of events on the other side of
the Atlantic, and the gloom which was gathering and
threatening every day on our commercial prospects. Our
relations with America were now so intimate that it was
absolutely impossible for American trade to be paralysed
without the most serious consequences to England. These
consequences, he was afraid, were already falling heavily
upon us. The prospect of a short supply of cotton was
already most alarming. No one could tell what six months
hence the state of our manufacturing population might be.
(Hear.) Too much evidence had reached him—all who
were acquainted with the manufacturing districts knew—
that the prospect of diminished employment, and conse-
quently of diminished consumption, was already sufficiently
proved and acknowledged to do away with all hope of that
small surplus on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had so confidently reckoned. (Hear, hear.) A prudent
Chancellor of the Exchequer might now reconsider his
position. Six weeks ago, when the Budget was introduced,
affairs in America were threatening ; but then we all hoped
for the best. Now those dangers had broken out into calami-
tous events, and we might prepare for the worst. This
Budget, made for fine weather, must necessarily be rent in
pieces by such a storm, and it could be no discredit to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit that he had been a
second time beaten by events over which he could not pos-
sibly exercise any control. (Hear.) If he persisted in the
proposal now before the house, he would be acting in the
teeth of the real opinion both of that house and of the coun-
try—(hear, hear)—and exposing himself to the charge of
rash and wilful imprudence, and, unless every probability
was falsified, to future condemnation and reproach. (Hear,
hear.) On the other hand, in consequence of the new cir
cumstances which had come upon us, he might yet retreat
with dignity and honour, and among all reasonable men
he would gain both popularity and respect by so doing.
(Hear, hear.) But that was not the only warning which
might be drawn from passing events in America. We were
now witnessing the bursting of that great Republican bub-
ble which had been so often held up as a model on which
to recast our own English Constitution—(hear, hear)—and
the first lesson which these events ought to impress upon
any English minister or statesman was the duty of preserv-
ing and strengthening that which had heretofore constituted
the great distinction between the safe, rational, and tem-
pered liberties of England and the wild and unreflecting
excesses of mob rule which had too often desecrated free •
dom and outraged humanity in America. (Cheers.) The
House of Commons, to which they were all proud to belong,
and whose privileges it was their duty to uphold, did not
derive its strength, its value, or its greatness from any in-
herent powers of its own, but rather from that association
in dignity and in functions with those other great authori-
ties of the State with which it was so identified in character,
in interests, and in responsibility that nothing could impair
the honour of one, whether of the Commons, or of the
Lords, or of the Crown, without detriment to all three.
(Hear, hear.) Each of these great estates, therefore,
was bound to regard the privileges and the dignity of
the other, as inseparable from its own. Into the
second question raised, the constitutional question, on
which exception had been taken to the form of the present
Bill, he would not then presume to enter. He was quite
ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might
be a great improvement in their practice in future years to
combine the whole of the financial measures for the year in
one bill. (Hear, hear.) He would assume that that had
been proved. He would also, for the sake of argument,
assume, what of course the Government anticipated, that
the repeal of the Paper Duty would pass the House of
Commons. Then would remain the question, how they
could best combine the double object of carrying the repeal
of the Paper Duty in the Lords, and embodying in future
years the whole of the financial scheme of the Commons in
one bill. He thought the safest, and certainly the most
dignified course, for the House of Commons to pursue
would be to confine itself on this occasion to precisely the
same course as it adopted last year. (Cheers.) They might
say to the Lords,—" You rejected our Paper Duty Bill
last year; and we cannot deny that the country approved
what you did, because, financially, you proved to be right ;
but that occurrence has convinced us of the necessity of
taking some means of avoiding all danger of future col-
' lision ; therefore we will in future embody all our financial
scheme in one bill. We might do this on the present
occasion, but we refrain from doing se because our motives
might be misinterpreted." It might seem discourteous to
attempt to coerce the Lords into what they refused to do
last year ; or it might be attributed to some other motive.
To avoid all such unjust and degrading imputations they
could send up the Paper Duty Bill to the Lords in its old
form, reserving to themselves the right to adopt the new
practice next year, when the object could be achieved with-
out danger of their motives being misinterpreted. (Hear,
hear.) That would be a smooth and safe course; it would
give rise to no unpleasant remembrances of the past, and

isaaply OW, u.as as to the future. (
I hear.) It would cause no heat, no jealousy, no distur-
bance ; the differences that had divided the two houses on
this subject would be forgotten ; and the country—that
was in perfect good humsur with the House of Lords
(hear, hear), and did not desire to see any quarrel between
the houses—would view with satisfaction their harmonious
co-operation for giving effect to a measure that had at
length met with general acquiescence. (Hear, hear.)
That would be, indeed, what an hon. gentleman
in an earlier debate described as the "olive branch"
offered to the House of Lords. But what they were
now doing might rather be interpreted as a challenge.
(Hear, hear.) Was it wise, was it necessary ? All resolved
itself into this question of time, they might next year do
graciously what they were going out of their way to do un-
graciously in the present one. Many would condemn the
proceeding as ill-advised, some would consider it as petu-
lant, some as arrogant. If the Lords submitted it implied
their humiliation, if they resisted it would provoke a con-
flict. (Hear.) And he thought that that Minister would be
a friend neither to the country nor the constitution who
went out of his way needlessly and wantonly to compel the
House of Lords to choose between two such alternatives.
(Cheers.) For these reasons he should feel it his duty to
give his best support to the amendment, because this re-
newed attempt to repeal the paper duty on the faith of a
surplus that events would perhaps prove to be as illusory as
that of last year, was most unfair to the country that would
be called on to make good the deficiency by an increase in
the income-tax—(hear)—and because the time chosen to
their mode of legislation was connected
with. the proceedings of last year as to
Ymeasure a mean and petulant cha-
racter—(cheers)—that
was alike ill-advised and unworthy
of the House of Commons ; that must prove embarrassing
to the House of Lords ; and he was quite certain would
never be agreeable to the country. (Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said—As this issue has been raised to-night
and though, as the hon. baronet opposite said, I am not
aware whether " the pear is ripe" or not ; still, considering
the question in a fair ani honest spirit, and not having
given any vote on it this year, I will, with the permission
of the house, offer a few observations on it. In considering
if ldo vote, how I qualify
ith: this question o I
notwish
v o t
et,o
teoxsptlaatien ,m y
reasons for not giving it.
(Laughter.) I am not at all surprised at this prolonged dis-
cussion. An hon. gentleman who spoke from these benches
said that after 10 nights of discussion—perhaps more—he
thought the house had had enough of it. The Prime Mi-
nister himself said the other night ho was really quite sur-
prised at this continued discussion. He understood it was
not intended to dispute that part of the Budget connected
with the income-tax, that it was not intended to revive the
subject of the tea duty, and there was no intention of reject-
ing the paper duty. He said he considered these matters as
disposed of and decided by the resolutions as matters
of course. The noblelord has often availed himself of the
kind assistance of the Opposition, to stem and curb the
exuberant spirit of his own partisans—(laughter)—and I
hope, under similar circumstances, he will never find the
loyal support of the Opposition wanting. (Cheers and
laughter.) But it is net our fault if, after Whitsuntide, and
close on the month of June, we are still discussing this
question. We might have had this discussion much earlier
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had desired it. I there-
fore think the noble lord was accidentally led into an error
when he said all discussion had practically closed. I should
not have risen to speak to the question to-night had it not
been for a statement made by the noble lord the member
for the city of London, who said he believed this discussion
was carried on merely for the purpose of injuring the poli-
tical reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A
more unfounded observation never came from the noble lord,
though we know his habit of making use of these clap-traps
occasionally—(laughter)—for the purpose of gaining 4, po-
litical capital." (Laughter.) I, for one, in discussing the
question now, have not the least idea of throwing any slur
on the political character of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. I wish to discuss the subject like any other indepen-
dent member of the house, and I believe the right hon. gen-
tleman is quite capable of defending himself. If I thought
the discussion was carried on on the ground the noble lord
supposed ; if I thought the poisoned arrow of personal
malice was directed against the right hon. gentleman, I for
one would take my stand by him. (Cheers.) Like the
hon. baronet who has just sat down, I do not intend to
enter on the constitutional part of the question. Thank
God we have got rid of that, and got to the practical
part of the subject—that part that affects the interests of
the people and the country. The constitutional point has
been most ably treated by hon. gentlemen competent
to do it; among others by my right hon. friend,
whom I was happy to hear addressing the house with so
much vigour—the reverend Conservative of Carlisle.
(Cheers, and laughter.) He treated that point in
such an able manner that I cannot understand how any one
can entertain any doubt on the constitAtional part of the
subject. He said that, looking carefully and impartially at
the precedents the Lords had a constitutional right 'to take
the course they
adopted. I thoroughly' concur with that
opinion. And I should say, that any one who does not ad-
mit that the Lords were perfectly right must be very hard to
satisfy. But we will let all that go by. Allu,siou Lae

made to the time of Henry IV. The hon. and learned mem-
ber (Mr. Collier) even talked about 600 years ago. (A
laugh.) I should have thought it impossible to bring for-
ward precedents dating from that early period of history, or,
at all events, I should have thought that precedents then
were as much in favour of the Lords 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 not, 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 lee 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 not get the indemnity
from China, you are in a deficit of more than £300,000, in-
stead of having a surplus of £410,000. (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 these 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
" Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire."
I do not know whether he has ever read a play of Shake-
speare called " Timon 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 P 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 whatever of the remission of the paper
duty. (Hear.) Calling to mind 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 surplas 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 £40,000,000, 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 1843-4 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 ipounterbalance 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 scribendi, 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 363., it would be Gd. (Hear.)
The Paper Duty seldom forms more than ono 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 is. book will never cost less than llid. nor a 20s. book
less than 19s. Gd. (Hear, hear.) Those 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
Trade—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 making use of the stock arguments of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer ; but 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
he spoke in such terms of faint praise that I thought
paper duty, buthe
i
very much mistrusted himself. (Hear.) Under ordinary
circumstances, the house would probably be very much n-
Clilled to adopt a racamg supported by him aid backod by

the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we are
now deliberating under extraordinary circumstances.
There is -it feeling of uneasiness abroad, both in military
circles and;inlthe public mind generally. I don't speak,
like the hon, member for Birmingham, of " Gorgons or
hydras," or things I never saw—(laughter)—but of what
we all know and can perceive. There is a feeling of un-
easiness on the continent of Europe—our national security
no longer depends on the character of our councils or our
diplomatic prestige. We are not only spending enormous
sums on our army and navy, but we are positively impo-
verishing the country by a vast warlike expenditure at a
moment when we are assured by the Government that we
are on terms of perfect amity and friendship with all the
nations of the world. (Hear, hear.) More than that, we
are engaged on a system of fortifications the rough estimate
for which is £11,000,000, but which when completed will
cost many millions more, and which if not completed tho-
roughly will be of no use whatever. (Hear.) For these
reasons I am inclined to question the conclusions arrived at
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the house will
not be led away with the idea that this is a question of free
trade in the ordinary acceptation of the term. (Hear, hear.)
Of course I never would give a vote which could even by
implication contravene that policy which was inaugurated
in 1841, and has since been universally adopted. This is
not a question of free trade in the ordinary acceptation of
• the term, but it is a question of whether we are prepared to
remit taxes in favour of a limited interest without any cor-
responding advantage which would justify such a course.
(Hear, hear.) lam ready to admit that if the state of Eu-
rope permitted it I should be perfectly ready to consider a
remission of taxation in a fair, liberal, and popular spirit,
but to put on an eightpenny income-tax and then add
another penny to it, making it 9d., in order to gratify a
limited interest, is a thing I could never approve. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. baronet who spoke last bade us consider
how the different interests of the country are threatened at
the present moment. The industry of Lancashire is
threatened with a falling off of the raw material. You have
disputes and strikes at Burslem. and Wolverhampton ; you
have suffering in the coal trade, and suffering in the iron
trade ; and is this a moment to make these reductions of
taxation without any corresponding advantage ? (Hear.)
Look abroad, and wherever you turn your glance the
horizon is dark and forbidding, and I ask the house and
the country is this a moment to indulge in these speculative
arrangements of the finance ? (Cheers.) Look at France
in the occupation of Syria against the wish of England, in
the occupation of ,Rome against the wish of Italy, in the
occupation of the southern slopes of the Alps, not only
against the wishes of Europe but to the infringement of
treaties. Look at Spain, slaveholding bucaneering Spain,
which has just siezed hold of a part-of the Island of St. Do-
mingo at the instigation of France. Look at Hungary and
Poland. Wherever you look you find a state of affairs which
makes it necessary that a Minister should deeply consider
before he makes any hazardous experiments. (Hear, hear.)
Often has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted this
house with his reckless expenditure, and if we were ever
open to that charge surely this is the time and place when
we should show that we know how to husband our resources
and to preserve that immense wealth which Providence has
placed within our grasp, in order to be ready to meet the
eventualities which may any day imperil the trade and
the commercial interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) It
has been said that this is a diminishing tax, and therefore
wo may remit it. I maintain the contrary—(cheers)—that
in the years 1859, 1860, and 1861 it has been rapidly in-
creasing. In 1859 the net produce was £1,142,000, in 1860
£1,291,000, and in 1861 £1,305,000. (Hear, hear.) If you
repeal this productive tax, you cannot reimpose it, and I be-
lieve that you are repealing a tax which presses less upon
the people than almost any ether tax which you can men-
tion. (Opposition cheers.) It certainly is very little inju-
rious to manufactures. It is eas!ly collected, and it is in-
creasing in amount. (Hear.) These reasons will induce
me to go into the lobby with the Opposition. There is one
right hon. friend of mine who spoke last year whose opin-
ions I adopt. I shall go into the same lobby with him, un-
less he contravenes the opinions which he then stated, and
that right hon. gentleman is the member for Coventry.
(Opposition cheers.) My right hon. friend has not spoken
on this question, but, taking the words which he used last
year to represent his present views, he is bound to vote the
same way as I do. The right hon. member for Coventry
said last year that he thought it would be better to wait for
a more favourable opportunity than to repeal a tax and raise
a large deficit, which might render it necessary to impose
other taxes to meet sudden emergencies and unforeseen ex-
penditure. That was a wise expression of opinion on the
part of my right hon. friend, and until I hear him get up
and state reasons which have induced him to change that
opinion I must believe that he will vote on this occasion
with the Opposition. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman oppo-
site, in a discursive speech, alluded to the volunteers. I am
not going to make myself the apologist for the volunteers;
but we underetand that they are coming to this house for
a vote of money. What a capital opportunity to keep on
the paper duty, in order to gratify them with £2 or a-
head, for which we should have the money in hand. (Laugh-
ter.) I regret very much that lam induced by these
reasons to take the course which I am about to take, but I
think it more honourable and more straightforward than
not to vote at all. (Hear, hear.) lam inclined to support
the amendment of the hen. gentleman—(cries of " Divide 1"
and " Bar !")—the more so that I think we are unnecessa-
rily dragging this house into a quarrel with the other house,
not for the benefit of the country generally, but for the
benefit of a set of persons who will reap nearly 9-10ths of
the advantage which will be derived from a remission of
this taxation. (Cheers.) We have heard all kinds of abuse
heaped on the House of Lords. (Cries of "Bar I") I know
the house is impatient. At tha same time lam anxious to
qualify the vote which lam about to give. I say that last
year, quite against my wish, the House of Lords were grossly
abused for their conduct in this matter. They were told
that they were unpatriotic, that they were selfish, that they
had not the interest of the public at heart. We must feel,
and most of the working classes do feel, that it was said by
men who only trade in keeping things in confusion that
they themselves may profit by discontent. (Loud Opposi-
tion cheers.) I, for one, would have no part or parcel in
that matter. I supported the resolutions of the noble
lord last year. I thought it wise, I thought it judicious.
But I think the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is not what I should have desired. (Oh, oh.) I have been
several years in this house. I have always given to my
noble friend a cordial and warm support. Such has been my
confidence in his ability justly to interpret the sense of the
country and the drift of public opinion that I can safely say
that on every occasion save one I have given mynoble friend
my cordial and hearty support. Acting as his subordinate,
I have entertained the warmest personal respect and affec-
tion for the noble lord, and nothing but a stern sense of
duty and a deep-root3tl conviction that I was right would
ever induce me to give a vote which could be considered in
opposition to the sentiments which he advocated, and which
he deemed necessary for the interests of the country.
(Cheers.) Again, I may say with regard to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that no man entertains a higher, opinion
of his personal character and brilliant political abilities,
and it is with extreme caution, with extreme hesitation,
and with many doubts that I place my humble judgment
in opposition to opinions which he has emphatically advo-
cated. (Hear, hear.) But, as an independent member, I
have no alternative. We are here to serve the public good
and the interests of the country to the best of our ability.
In great political discussions I place considerations of that
character above any other, and therefore it is that I am in,
duced, though with great pain and reluctance, neverthe-
less, from a conviction of the rectitude of the feelings which
influence me, to decline to give my vote in support of the
measure of her Majesty's Government and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, believing the repeal of the paper duty to
be neither wise, expedient, nor politic in a financial point
of view, nor just nor equitable to the great body of tax-
payers in this country. (Cheers.)

Mr. MELLOR moved that the Chairman report progress
amid loud calls fora division from the Opposition benches.
Mr. DISRAELI said, —lt appears to me that if ever
there was a night this is the night when we might come to
a decision. (Cheers.) But as far as lam concerned lam
unwilling to be an obstacle to free discussion. I trust, how-
ever, that if this adjournment is sanctioned by her Majesty's
Government—(cheers)—we shall hear no more reproaches
from that quarter of placing obstacles to the progress of
public business, or of encouraging discussions when there
is really nothing on which discussion is necessary. (Loud
cheers.) We have really had the advantage of many nights'
previous debate incidentally, and often directly upon this
very question. The debate to-night has been conducted in
a tone distinguished by its moderation, and it does appear
to me that the house could with great convenience at once
come to a decision. (Cheers.) 'lf the hon. gentleman who
has moved that you, sir, report progress wishes to address
the house I think I cat answer for his receiving a patient
hearing from a silent and admiring audience. (Laughter
and cheers.) If the only object of the adjournment is
to hear his observations wo shall be most happy to
consider them. (Cheers.) It does appear to me that we
might come to a decision upon this question to-night, but
if the leader of the house has sanctioned or suggested
the motion of the hon. gentleman, why then I have too
much sympathy for free discussion to use any influence
which I may possess to induce the house to come to a deci-
sion. I trust, however, that from this moment we shall
hear no more those frequent reproaches which have been
very unjustly and very injudiciously urged by those who
sit on the Treasury benches when we have requested occa-
sions to offer our opinions upon subjects of very great im-
portance. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I certainly do not object to the
motion of the hon. gentleman—(derisive cheers from the
Opposition)—which I think has been very distinctly sug-
gested by the silence of those gentlemen who sit on the
opposite benches. (Oh, oh.) This, undoubtedly, is a subject
of considerable importance—(laughter)—and one on which
there are many members anxious to speak. The promise of
the right hon. gentleman that they shall be listened to with

silent admiration, however encouraging at the momenT,
might not altogether be made good, if it were tested. (Ilear,
hear.) I therefore cordially agree to the adjournment. I
will not undertake so largely as the right hon. gentleman
wishes to abstain in future from any remarks upon future
attempts to procrastinate debates ; but, no doubt, the same
attempts will not be displayed, and there will be no occasion
to make the objection.

Tin quevtivi Omit the chairmail repint progrog Iva., pqt,