The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-30 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRILI 30, 1861.

objected to the mode in which the resolution for the
repeal of the duty on paper, was to be sub-
mitted to the House of Lords, which would throw
upon that house the responsibility of rejecting the budget.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed' to remit ld. on
the income tax ; but suppose, instead of taking off the duty
on paper, he reduced that tax by another ld., or
by removing the duty from tea and sugar, would
he not be acting more in conformity with the
sentiments of 99 out of every 100 in the whole community.
(Hear, hear.) He denied that the conclusions as to a
continuance of peace on the continent were justified by
events, and described all Europe as a vast camp, and
referred to the statement of the Prime Minister at the

venture to tell the right hon. gentleman that if he ventures
to look for precedents he will find that, no longer ago than
1801, 1802, and 1803, the House of Commons repeatedly—
nay, almost constantly—took that course; and in Februat y,
1801, the House of Commons ordered a bill to be prepared
and brought in pursuant to resolutions of the house—no
fewer than 143 in number—resolutions referring to the duties
on Irzta, on paper, upon stained paper, upon books and maps,
the drawbacks on books imported, the Excise upon linen
stuffs, the drawback on the exportation, and other matters;
so that the house is now only asked to do what, at one time
in its history, it was in the constant habit of doing. (Hear.)
If, however, the right hon. gentleman is alarmed, let me
refer him to the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge, who was chairman of the com-
mittee on precedent last year. That right hon. gentleman
certainly showed no disposition to be hostile to the House of
Lords, but he prepared the draft of a report for the commit-
tee in which occurred the paragraph. He said in one of
those paragraphs that the power of the House of Commons
in matters of supply was very much weakened by the man-
ner in which the bill was founded upon resolutions of the
house. Now I will undertake to say that although those
paragraphs were not printed in the report of the committee,
the members of that committee, I believe, unanimously con-
curred in the spirit of them. That is my answer to the right
hon. gentleman, so far as I am concerned, to discuss the
question at present, I must say, with all respect for the
right hon. gentleman, that he is not a man I would like to
take advice from on a matter of that sort, Listen to his
speech to-night. Has he not crowded into it every possible
horror over the affairs of Europe,

commencement of the session to show that that
noble lord did not partake in the feeling of security in the
maintenance of peace throughout Europe, of which some
honourable members were so very sanguine. He
contended that in the -present stat 3 of Europe no one was
desirous of removing the Government at present;

anti that their defeat on a single resolution of this budget

did not necessitate their resignation. He did not wish un-

necessarily to draw the attention of the gwernment to
their misfortunes, but he could not help reminding them
that they had already sustained a defeat. (Hear, hear,

and laughter.) There never was an occasion when it was
more necessary to follow the prolific principle of Sir R.Peel,
and to try by a reduction of duties so to stimulate consump-
tion as to derive a greater revenue from lower duties, and
when they got into committee he should require a better

reason than any which had yet been given to induce him to
agree to a course which did not recognise the interests of
the poorer classes. (Hear, hear.) There was ono class of
gentlemen whose attention would be devoted to this task.
Those who had for years I een employers of labour, many

of whom have given noble instances of benevolence and

patriotism by their practical efforts to improve the condi-
tion of the working classes, and he would ask them if, con-
sidering the additional comfort which would be given to
the people by the reduction of the tea duties, they would
support the repeal •f a tax which could in no way be to the
advantage of the poor—(hear, hear)—and to continue those

duties which infringed specially on the comfort of the ope-
rative classes. (Hear, hear.) To talk in figures, which
would be more comprehensible to the working classes than

to talk of millions a year, and thanks to the energies of a
cheap press the working men of England would be able to see
those figures, he could inform the house that the pressure of
lie duties on tea and sugar amounted to about £4,567 a day,
and therefore he could not but rejoice that the House of
Lords had last year prevented a boon being given to the

paper-makers which should be especially given to the poorer
classes. (Hear, hear.) He was aware that to the middle
class the sum he mentioned appeared inconsiderable, but
taken off tea and sugar, it would add enormously to the

comfort of the people. (Hear, hear.) Last year, when the
House of Lords'rejected the bill for the repeal of the paper
duty, the operative classes did not know the boon it would
be to them if the duties were taken off tea and sugar, or of

he wrong which would be done them by the repeal of the

paper duty ; but he believed that they had grown in know-
ledge since then, and perhaps it would he found that at the

next general election their knowledge would be complete.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) As regarded the paper dutyper
se, everybody, he believed, was quite ready to repeal it, if
It could be done safely and justly, and if it could be vindi-
cated on sound principles of finance. (Hear, hear.) He
had come down to the house 10 years before, when the

repeal of the paper duty was proposed, and he had
always been anxious to support it since, but he had always
been induced to vote against it by the speeches of the re-
spective Chancellors of the Exchequer. In the present in-
stance he believed that the proposal arose more from a poli-
tical than a financial motive, and he wished to point out to

he house the various classes of objections which had been

or could be urged against the measure. The hon. member
for Huntingdon pointed out one class of objections. He re-
ferred to the state of India, the condition of affairs in the

Levant, and the general unsettled state of Europe, as rea-
sons for tearing a diminution of trade, and he asked if under
these circumstances the Government were so sure of their

revenue that they could afford to giie up a most prolific
source of revenue. As regarded anticipation of a continental
war, they had received great confirmation in what fell from
the noble lord at the head of the Government on Friday

night, for ho said that, looking to the state of Europe,
Prussia might soon require the support of England. (Hear.)
_ _

With regard to the second class of objections they had been

gone into in detail by the hon. member for Stamford. He
pointed out the non-fulfilment of various calculations of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and remarked that the ba-
lances in the Exchequer had been reduced -C1,500,000 added

to the debt, and £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued to

perpetuate a debt which we were pledged to pay last year—
(hear)—and the repudiation of which went to reduce the
deficit of last year, and to assist in making this surplus for
the coming year. It appeared also that last year there had
been an excess of expenditure of £2,558,384, and with re-

gard to that item the right hon. gentleman informed the
house that he did not intend to offer any information on
the subject. He did not complain that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had done anything wrong, but he contended
that our whole system of finance had been unsound in
principle. Th 3 hon. member for Huntingdon added his
t0m.;,.....7 to tho ao. -eaciat-onoo of a *surplus, and the hon.
member for Horsham had requested some explanation with

regard to the £750,000 expected from China, and presented
the alternative either that that sum would not come into
the hands of the Government at all, or, if it did, that it
would be swallowed np in the indemnity to British mer-
chants. Now he was not quite sure that that cir-
cumstance was nnsusceptible of explanation, but there
was no doubt that the merchants should, as soon
as possible, be paid their indemnity—(hear, hear)—the
President of the Board of Trade had volunteered some ex-
planation on the subject, and the lightness with which he
promised it could only be equalled by the adroitness with
which he evaded it ; for, after some explanation on another
point, he said that on second thoughts he should leave
the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which n•
doubt was a very prudent course. (A laugh.) He should re-
commend the right hon. gentleman to held in his hand
while giving his explanation the paper of figures of
£1,900,000 of Exchequer bonds, £1,500,000 added to the
debt, and the reduction of the balances in the Exchequer;
and if at the conclusion of his address those figures remained
the same, he would ask hon. gentlemen to believe their eyes
and not their ears. (Hear.) He believed that any one
regulating his private affairs, or any mercantile establish-
ment its business, on the financial principles on which the
affairs of this country were conducted, would, in a very short
time, if the former, find himself in a prison, while the latter
would be in the Gazette. (Hear, hear.) A nation could
not go to prison or into the Gazette; but that was no rea-
son why they should not place their financial position on a
sound and secure basis, and he must say that although every
one looked up to the high and brilliant qualities of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect and admiration,
there were many who did not think him safe in matters of
finance. (Hear, hear.) They were told that this year the
resolutions were to be embodied in one bill, in order the
more easily to arrive at a settlement, but it appeared to him
to be a blow at the independence of the House of Lords. If
two friends fell out, and one took the other unknowingly
and gave him a knockdown blow, that he could not con-
sider a satisfactory settlement. (A. laugh.) There were
some settlements which might be more precarious than auy
contest, and more losing than any defeat. (Hear.) He
trusted that the House of Commons would resolve to resist
any motion which should make a victory of one of the
Houses of Parliament the means of destroying the indepen-
dence of the other. (Loud Conservative cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT then said the house will not, I am sure,
be astonished if I say at the beginning of my speech that
I do not intend to follow the right hon. gentleman into all
the details of his somewhat discursive speech. (Hear, hear,
and Oh, oh.) I could not help thinking of the right hon.
gentleman, as I have had occasion to think of him before,
that he indulged in many remarks alarming to persons of
weak nerves and gives utterance to prognostications calcu-
lated to alarm us all. Did he not also feel that it is his wont
occasionally to wander from the realms of fact, and in a
manner that I think hardly compatible with the usefulness
of debate, to the regions of imagination ? (Hear, hear.) It
is only two years since the right hon. gentleman alarmed

the house by a most fearful statement with regard to the
chances of war breaking out. He spoke of the probability
of the occurrence of one of the greatest calamities that
could occur, namely, a war between England and France,
and indulged in such forebodings that everybody must have
expected an immediate descent upon our shores, whereas
they were in point of fact followed by the conclusion of a
most important commercial treaty which itself was fol-
lowed almost immediately afterwards by a measure on the
part of the French Government which indicated
the greatest anxiety that the people of the two
countries should comprehend each other, and that
the interests of both—l mean the abolition of the passport
system as regarded English visitors to France. (Derisive
cheers and hear, hear). The right hon. gentleman also,
not thinking it sufficient to chill the souls of some of us
who were present, went further, and attempted to chill the
bodies of a not very remote posterity by telling us that our
coals were about speedily to be exhausted. (A laugh.) An
hon. member, however, on this side of the house fortu-
nately was able to demonstrate, so far as science could de-
monstrate such a position, that if the country could endure
for the future as long as it has since the dove returned no
more to the ark, the supply of coals under this island will,
in all probability, not be exhausted. (Hear, hear.) Last
year again, the right hon. gentleman drew a picture of a
very fearful character. He wished to persuade this house
that they were not to be trusted with the regulation of the
finances of the country, and that it had been absolutely ne-
cessary for the House of Lords to do that which for 400
years they had never done, namely, to step in and correct
what they deemed an error in the calculation of the House
of Commons with regard to supplying the means for the
service of the year. He has now presented his Budget in a
very imperfect aspect, and one in which it ought not to be
regarded, and has introduced topics which he could
have wished would not have been imported into the
present discussion. He complains as if the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and the Government were about to do some-
thing of a very fearful character in proposing that the reso-
lutions of this house should go to the other House of Par •
liament in one bill instead of in separate bills. Now, I sha 1
not go into any discussion on the subject, because it may
'it ND, up a aiu, gi iutwre Ntas ci prmetlipgs, but 10

" worse

(Hear, hear.) For the last eighteen years the Budgets have
been mine, inasmuch as I have given them my support.
What reason have I, or the majority of Parliament, to be
ashamed of the course we to ak. One of the most respected of
ate county members who bad resolutely opposed free trade,.
'said to me, " How much good you have done us, but we
did not know it " (Laughter.) The hon. member for
Huntingdon referred to the state of Turkey,'Austria, and
Italy, as warning us how we shall proceed. It is true that
political convulsions rend the air, and that political earth-
quakes shake the ground. But in this country you are in
secure enjoyment of your estates. If the Queen can wield
her sceptre over a peaceful realm—if Great Britain can hold
its course with all the majesty it ever did—l ask you if all
this is not to be attributed to the Budgets of the last few
years--Budge is which 1 have always supported, and which
you, unfortunately for your reputation, have always op-
posed. (Loud cheers.) I have no objection io party con-
tests, when for a public good. If I look to be remembered
hereafter, it is for having had my name associated with
measures which I conscientiously felt it was just for Par-
liament to pass, and beneficial for the country to receive.
(Cheers.) I have looked at the Budget with, I believe, an
impartial and honest eye, and it is one which it will be bene-
ficial for Parliament to pass and for the people to accept, I
shall give it my hearty support. (Loud cheers.)
Sir J. FERGITSSON said that the hon. member for
Birmingham had hardly done justice to the motives of those
who opposed the Budget. He would call their attention to
some observations of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) in 1857, on the Budget of the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the present Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall
Lewis), who did not propose the remission of the paper

Than fable yet hath feigned or fear conceived, duty, contending that to call it a tax upon knowledge was
(iorgons and hydras and chimeras dire," illusory, inasmuch as it pressed more heavily on other
that presented itt,elf to his imagination ? According to the articles than on paper used for printing, and that it would
general tenor of the statement of the right hon. gentleman, not afford any advantage to the ordinary purchaser of
he should, I think, not complain that £70,000,000 was not newspapers and books. For those reasons the right hon.
a sufficiently large expenditure, or indeed that £30,000,000 baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) postponed the repeal of the paper
was not sufficient ; but he should, under the state of affairs duty to a more convenient season, and similarly rejected
which he describes, refuse to consider in any way the the proposal to remit the duty on fire insurance. He (Sir
remission of any tax whatever. (Hear, hear.) Let me ask G. C. Lewis) quoted a declaration which, though laughed
the house to go back to that memorable night, a fortnight at at the ;time by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer
ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer fascinated the (Mr. Gladstone), had certainly not been shown to be erro-
house by his brilliancy. (Hear, hear.) I have sat opposite neous, that taxation was less oppressive when spread over
to gentlemen on the other side of the House for more than a number of articles, than when by the process calla sins-
eighteen years, and I have not done so without taking Plicity it was made to press on a particular interest. (Cheers
notice of their mode of thought, of their opinions and of the from the Opposition.) He proposed reductions to the
effect produced on them by statements which they may extent of nearly £12,000,000, including a reduction both of
hear. (Hear, hear.) I recognise their cheers when some- the income •tax and also of the tea duty. The hon.member for
thing occurs to gratify or surprise them. I will leave out Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) took exception to this on the ground
the gentlemen who sometimes expect to return back to that it would, in subsequent years, leave the Treasury in
office, but I will take the main bulk of their followers. want of funds, and it remained for the house to consider
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded with his whether that prediction was sound or not. But the right
speech, the faces of those hon. gentlemen betrayed a species hon. gentleman, Mr. Gladstone, took a different and much
of relief. They did not expect, although it had been hin- more violent view. While it had been the fashion very
ted aloud, that further taxation would not be required, that much to quote the past convictions of the right hon. gen-
so large a surplus would be clearly made out (hear, hear), tleman, he thought somewhat vainly, he still believed there
and I appeal to the consciences of hon. gentlemen would be some advantage in considering the grounds on
opposite, when the right hon. gentleman came to the red ue- which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had op-
tion of income-tax, to show whether they had not reached posed that Budget. He first of all objected to its general
a perfect state of enthusiasm. jlear, bean) When he features, and denounced the surplus as illusory, and the
came to that portion of his scheme you, the country gentle- entire measure as showing a tendency to depart from sound
men possessing incomes of from £5,000 to £20,000 a year, principles of taxation. Ile denied the reality of the remis-
displayed mote satisfaction than would, I believed, have sions, and laid down the remarkable doctrine, that as ac-
been shown by an equal number of London clerks with cording to past plans, of which he was the author, in 1853,
salaries of an average of £2OO. (Oh, oh.) I have no doubt these taxes would have partially expired in that year, the
that it was on account of your constituents (a laugh), and so-called deduction was, in point of fact, a re. imposition.
Ido not at all wish to give an improper interpretation to The hon. gentleman proceeded to quote at considerable
your feelings ; but it was obvious that there existed great length from Mr. Gladstone's speech of 1857, laying especial
excitement and pleasure on that side of the house. When weight on the declaration that the change of circumstances
the right hon. gentleman came to the paper duties, there was since 1853 did not release the house from the promises then
an expression, not quite the reverse of pleasure, which seemed made, and the expectations then raised, to which he (Mr.
to pass through both sides of the house, as it was felt to be Gladstone) was especially pledged ; and on the prediction
desirable that a settlement should be arrivad at. I ask that in 1861-2 the deficiency would amount to above eight
hon. members opposite whether they ever had a doubt of a millions. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was
surplus ? Was it not their impression that the budget was a now carrying to the extreme the policy which he then de-
successful one, and that the house might reasonably adopt flounced. As these taxes would expire in the present year,
it. (Hear.) Ido not include in these observations the right their continuance was not a remission, but a reimposition ;
hon. member for Bucks and his friends, because they only and even what was called the "unnecessary penny" was
saw the prospect of an opposition without anything to imposed in order to relieve a wealthy interest. The right
oppose, and were, in fact, like the frozen-out gardeners who hon. gentleman had had the face to lay on the table last
had "no work to do." (A laugh, and o oh.") Just in the year an estimate for the China war of £500,000, the same
nick of time, and by lucky accident, an independent mem- sum which Sir R. Peel had given for a war of less than one-
ber on the ether side—the hon. member for Huntingdon— fifth its magnitude, and he now counted on a sum of be-
turns up to attack the surplus. Now, Ido not regard the tween £400,000 and £500,000, contingent on the payment
hon. memler as an authority on those matters. (" Oh" from of an indemnity which by all prospects would not be paid
Opposition.) For the 18 years I have been in the house I this year. He asked the house whether it was not their
have always found him to be wrong, and an authority duty to adjust rightly the balance of taxation for the year,
which is always in the wrong can be no authority. Moore's and whether they were not wilfully falling into error if,
almanack was sometimes right, but the hon. member never with the experience of last year before them, they aban-
was. (Oh.) I know that those who disagree with me will doned sources of revenue which might be absolutely
not agree in these observations. The hon. member having needed hereafter. The President of the Board of Trade
been so conspicuous in his failures was the last man to had spoken of prospective finance, but the Chancellor of
attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I the Exchequer had dealt more than any other man ix pro-
dare say on the other side there are 50 members, who as- phecies which had been more unfulfilled than was ever
pire to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in ease the right prophecy before, and was now most singularly turning
hon. gentleman vacates his office. Now as to a surplus I his back on his policy of former years. The
give him credit for it, and I here state that I shall always Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for the bad
believe in a surplus when a Chancellor of the Exchequer harvest, but be was responsible for the excess in the ex-
declares one. (Hear, hear.) I shall have nothing to do with penditure in the Chinese war, which, with his experience of
those who are opposed to a surplus but refuse a remission of 1854, he ought more than any other man to have foreseen.
taxation which a Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to To make up the deficiencies of last year he had anticipated
make. (Hear, hear.) Assuming a surplus, I ask are the future years, by taking more than £4,000,000 from the ca-
p...swed remissions fair to the various interests of the coun- pital of the country. The President of the Board of Trade
try ? (Hear, hear.) Last year the house granted an addi- had not answered the question put to him by an hon. mem-
tional penny of income tax for the purpose of having the her with respect to that curious item, repayment and ad-
paper duty repealed. Now we are to get back that penny— vances, which looked very nue u further encroachment on
the paper duty is to be repealed—and what can be more un- capital. A very slight difference on the price of tea and
grateful or indefensible than to reject the proposal ? The sugar pressed heavily on the poor, an assertion he was pre-
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that one-half of the pared to stand by at the risk of imputation of motives. If
surplus shall go towards the repeal of certain indirect taxes, it were not that, it was beneath contempt to attribute to
and the other half to the repeal of certain direct taxes. I gentlemen advocating the interests of a large class of the
want some hon. gentleman opposite to state on what ground community motives by which he could not conceive it pos-
it is that his party bear their hostility to the repeal of the sible they could be influenced, the imputation might be re-
paper duty. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing in the trade to torted by the observation that there might be newspapers
justify such hostility. Paper was a great article of manu- which did not pay their expenses set up in the interest of a
facture--much used for books, and for the transmission of certain party, and that except such an interest, he did not
news. If there be cheaper paper—no stamp and a free press, see who would be benefitted by the repeal of the paper
power will be given to the weak, and light will be given to duties. If the question were submitted to a jury of working
those who sit in darkness. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) When men, ho was sure they would laugh at the proposition that
I see you pursue your opposition almost to vindictiveness, they could be benefitted by the repeal of the paper duty at
I have a right to suspect that there is something more in the cost of continuing the tea and sugar duties at their pre-
your opposition to the repeal of the paper duty than there sent rate. The hon. gentleman might, if he chose, have
is to your repeal of any other tax. (Hear.) In 1858 the right reduced the duty on tea by 4d. per lb., and no fairer issue
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks did not simply allow could be raised than the question which of the two taxes it
the resolution of the President of the Board of Trade for was better for the poor to remit ? He wished to call atten-
the repeal of the duty to pass, but he stated that it would be tion to a pamphlet recently issued by Mr. Bohn, the pub-
impolitic to maintain it as a permanent source of revenue. fisher, who would be generally admitted to be an authority
(Hear.) One great journal of the metropolis did not on the subject. The hon. member proceeded to quote ar-
wish the paper duty repealed until other taxes were abo- guments from the pamphlet alluded to, and a statement of
lished. If that be your project, you will make it a perma- the amount of the paper duty on several works. There was
nent tax. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman also said no doubt that the paper trade, so far from being crippled
that many Customs duties were not worth collecting, and by taxation, was being greatly extended, and Mr. Glad-
that that must be considered in making remissions. Now, stone contended last year that English paper makers could
these Customs duties are all swept away. I have, therefore,. compete successfully in foreign markets, even when at a
a right to expect the vote of the right hon. gentleman on disadvantage in taxation. The wholesale price of the cheap
this occasion. The right hon. gentleman went even fur- papers was id., and the amount of paper duty on each
ther, and said that he was not prepared to say that the tax copy was about half a farthing; so it was not likely the
on paper was not one which required, if not immediate, at public would get any advantage from the reduction, besides
least early consideration. (Hear.) That was three years which, it was well known that they were not supported by
ago. (Hear.) "PPeal to the right hon. gentleman. With any profit on sale, but by the advertisements. The whole
powers to occupy the throne lit‘rature, the right hon. advantage would fall into the hands of the printer and pub-
gentleman had abdicated it for what Zee thought a more use Daher. Considering the budget as a whole, he did not won-
ful sphere, and for a wider field in which se aisway his der that the right hoes gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had taken
genius. Was it worth while, for a party triumph, that an artful means of preventing the Lords from exercising
books, and tracts, and the all-knowing and all-teaching the-signs Of eopervision—not that he thought the Lords
newspaper, should be subjected to the burden of this tax. would think of rejecting it if sent up a second time by the
(Hear.) The hon. member for Lincoln and others gave the Commons—the insult was gratuitous—but there never was
preference to the tea and sugar duties ever paper. (Hear.) a budget more unfit for supervision. It looked as if it had
When I recollect that the five best years of nip life were been prepared by two different authors—one of whom had
spent in trying to get for the poor man's breakfast table— prepared the estimates, the other the ways and means. The
in opposition to bon. gentlemen opposite—untaxed bread estimates for the army and navy certainly bore the con-
and butter, lam slow to believe that their sympathy for struction put upon them by the hon. member for Stroud.
the poor man is greater than what I myself feel. (Hear.) They were prepared with a view to the safety of the coun-
I can understand the anxiety of those who have large stocks try in case of war, while the revenue seemed calculated in
of tea and sugar in bond, to have some modification of those the expectation of the most piping times of peace. The re-
duties. , But I cannot understand how their sympathy for peal of the paper tax, and the falling off of other sources of
the poor man's breakfast tab le is greater than mine. In the revenue, would leave nothing but the income-tax to fall
present case, I think I shall be giving the greatest relief to back upon for any emergency of war ; and this tax, unwill-
the working classes, in repealing the paper duties. (No, and ingly granted in time of war, was being made the main
cheers.) It is obvious, that if you remit a million of the source of revenue in times of peace. He approved of the
tea and sugar duties, it may remain in the pockets of the foreign policy of the Government, who had rightly inter-
consumers, but it will do nothing in the opening up of any preted the feelings of the country in that policy, and espe-
new trade. (Hear.) The speeches of the hon. member for cially in the Syrian question, in which they had acted on a
Edinburgh, and of the hon. member for Dungarvan, were bold and manly policy, which became them as English
conclusive as to the grievance of the tax and of the injury Ministers—(cheers)—but in fiscal matters they were taking
—it might be ruin—which it would inflict on paper menu- a course opposed to the tradition of their own party, and to
facturers, if allowed to remain another year. The right their policy in former times. He regretted that the Chan-
hon. gentleman who spoke to-night assumed that the mil- cellor of the Exchequer should use the great talents which
lion remitted by the paper duties would go to the manufac- had raised him to a position, perhaps unknown in the case
turers, but that a million remitted of tea and sugar duties of any man of his generation, to carry out a policy opposed
would relieve the poorest classes. to his former pledges and conviction, (Hear, hear, from
Mr. HORSMAN—I said it would go into the pockets of the Opposition.)
paper dealers—namely, booksellers, paper makers, and Mr. GREGSON was ready to take the Chancellor of the
cheap newspaper proprietors. Exchequer at his word that there was a surplus, and had
Mr. BRIGHT—I think the benefit in that case will be no desire to force on him money which he said he did not
as widely spread as the benefit from a redaction of the require. (A. laugh.) . He would rather keep the hon.
sugar and tea duty. I find, between 1838 and 1856, the gentleman " short," in order that he might be more
number of paper mills sunk from 416 to 314 in this country, anxious to carry out the economy which he had declared to
and in Ireland from 60 to 28. In Scotland there was no be necessary. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) At the same
material change. True, the manufacture of paper has in- time be thought the reduction of the tea duty would
creased, but it is one great evil of this excise duty that it have been preferable to that of the duty on paper.
strangles all the thriving little men, gives the monopoly of He would have preferred to have seen a reduction on tea
the trade to a few great manufacturers, and destroys that and sugar, but when he considered what would be the con-
free competition which would otherwise exist. (Hear, hear.) sequence of a refusal to adopt the
present proposals of the
Ido not think the right hon. baronet the member for Hert- Government, he felt it his duty to give a reluctant support
ford likes to appear on the other side when the paper duty to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
is before us. In 1855, the right hon. baronet objected to Mr. B. COCHRANE regarded the present as an impor-
the tax, and said that it placed an important manufacture leant epoch in finance, and declining to discuss in detail
in the hands of a wealthy and irresponsible oligarchy. the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proceeded
(Hear.) I should not have spoken of the House of Lords if at some length to compare the revenue and expenditure
the hon. member had not referred to it. lam sure that he is during the last 30 years, pointing out the enormous in-
the best friend of the House of Lords and to the Constitu• crease which had taken ph co during that period, and more
tion, who seeks to have this question speedily and without especially since the year 1837, It was to meet the great
irritation settled. (Loud cheers.) The right lion. member for deficiency of revenue which Sir R. Peel had inherited as a
Horsham called this a political and not a financial Budget. legacy from the Government of Lord Melbourne, that the
The right hon. gentleman said it was intended to conciliate income tax was proposed, and if ever such an impost was
justifiable it was upon that occasion, and for such a pur-
me. (Hear, hear.) When the right hon. gentleman was in j
office I found him as anxious as any one, consistently with pose. But at that time the noble lord was at the head of
his duty, to conciliate me. (Cheers.) The right hon. gen- the Government, and several of his colleagues were to be
tlemen talked of a noisy section—l will not say an influen- found among the strongest opponents of that tax. The
tial or non-influential section—on this side to whose hon. member proceeded to quote from the speeches of Lord
clamour concessions were made. One thing I may say, we Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, Sir George Grey, and others,
never clamoured for office. (Cheers.) If we clamoured at passages condemnatory of the policy and justice of impos-
all it was for a public benefit. I admit that it is my Budget. ing the income tax. If, he said, those members of the
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I adopt it, and there-
Government then entertained such opinions, how couldfore it is mine. (Hear, hear.) In a few days it will be the they reconcile them with the fact of their now supporting
13gd4et of tbio house, because it will In adopted by 101 14covie tax at go Algli it rats at 9d, iA tin P 9444 r

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated in his
financial matters a desire to diminish the amount of indi-
rect taxation and increase the direct taxes, and the carry-
ing out of that policy he proposed to hand over to a new
reformed Pat liament, which would more completely re-
present the wishes and opinions of the people, and
there was no doubt that the expression of such wish
had tended very much t• prevent the passing of the Re-
form Bill last year. On the present occasion the same prin-
ciple had been expressed, and direct taxation was about to
be imposed for the purpose of taking off indirect taxes. An
income tax of Bd. in the pound, according to the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer's own statement, would give a surplus
of £lBO,OOO, and he could not understand on what prin-
ciple the tax was to be levied at 9d., merely for the pur-
pose of abolishing an indirect tax on paper, which could
not be reimposed, while an income tax of Sd. would produce
an adequate surplus for the financial year. (Hear.)

r furnished him with a most decisive ground of attack, actu-
ally charged our deficiency twice over upon our backs.
(Laughter.) " First of all," he said, " you have taken so
much out of the balances of the Exchequer, and secondly
you have a deficiency of 21 millions," evidently adding the
two sums together. My hon. friend did not fall into that
error, but 1 e dwelt. on the point with needless detail, He
was very anxious about the state of the balances, and he con-
tended they had fallen more than we expected them to fall
towards September. Of course they did. But I should like
to knew how I was to tell what drafts would be made upon
the Exchequer for China by the officers there, who desired to
make themselves very strong in funds in order to prepare
themselves against the contemplated expedition in that coun-
try P To my hon. friend's inquiries as to the health of the
balances, I have a very short answer to give. They are not
only as well as can be expected, but they are in a state very
satisfactory to their friends. (A laugh.) I cannot give a
better description of them during the past financial year
than by stating that, during the whole four quarters, the
entire sum paid as interest upon deficiency bills amounted
to no more than £1,850, and in the quarter which is now
passing not one shilling has been paid for that purpose.
(Hear, heir.) My hon. friend seems to think that some
strange trick has been performed in applying the repay-
ment of advances to meet the deficiency of the past year's
revenue. This is neither the place nor the time to enter
upon a consideration of the provisions of our law, but surely
my hen. friend ought to have known that when advances
are repaid, they become part and parcel of the consolidated
fund; and that it would not have been in the power of the
Government, even if they had wished to do anything so
absurd, to draw any distinction between those repayments
and any other money paid into the Exchequer. (Hear.)
Then my hon. friend said he was sorry that I omitted the
fortification loan from my consideration. I omitted it not
because my responsibility was one whit less than that of the
gentlemen who sit near me, for it was a common responsi-
bility of the Government, but simply because the sum which
had been required was so exceedingly small that it was not
worth while in my opinion to call the attention of the house
to it in any great detail, when I was dealing with sums on
the one side or the other of £70,000.000. My hon. friend
was also very much alarmed at the idea of there being
another drop under the French treaty, or, at all events, if
not my hon. friend, one who spoke near him both in time
and place. But there is to be no further drop. The lowest
wine duty is already in operation, and it has turned out
apparently to be no drop at all. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend wanted to know how I provided for the army excess
of 1859-60—for everything, you see, is pressed into the
service. I did not provide for it at all—(hear, hear)—and
the reason I did not is because it has already been paid.
(Cheers). What we have to do is simply to apply to
this house to obtain its recognition, and to give form
and regularity to transactions which require to be
watched, because they interfere with the regu-
larity of our finance, but which have no bearing whenever
upon the budget, for they will not make the Exchequer one
sixpence poorer. (Hear.) My hon. friend next said that
the effects of the bad harvest were not exhausted. Cer-
tainly they are not exhausted. If they were, 1 should have
had to present you with a better estimate of revenue.
(Cheers.) A great part of the deficiency of the malt revenue
goes into the estimate which is before the house; but all
that has been fully considered. lam the last person to de-
preciate the effects of the bad harvest, for I consider it
would be a moderate statement to say that it has made a
deduction from the revenue equal to two millions of money.
That I think is a statement susceptible of reasonable de-
monstration, but at the same time I believe two things con-
cerning it. First, 1 believe that had it not been for the
Powerful stimulus which freedom of trade has given to the
agriculture of the country, the harvest would have been far
worse than it was. I believe it also a fact that, though the
exceedingly bad weather, both during the harvest and in
the months which succeeded, and the early months of this
year, has made us dependent in a very unusual manner
upon foreign corn, the quantity of English corn in the
country is much more considerable than it would under or-
dinary circumstances be ; and that will form a better fund
on which to draw than under ordinary circumstances we
should have at this season of the year. (Hear.) Then
with reference to the financial state of the year 1862-3, on
what does my hon. friend depend to prove the improvidence
of our arrangements ? If it be true that we shall lose three
quarters of a million on account of the repeal of the paper
duty and the remission of a penny income tax, it must be
remembered that by that time we hope the extra charges
for China will be altogether cleared off, and they at present
amount to a much larger sum. The whole case of my hon.
friend depends upon the fact that there are a million Ex-
chequer-bonds which will fall due in the year 1862-3. But
if he thinks that that is any reason why we should ask for a
million extra taxes in the year 1861-2, he has yet to master
the principles by which the finances of the country ought
to be guided. Not only is the doctrine strange, but I am
astonished at the source from whence it comes; for if Ex •
chequer-bonds are put by, from whom did we learn that
lesson? From the right hon. gentleman opposite. In
18,18, when the right hon. gentleman had to provide non for
£70,000,000 but for £63,500,000, he presented to the house
an estimate in which he made no provision whatever for the
two million Exchequer bonds which were falling due. On
that occasion, though I should have been very glad if the
right hon. gentleman had made an effort to pay them off, I
did not think myself ealled upon to pronounce any censure
upon the course which he pursued. My opinion le that
whatever might have been the case at the beginning, these
Exchequer bonds stand now as part of the public debt, to
be paid off if you have a surplus, and it is not more favour-
able to the public service to renew them, but otherwise they
have no claims to preference. They ought to be dealt with
simply with reference to what is the best arrangement for
the public service. I won't go into the history of their
issue—(opposition cheers)—or to expectations which were
formed concerning them. It is a very simple matter. They
were issued in anticipation of *erne tax ; and I expressel
an opinion that that tax at the end of the war would be
liable to redeem them. The House of Commons, however,
did not adopt that opinion, and the matter was at an end.
It is the greatest of all errors to suppose that the good faith
of Parliament is in any way pledged to redeem them. They
are not in the hands of the public : they are simply a finan-
cial instrument passing between the Bank of England and
the Commissioners of the Natianal Debt; but if they were,
that would be no reason for saying that, because they ought
to be redeemed in the year 1862-3, the government have a
right to ask for an additional million of taxes in the year
1861-2. (Hear, hear.) lam glad the hon. member for
Honiton (Mr. Moffatt) is in his place, for I am going to
pay him the compliment of making him the hero of the
first question which I will now discuss—namely, have we
a surplus ? (Hear.) It is said that we have an interest in
making out that we have. That may be true. I admit
that it is satisfactory to e very Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to be able to dispense with imposing fresh taxes,
and to be able even to propose a partial remission of taxa-
tion, I will admit, toe, that I have a special interest in the
existence of the surplus this year. But if we have an interest
in showing that there is a surplus, there are others who
have unequal interest in showing that there is none. (Hear.)
There are the prophets of last year, and the friends of the
prophets, who are as much committed to prove the negative
as I can be to prove the affirmative; and if the opposition
will assume the duty of the Government, by all means let
them bear some of its responsibilities. (Hear.) My hon.
friend the member for Stamford endeavoured to get rid of
the matter very glibly, for he said that the whole of hi•
prophecies would have held good if the paper duty had not
been retained and the spirit duty raised. But when I re-
ferred to the " dismal crash" I flew at higher game than my
hon. friend. I had the great authorities of his party in my
mind. Thus the language of Lord Monteagle was that there
would have been a clear deficit of 11 or 12 millions, which
he sought to cure'by retaining L 700,000 or £BOO,OOO of paper
duty. (Hear.) Lord Derby was much more cautious. He
only said that therm would be a deficiency of at least
£2,700,000, and very probably much more. But that
£2,700,000 was entirely independent of any increase in the
China expenditure. The China expenditure was, however,
increased by above £3,000,000 ; but our deficit last year was
only two millions and something more, and this year there
is a surplus of two millions. (Hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE made a remark.

Mr. O'BRIEN said that if there was one feature more
than another which he admired in the progress of the de-
bate, it was the freedom and ability with which some hon.
gentlemen, who seldom ventured upon public attention,
came forward and expressed their opinions on the present
occasion. Into the question of the paper duty he should
not enter at length, because it had been frequently discussed
with ability. There was no doubt that that duty seriously
interfered with the due dissemination of knowledge. Lord
Brougham, when examined before a Committee of the
House of Commons in 1834, said that a sound system of
government required that the people should inform them-
selves of the system of legislation ; that they could only be
well informed by having recourse to useful publications;
and that the danger lay, not in the people learning too
much, but in knowing too little. (Hear.) He (Mr. O'Brien)
thought that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would do well, while repealing the paper
duty and reducing the income tax, to bear in mind that his
anticipations regarding the spirit duties in Ireland had not
been realised, that illicit distillation was on the increase in
many parts of that country, and that in some.of the large
towns great quantities of spirits were being sold at prices
1 ess than the actual revenue derived by the Exchequer. if
that were so—and he believed his information upon the
subject was substantially correct—then was it high time for
his right hon. friend to retrace his steps on the subject of
the sph it duties. -Still he believed that the right hon. gen-
tleman was carrying out in every way the principles of Sir
Robert Peel, because, while in the first place he had as-
sisted in repealing the duty on corn,' he was now leading
the way to liberate paper from taxation ; and upon that ac-
count, he for one would give the budget his cordial support.
Mr. LIDDELL said grave doubts had been thrown on
the accuracy of the surplus ; but with regard to that he
could not say anything, but he wished to refer to the pro-
mise of the harvest during the present year. It was beyond
the wildest speculation to look forward, however favourable
the season might be, to a large crop of wheat. The result
would, therefore, be a large importation of wheat, the gene-
ral effect of which was to interfere with trade. Then as re-
garded America, war was declared, and the Americans had
never conceded the right of privateering, and that might
lead to various difficulties. It seemed impossible that our
ships should escape collision with American privateers, and
that was a subject worthy of the highest consideration. He
believed that if for ene night the • ballot-box could be intro-
duced into the house, a large majority would vote in favour
of the retention of the tax. (Hear.) He trusted that an op-
portunity would be afforded to those who shared his opinion
to record them on this subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise
at the close of rather a long debate, not very much concen-
trated, but rather diffused in its purpose, to address, I am
afraid, an exhausted house—(" No, ne")—and what is worse
than all, to address them—bad under any circumstances—
in a defensive speech. I think it my duty, in the remarks
I shall have to make, to deal principally with those state-
ments which appear to me to be, of all portions of the pre-
sent discussion, the most deserving of detailed notice—l
mean those statements which impugn the particulars of the
figures which I have laid before the house. There are many
matters that have been imported into this debate which I
will venture to pass over. All that relates to myself per •
sonally, all that relates to the danger which may arise from
a conflict between a British merchant ship and an American
or other privateer, all-that relates to mere general and
vague political aspects in which the question has been re-
garded—all that I will pretermit, not because I presume
to say they are insignificant, but because I feel it my duty
to address myself to those points of the debate which
touch most directly and most practically on the matter
in hand. (Hear, hear.) At the same time I cannot help
observing for a moment on the strange constitutional
novelty in the duty which has been assumed by the Op-
position on this occasion. The Government having com-
puted the expenditure and revenue of the year ask the re-
presentatives of the people for £70,000,000 of taxes, and they
show that if all the laws which were enacted during the last
financial year should be re-enacted, the produce of those
taxes would probably amount to 72 millions, and they pro-
posed to surrender out of the surplus what in round numbers
amounts to 2 millions—they propose to surrender 11 million
in the repeal of taxes ; and strange to say, it is against this
proposal a large number of the representatives rise up in
arms. Now, sir, I must say that,' according to the doctrine
of the constitution, and according, if I may presume so to
speak in addressing gentlemen opposite, to the wisdom and
the practice of our ancestors, it is the duty of the Govern-
ment to see that not too little is asked for the public service
and it is the duty of those who oppose the Government in
particular, and of the entire House of Commons, to see that
they do not grant too much. But the fear of granting too
much has become a motive singularly operative among a
large portion of those who are opposite to me. While, on
the other hand, there appeared, by the state of nervous and
feverish expression, a fear of possibly granting too little.
Now, I must confess, without looking into the details of
this matter—without looking into the strictness of this
course—a difficulty in finding a precedent to sustain it. I
must observe that I think very little good is, under the cir-
cumstances, to be anticipated to the country from an ec -
change of duties between the Government and Opposition.
But then, sir, after the debate, I think any impartial spec-
tator cannot but notice that there is a singular want of unity
in the sentiments of those who have entered into this debate
on the opposite side of the house. The ground that most
have asserted is that there is not a surplus. If there is any
one proposition which appears to be agreed on it is that, but
there aro many most important dissentients to that proposi-
tion. The hon. member for Huntingdon has not asserted
that there is not a surplus, but he has said, in speaking of
the great estimates of the year—l mean the estimates of the
customs and excise, of those estimates which are deemed to
be the greatest sources of revenue—he said he believed if the
circumstances of the year should be ordinary circumstances,
those estimates are fair and moderate. The hon. member
for Stamford has said the same thing in substance, but he
has questioned, and he was justified in questioning, from
his position and views, certain accounts, and scrutinising
important items which 1 placed to the credit side of the ac-
count ; but those are two gentlemen, who, without dispa-
ragement to others, I may call the most considerable
financial authorities on that side of the house, and one of
whom introduced the discussion adverse to the Government
—neither of those gentlemen asserts or insinuates that
which all the rest seem to be agreed upon, namely, that
there will not be a probable surplus of revenue over ex-
penditure. But though they are not agreed on the ques-
tion of whether there will or will not be a surplus, still
there is a greater disagreement as to the mode of disposing
of it. Undoubtedly amongst a number of rival claims, the
tea duty appears to be the favourite. There are some gen-
tlemen of such large generosity, and unrestrained by the
rules of arithmetic, that they propose, in lieu of the paper
duty, to bring the tea and sugar duties to a peace levy.
(Hear.) That is to say, when it is proposed to dispose of a
fund amounting to between £600,000 and £700,000 a year,
hieir plan of good husbandry is to lay it out by making a
remission which will cost the country 2f millions. (Cries
of " No, no.") No doubt gentlemen made that proposal.
(Cries of " Name.") The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Stroud did to-night. (Hear, hear.) He asked that
the sugar duty should be placed in the position of the paper
duty. Tea, I grant, was the general favourite, but there
was a party of gentlemen for a reduction of the income
tax ; and the hon. gentleman the member for North Lin-
colnshire (Mr. B. Stanhope) made a speech which I had
great pleasure in listening to, as others, and he spoke
strongly for a remission of the income tax. The hon. mem-
ber for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) spoke as earnestly and
energetically for a remission or a diminution of the malt
tax ; and a forlorn hope was led on behalf of the distillers
of spirits by the hon. and learned member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin. 'Well, under these circumstances, perhaps
it is not wonderful that there has been a certain tardiness,
at any rate, on the part of the leaders of the powerful body
of gentlemen opposite in putting their views and sentiments
in an amendment which might be submitted to the house.
But I am bound to say, while I speak of the opinions of
those who differ from me, that more than one gentleman
on ;the opposite side have recognised the spirit in which
the proposal of the Government has been made, and
have declared their opinion that this is a fair
proposal and that they will support it. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it is very difficult for a minister who is principally re-
sponsible—it is very difficult in a debate of this kind to seem
to pay due respect to the speeches and arguments so ad-
verse as those which have marked the opposition to the
financial plan of the Government, and at the same time not
to weary the house. If I seem to omit any matter of im-
portance I trust it will be believed that it is only from my
desire not to render absolutely intolerable the trespass which
I have to make on the attention of the house. I will confine
myself therefore to the two main questions : first, is there
a surplus ; and secondly, how it should be used. But
there are certain questions to which I must briefly allude in
the first instance, because of the largeness and comprehen-
siveness of their views some gentlemen opposite have referred
to the matter as if they thought it of great importance that
the transactions of last year of a financial character, and not
at the same time immediately connected with the taxation of
last year, were an experiment. I refer particularly to my
hon. friend the member for Stamford. He referred to the
mode in which the deficiency of last year had been met.
And sir, I am bound to say he did not fall into the egregious
error which characterised the speech of the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Stroud, who, to the perfect astonishment
of all who knew anything of the matters but without the
slightest consciousness of what he was about, and in a simple
_ Walk* Witt tiifit ;nag a great ditioyory Which

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
baronet says there is a deficit of 81 millions, but the
noble lord was assuming that the income tax would be
renewed. (Cheers.) My hon. friend, therefore, is only
flinching, and flying from the question. (Cheers.) Is
it not a fact that all the organs of the opposition pro-
phesied this deficit down to the latest moment ? Is it not
a fact that, whenever we have had a financial discussion,
if any allusion was made to the possibility of there being a
surplus a titter ran through the opposition benches f The
right hon. and learned member for Dublin University asked
me what was a budget. The simplest explanation would
be that it was an estimate of income and expenditure ; but
for many reasons it may be a very serious grievance and
disappointment. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Honiton has summed up all that would he safe in matters of
detail against the surplus, and certainly he has performed
his work with zeal. Nothing was too great or too small for
his examination, so that he reminded me of a nation which
was said to work with the strength of giants, but at the
same time with the fine handling of jewellers. Sometimes
taunting me on the item of paper, on which he says I shall
get no income. Then he goes to China, where he insists I
shall receive no indemnity, and then follows me into the
smallest nooks and crannies, and.trying to catch me out on
such small matters as £15,000. To begin with the small
items first, I would remind him that he took all his com-
parisons from the original statement that was laid before
Parliament by mo on the 10th of February, and made no
allowances for the deductions that were subsequently made.
The fact is, that the yield has been nearly what was to have
been expected according to the reduced estimate. I esti-
mated dock warrants at £lOO,OOO. My hon. friend says they
produced only £12,000, and that contract notes and other
items estimated at £BO,OOO produced only a few thousands.
True, but he should remember that very early objection was
taken to the contract notes, and they were abandoned before
the discussion was over. I trust that now we are in for the
discussion of this question of surplus. I trust that the house
will forgive me if I attempt to exhaust it. My hon. friend
assailed me on the question of chicory, saying that whereas
I anticipated a duty of £90,000, the product was only
£22,000. Now the reason of that was that the trade of chicory
being iu pry fo hasls, it was quite impossible t 9 wertaia

the exact amount of the duty paid stock, and this being
really large the consequence was that scarcely any duty
was paid for 12 months. In point of fact, we are now start-
ing afresh. For 12 months tho duty paid was only £2,875,
whercas.fer two months this year it has made £9,365, and
if it continues at that rate it will make an annual reve-
ille of £56,000, which would be more than 1 estimated.
(Cheers.) But at the same time I must tell my hon. friend
that ii would be impossible to get exactitude in minute
items ; what I rely upon are the general results. My hon.
friend alluded to another subject—namely, the customs
duty on paper, and complained that I had debited myself
with only £15,000. Now, the duty received the last quarter
on paper was £14,000, consequently I took £56,000 for the
year, and debited myself with £15,000. I cheered when nay
hon. friend approached this subject, but it was a friendly
cheer, something like the warning one would give to a friend
if he saw him going on very dangerous ice. (A laugh.) It
is perfectly true that in the last two quarters we received
£26,000 customs duty on paper, and in the two first £14,000,
the last being open trade and the two first under the old
system. I say that what I did was entirely just. I had two
quarters open trade which yielded £26,000, and two close
giving £14,000, and therefore I was fully justified in making
an estimate of between £lO,OOO and £50,000. We are, in
fact, now receiving the duty at the rate of £lO,OOO or
£50,000. These, however, seem small matters. My hon.
friend went also to the great heads of revenue, and attacked
my surplus of £1,923,000. My hon. friend boldly grappled
with it. In my customs he questions £300,000 ; inland,
£300,000 ; China he strikes out, which is £700,000; the paper
duty he says we shall not get, and from the whole he makes
£1,950,000, so that instead of a surplus he hands me a defi-
ciency of £23,000._

Mr. MOFFATT said that what he had stated was
£1,200,000 certain to be had, and £700,000 doubtful.

The 'CHANCELLOR of the EXCITE QUER—With re-
spect to the £600,000 excise on paper, the hon. member said
that, the trade would stagnate, and that nothing would be
received. If my hon. friend had an intimate knowledge of
the working of the trade and the working of the drawback
on paper, he would not have made this calculation. By the
way, is it not odd that last year, when the duty was to be
repealed on August 15, there was no alarm, and this year
there is none when it does not cease until the 15th Oct.?
The truth is that by means of the drawback taken in con.
junction with the nature of the trade, You can scarcely
mark, if not completely, the full activity until the very
moment of cessation. It is now only April, and £200,000
out of the £600,000 has been received. (Cheers.) The
China indemnity is £750,000. My hon. friend says it will
be nothing. Now, in my original statement, I took a mil-
lion for China, besides half a million more on the naval and
military estimates. That was a large expenditure for China
to be supplied from the taxes of the people, and yet I am
told that when asking that sum I ought to have kept back
the question of how much we were to receive in the way'of
indemnity. My hon. friend says that the merchants must
be paid first, but to that I demur—that is not the view ef
the Government. If the property of the merchants had been
taken for military purposes their claims would have stood
in a different position, but if they have suffered losses from
the Chinese, whilst the people of England have contributed
five or six millions to the war to protect these merchants,
the view of the Government is that the people of England
should be considered, and that the payment should be made
pro rota. The sums were distinguished in the treaty—six
millions of taels for the war, two millions for the merchants,
which, after the deduction for the families of those who
have suffered, would leave £950,000. Even if we gave the
merchants £650,000, there would remain £300,000; different,
it is true, from what I anticipated, but very different also
from my honourable friend's exaggerated statements.
This would be about £250,000, leaving to the Government
about £750,000. That is the basis of the calculation. With.
regard to the £960,000, I am told by the hon. member for
Horsham that he has looked into the customs receipts for
1858, and that he finds them not to amount to so much as
we have estimated, overlooking the trifling difference that
there are new ports to be added to the old ports, and that
that was a year of war, whereas those arc times of peace. I
can only say that I greatly prefer the reports of the British
and French ambassadors, who made their calculations on
the spot in the expectation that these payments will be
made in the course of four years, Ido not deny it is
quite possible that we may fall short of the estimate by
£lOO,OOO, but it is just as possible that we may exceed it.
All I can say is, that there are plans which have been sug-
gested, and certainly, if they are feasible, may be advan-
tageously adopted, of anticipating all these payments by
means of an arrangement with the merchants, and thereby
shortening the terms of the occupation. I only refer to that.
part of the subject because these are matters which do not
admit of precise statement, and lam bound to say that I
think it possible that on the one hand we may fall short of
the sum of £750,000, and I am likewise justified in say-
ing that it is at least as likely that we shall fall short on the
other side in the very large sum of a million. I have asked
the House of Commons to provide for meeting the expen-
diture. Then my hon. friend swept away two items of
£1,350,000. lie went to the inland revenue, and he says,
" I question £300,000 on account of the probable diminu-
tion of the income tax." Now, lam a little surprised at
that statement of my hon. friend, but I am not at all sorry
that he has given me the opportunity of referring to the
matter. I only wish I could have placed my hon. friend
on the outside of the Glass Bee Hive, and in the inside,
that he might have the opportunity of seeing the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer and those he had to consult, and nf
hearing everything that passed with regard to this matter,
because if I have an interest in making a surplus there are
others—not my hon. friend—who have an interest in we
making them, and I am subject to the advice and expe-
rience of most experienced servants of the Crown, and
never was the Crown better served than in the offices to
which I refer ; and great indeed would be the responsibi-
lity of that Chancellor of the Exchequer who for any poll-
..
. .

tical object, Cor for any object whatever, would place his
opinion in opposition to theirs. Never but on one occa-
sion did I propose:to the house an estimate which had not
their sanction, and that was a very peculiar case. It was on the
imposition of the income tax on incomes of between £lOO
and £l5O a year. They estimated the produce at £210,000.
I thought that too low, and I placed it at £250,000. It pro-
duced between £300,000 and £IOO,OOO. That is the diffe-
rence between those who make and those who unmake sur-
pluses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be wild,
precipitate, profligate--for that is the word—but he cannot,
except in concurrence with those gentlemen, make these
estimates, or else if he departs from them he departs from
them incurring a responsibility that no finance minister I
ever heard of would willingly incur. If I could give my
hon. friend information of what takes place in the private
rooms of ministers it would be better information than the
agreeable gossip retailed by my hon. friend to-night in the
House of Commons, as an authentic account of conversa-
tions and discussions in the Cabinet. (Hear.) With regard
to the income tax it is a tax that may be said to be in the
course of varying, but still not very irregular and progres-
sive increase. My hon. friend thinks that last year was a
bad year for importers, and that therefore in all probability
the income tax for this year will yield less by £300,000 than
I calculated upon. Schedules A and B are progressive.
Schedule D dose not depend entirely on importers, but on
the whole mass of trades, professions, and dealings of every
kind in this country ; and so far from admitting that She-
dule D is likely to present a diminution, I think there is
every probability—nay, except in extreme circumstances, I
venture to say there is a certainty—it will present a con-
siderable increase. Schedule D in 1860 was put on the basis
of an assessment, beginning with the year commencing
April 1855-6, and ending in the year 1857-8. That is to
say, it was on the average of three years-1855-6, a year of
war ; 1856-7, a year of war expenditure ; and 1157-8, a year
of great commercial crisis. This year we shall drop two of
these years. We shall take in 1858, a most flourishing
year—l beg pardon, we shall drop the whole three. Our old
assessment was from April, 1856, to April, 1859. This will
be from April 1858 to April, 1861. We shall take in 1859-

60, a most flourishing year for trade, and we shall take in
1860-61, which, although it might have- been a bad year for

commerce, was on the whole a year of great trade and business.

There is no doubt from the progress of the duty that
the assessment of the year will cause a considerable increase
in the tax. I asked the Chairman of the Board of Inland
Revenue whether he had allowed for the increase in schedule
D that was to take place in the new assessment. He said,
"No." I said, "'Why, did you not expect it ?" Tea, he
had expected it. " Then, why was it not allowed ?" " Oh,"
said he, " if there was a war in America, and a war in
Europe, and tin universal revolution, there might be a fall-
ing off." Now, that is the extreme of caution with which
the estimates have been framed. (Hear.) My hon. friend
adverted to the Customs receipts.% He brought under notice
a sum of I think £300,000 for revenue from corn. He mis-
stated it, because the revenue from corn is £360,000. Now,
I hope my right hon. friend is right, and that we shall lose
the revenue from corn. Why, if we lose the revenue from
corn, there is not a pound that we thus lose that we shall
not get £2 or £3 for in another shape. But the custom,
revenue was questioned by another gentleman. I admit
that when we look at the customs revenue we have come
through a bad year. The spirit duty is £200,000 or £300,00(1
more than in the past year. The main reason for the
dif-
ference is the increased duty on foreign spirits
was
nthone
only in
year
that has just expired, but the increased duty
operation for a part of the year, whereas it will now
bey
operation for the whole year. The bon. member for Ii iunn-
tingdon was facetious even on the subject of the
.y l
remarks I
daan
made, perhaps in excess of anxiety, about Good F
Easter Sunday, and he said that taxable articles
con-
sumed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday just
were Friday
as much as
on other days. But I tell my honourable friend that he has
entirely misunderstood the etatement, he statement
was
a
was this, that the last days of the financial l
year
days on which business was suspended,
and the conse-
quence was not that there Was nothinr, consumed on tho3e
m
days, but that what was brought into the countrY on those
days was not taken for constion
tahmeonGg I put a'question to.IOY
laostsheßree.e
ll
the v
chairman of customs on the
and we pdiscu. Well, I went into
discussed this question
i),
honourable friend
might add subject,
and he said we
£IOO,OOO to the estiniated revenue on that score.
And as a criticism on the remarks of my hon. friend the
member for Huntingdon, I may state that I hold in my
hand a return showing the receipt from customs for 2S
days from the Ist of April,
1860, and for 27 days frothlet
of April, 1861,
and the 27 days of 1861 yielded more to re..
Vemie by £114,009 than Cll4 tIN 26 Claye Of 1600. (liet4o

Now, these are minute statements, and I think 1 need not
carry them further. But in closing this part of the subject
I will observe that it is not the business of the Cherie°llor
of the Exchequer to frame his estimates with reference to
extraordinary circumstances. He is bound to frame the
estimates in accordance with the circumstances in which he
stands. It would have been wrong if the estimates of last
year had been so framed as to meet a harvest unequalled in
its badness for the last half century. The estimate that I
now present is an estimate based on the expectation of an
ordinary season ; and I venture to say that, founded on that
ex4etation, it is the fifth time that it has been my duty to
present estimates of this nature to the House of Commons;
and I never presented them with a stronger conviction, if
we have anything like ordinary circumstances, that they are
more likely to be followed by an excess of revenue as com-
pared with the estimates. (Cheers.) There remains one other
quest ion which this is not the time to discuss, and that is
the pa: er duty. There will be a great many opportunities
when this subject may be discussed in committee, when the
whole question may be discussed in its economical and social
bearings. It is commonly assumed that the paper duty is a
constantly increasing duty. I do not think that the increase
in the paper duty up to the last year was at all remarkable,
when we consider the vast expansion of the general trade
of the country which has taken place in the last 20 years.
The paper duty is not now, therefore, an increasing one. In
1859 it was £1,142,000, in 1860 it was £1,291,000, and in
1801 it produced £1,305,000. Whether it be from the in-
fluence of foreign competition, or whether from the paralysis
occasioned by the votes and proceedings in this house, I
cannot say, but the paper luty has lost its spring and elas-
ticity, and I doubt very much whether any effort of ours
will ever restore it. (Hear.) It is complained that there is a
very scanty surplus, and at the same time it is said that we
ought not to be so improvident as to abolish the duty on
paper, which costs £600,000. but we are to redace the duty
,000. It has been assumed that
on tea, which will cost £BOO
whatever we give „way in the matter of tea will reach the
consumer, but what we give away in the matter of paper is
certain not to reach the consumer. (Hear, hear.) but how
does this matter stand ? While the price of tea is 2s. Bd. a
pound, you are to be persuaded to make a remission of 3d.,
which will be about 91 per cent. The value of paper is from
3d. to ls. per lb., and striking an average the value isabout
Gl. The duty which it is proposed to remit on , paper is one
penny halfpenny per lb. or 25 per cent., and it is well known
that when youremit a duty of 25 per cent. on the value of an
article you are more likely to confer an advantage in a
commercial point of view, and one which is likely to reach