The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

importance of such a reduction, and as a question of popu-
larity and his own ease uo man in the house is so interested
in effecting a reduction of expenditure as a Minister. But
I know no panty in the house that at this moment would
recommend any great reduction in our military expenditure.
Then, in dealing with a remission of taxation we have to
consider whether it is wiser to reduce a duty on an ai tick
of general consumption cr repeal a duty of Excise. In one
case, if an emergency should arise, you can again appeal to
the same source of revenue; in the other case, you can only
substitute an equal amount of direct taxation. Now, this is
a grave question ; it is not to be met by light arguments, or
stifled by taunts from the Ministerial bench. (Cheers.) It
is said we are precluded from offering any opposition to the
measure of the Government, because the house has come to
a resolution on the subject. No one is more ready to regard
a resolution of the House of Commons with sincere respect
and deference than myself. It is, at the same time, unwise
and indiscreet to mistake the character of a resolution of
either House of Parliament. A resolution of either house
—and especially of the House of Commons—is an expression
of opinion, and nothing more. Though it is an expression
of the opinion of an assembly well entitled to confidence,
yet like the expression of the opinion of an individual, it is
subject to the inexorable conditions of time, circumstances,
and maturity of thought. If time, if changes of circum-
stances, and mature reflection affect the opinion of indivis
duals, so time, circumstances, and thought will influence
and change the opinion expressed by a resolution of the
House of Commons. (Hear.) And it is unwise on the part
of the house to strain too much the character and influence
of its resolutions. We have seen within these few years—
I might almost say within a few months—the Sovereign
recommend from the Throne an important policy to the
house, and both houses passed addresses thanking her Ma-
jesty for that recommendation, and pledging themselves to
consider the measures necessary to carry that policy into
effect. Have not those measures been brought forward by
the Ministers, and have they not also been withdrawn by
the Ministers ? (Cheers.) And who blames them ?
(Cheers.) They were withdrawn because it was ascertained
that the general opinion disapproved that policy. After an
instance like this, on a question so important as the
distribution of the political power of the State, it is too
much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues
—it is too much for the men who felt justified, and, as I
think, were fully justified, in neglecting a pledge of such im-
portance—to rest the chief defence of the policy theyare now
bringing forward upon a hesitating resolution, passed in a
languid House of Commons. (Cheers.) I can therefore
offer a sincere opposition to the clause before us. (Hear,
hear.) In doing so I do not think it necessary to vindicate
myself and those I act with because we take this opportu-
nity of testing the opinion of the house on this subject.
Throughout the discussion of these measures, it has been
my most anxious desire, while wishing to consult the con-
venience of the Government as much as possible, to reserve
our right to oppose the measures of the Ministry. On every
occasion I have reserved that right; and I have done more
than it was necessary to do. I have repeated our intention
to oppose that policy; and I believe the occasion we have
have taken to oppose it is a legitimate one. I do not wish
that course to be mistaken. There may be hon. gentlemen
who feel themselves justified in opposing the clause repeal-
ing the Paper Duty because they have no confidence in the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. 1 do not recede
from the ground I first took on the question, and I pursue
a course that is perfectly consistent. I am not prepared,by
rejecting the clause, to place Ways end Means in the hands
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which he avows he
has no use. I oppose the clause that we may pursue the
policy we think advantageous to the country; that when
called on to remit a certain amount of taxation we should
remit war taxes in preference to any others, and maintain
our faith with the great body of the people. I do so upon
high political as well as upon commercial and fiscal consi-
derations, and my purpose therefore cannot be mistaken. I
wish, if I possibly can, to carry into effect the financial
policy which was enunciated in 1858, which was then
adopted unanimousls by the house, and which was sanc-
tioned and supported by the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. (Hear, hear.) I wish to terminate, if possible,
and at all events to take every opportunity of reducing, the
income-tax, because I think its reduction, and, if possible,
its abolition, would add materially to the power of this coun-
try, totally irrespective of the great relief which would thus
be given to important classes. (Cheers.) But I acknowledge
at the same time that the claims of war duties which take
the form of indirect taxation are of so weighty a cha-
racter that they must in some degree divert us from the
great policy then recommended. I say, then, reaffirming
thepolicy which inlBsB wa s supported by an unanimous Par-
liament, that the first object which a Minister should have
in view in the reduction of taxation is the income-tax and
the war duties on tea and sugar; and when the hon. and
learned gentleman talks about this sleepy resolution come
to by the House of Commons upon the paper duty, can he
forget what, perhaps, it is convenient to forget, that the
house arrived at that conclusion a few days only after they
had unanimously affirmed the policy of reducing the war
duties on tea and sugar in preference to all others? It is to
that policy I refer, and it is that policy which I am now
attempting to vindicate and strengthen in the course which
I am recommending. (Hear, hear.) I maintain that there
has been no other course for the house to pursue than the
one they are now debating. Hon. members who, 'perhaps,
do not even trouble themselves to read the bill have said to
me, " Why, the clauses upon tea and sugar are passed."
But when they read the bill they will find that if they wish
to renew the struggle for the reduction of the tea and sugar
duties—if they wish to originate an effort for the reduction
of the sugar duty —that opportunity, instead of having
passed, has not arrived. (Hear, hear.) All you have done
by passing the second clause is to agree to renew the tea and
sugar duties, but the rates at which you will renew them
mast be settled at a period subsequent to the clause which
we are now considering, and it is only when you come to
the schedule in the bill that you really can ask the opinion
of the house upon the question. (Hear.) This clause,
then, is an obstacle to the policy which I am recommend-
ing, and unless we can induce the house to reject the clause
they cannot act on the rule, which ought never to be de-
parted from, namely, that in all remissions of taxation war
duties should have the preference. It may be expedient to
ask the opinion of the house again upon the question of re-
ducing the tea duties, provided this clause is rejected. That
is a grave question, but, following the course of Parliamen-
tary procedure, I think there has never been an instance yet
known where, after a great struggle on a question of taxa-
tion and after an important tax has been passed in one stage
by so slight a majority in so full a house, there has not been
a renewed effort to effect the purpose of the minority.
(Hear.) That is a question entirely for future discussion.
But there are some who object to this course. There are
gentlemen who say, "We entirely agree with the principle
of the budget of 1858, that we ought to remit war duties,
but then the opinion of the house has been taken upon tea,
dounot
ou tp
and that opinion ought to be definitive." But there are
other
boonentet whicherof
tog
reduceyoure a t have
th teo
importance
wd
ae
rc i d
?e
duty
Is it
on
th
sne
uogt waraa
y warn dutiesgaort
do r
most legitimate and proper subject of discussion whether
we ut
should n
rather than remit the paper duty ? (Hear, hear.) These are
questions which I have no doubt will be brought before the
house if the opportunity be given, but no opportunity can
be given till this clause is rejected. (Hear, hear.) When,
therefore, we
are charged with merely opposing the remis-
sion of a tax in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
may be embarrassed with ways and means for which he
has no use, I say there is no foundation for the charge, and
that we are acting now for a distinct object, which is to
establish and preserve the financial policy which we have
always upheld. (Cheers.) There is one subject to which I
would not have adverted had it not most unnecessarily been
imported into the debate by the hon. and learned gentle-
man, who, I apprehend, although he is not sitting on the
Treasury bench, represents the opinions of the Government
upon this matter. The questions before us are of so grave a
nature—they are questions which touch so nearly the inte-
rests of all classes in this country, and which may exert
hereafter such an influence upon the social condition of the
people, the principle upon which the taxation of the coun-
try is established being really the gravest question which
can be brought before the house—that, but for the remarks
of the hon. and learned gentleman, I should have
thought it unnecessary to mention this subject to
the committee, who have to-night a great duty to
perform, and who, I am sure, will discharge it with a
full sense of its importance. -Whatever might be the ru-
mours I had heard in lobbies and in ante-chambers—
(laughter)—l did not think that from an hon. and learned
gentleman who had moved the adjournment of the house,
and who therefore spoke with all the advantage of due de-
liberation, we should have had insinuations founded upon
snch miserable topics as he has introduced, as though the
opinion of the house and the conduct of a great party were
to be influenced by such considerations. (Cheers.) I under-
stand from the hon. and learned gentleman that in his
opinion this motion has been brought forward in conse-
quence of a Ministerial squabble upon some subject.
(Cheers and laughter.) That is the statement which the
hon. and learned gentleman after mature deliberation thinks
he is justified in making. All I can say is that our deter-
mination to take the opinion of the house upon the policy
of the Government was announced weeks before this rumour
reached us. (Cheers.) Nor do I know that it was possible
for us to have asked the opinion of the house respecting
that policy on an earlier or a more convenient issue than
that now before us. I hope that the great party with which
I have the honour to be connected are as sensible of the re-
sponsibility of their position as those who sit opposite them,
but nevertheless we are charged with being influenced by
those undignified considerations, and with taking a course
actuated by wholly unworthy motives. I find statements
made of my having had interviews with individuals deeply
interested in these enterprises, and of my having promised
them the support of the gentlemen who honour me with
their confidence. Sir, I have had no interview with anyone.
(Hear.) It is an impudent fabrication—(hear)—and I am
bound to say, with regard to a most respectable gentleman
whose name has been mixed up with mine in these reports,
that he, unsolicited, stated to me in the most solemn man-
ner that befitted a gentleman of ' his sacred calling, that he
had neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned such reports,
and that he had seen them with indignation. (Hear, hear.)
I know nothing of this question. When the papers respect-
ing it are placed before the house I shall read them, as sub.
jects of this kind deserve to be read, in a perfectly impartial
spirit, and, notwith4taudiug the insinuations ?ad charm

P which have been made, I shall decide upon them in the
same spirit, with a due regard t-) the just claims of Ireland
and to the general welfare of the country. (Cheers.) I hope
I have now placed before the committee my views as to the
clear issue before us. It is one of no mean importance. It
involves in the policy whichyou pursue the question whether
you will maintain good faith with the public, who, in a
moment of generous confidence, trusted and supported you.
It involves another question of scarcely less importance—
namely, whether you will pursue a financial policy which,
in my opinion, will render it inevitable to substitute for in-
direct taxation an equal amount of direct taxation, thereby
disturbing what is already in danger,—that true balance be-
tween the two great sources of supply which should always
be maintained. With these views, and feeling that the
committee to-night will decide upon these great questions
alone, and not upon subjects which have been so improperly
mixed up with them, I shall certainly oppose the insertion
of the clause now in question. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, before I enter on that which is
the immediate question before the house I feel bound to
advert to the last of the topics to which the right hon. gen.
tleman the member for Buckinghamshire has referred, and
upon which I do not enter for the purpose of making any
charge against the right hon. gentleman. I make no charge
whatever against him, because I have heard from common
rumour what I have no doubt is true—namely, that after
the last division on the subject of the Paper Duty the right
hon. gentleman said the majority was so scanty that he should
probably en some future occasion again take the sense of
the house on the question. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I
make no charge against him of bringing forward this ques-
tion for the purpose of obtaining the support of a certain

number of gentlemen who, it appears, are discontented with
a recent decision of the Government with regard to a local
matter. (Hear, hear.) But, Sir, it is necessary to vindi-
cate the honour of the Government to which I belong.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that my noble friend at the head of
the Government and the whole of the Cabinet stand per-
fectly free from imputation on this subject—(cheers)—but
imputations have been made. (Hear.) Those imputations
have been referred to in a newspaper which is universally
read, and therefore they cannot and ought not to be passed
over. (Hear.) Sir, the decision of the Government on this
subject was made and communicated to the parties interes-
ted ; and my noble friend at the head of the Government
was asked by a person who seemed entitled to put the ques-

tion whether he would receive a deputation of Trish mem-
bers with reference to this matter on Monday morning last,
the day on which the proposition for the repeal of the paper
duty was to be brought forward in committee. My noble
friend absolutely refused to receive that deputation. (Hear.)
My noble friend saw at once what imputations, what mis-
conceptions, what false accusations might arise from the
deputation, though nominally on the subject of the Galway
Contract, and he absolutely refused to receive it. (Cheers.)
The company on whose behalf the reception of the deputa-

lion was sought -have since made a long representation with
regard to their case. That representation will be answered
by the Postmaster-General or his Secretary, and the com-
munication will be laid before this house; but as to the
imputation that the Government intend to pospone for six
months their decision on the question, wit* view of giving
the sum of £36,000, which has been mentioned, for the per-
formance of the postal service for six months, that imputa-
tion is totally devoid of foundation. (Loud cheering.) I
at once repudiate it as a calumny on the character of the
Government. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, in respect to an-
other question, with regard to which my noble friend was
asked a question before this debate was resumed this even-
ing, I have this observation to make—that, supposing this
contract to be at an end, and it was considered that there
ought to be a communication with America from the
nearest point of the United Kingdom, it would evidently
be unjust to Ireland to say that the question was to be
summarily concluded without a consideration of all the
circumstances affecting the case—affecting the public money,
affecting the trade of the country, and affecting the
convenience of the transport of the mails to America ; but
that is a totally different question from the question of the
Galway Contract, on which the Government will act coolly
and deliberately. (Hear.) And, sir, with reference to the
matter of the Galway Contract, 1 say that rather than the
Government should make any concession on that question
in order to obtain votes to-night, it would be better that ten
Ministries should be defeated. (Great cheering.) It would
be better that ten Ministries should be defeated and that
the House of Commons should be ten times dissolved than
that such a stain should be cast on the Government of this
country. (Renewed cheering.) And when I say that it is
better that ten Ministries should be defeated, and the
House of Commons ten times dissolved, that is'a conse-
quence that would not be avoided ; on the contrary, it is a
consequence that would be brought on, if any Government
in this country were to act in so profligate a manner, be-
cause it is not to be supposed that this is a question in
which one part only of the United Kingdom is interested.
(Hear.) Galway contracts might spring-up in other parts
of the kingdom, and if any 10 or 20 gentlemen in the di-
vided state of the house, or of the great parties which are
represented hero, found that they had defeated one Minis-
try by this means, the new Ministry would soon experience
a similar attempt to make them stoop to this degradation;
they in their turn would be defeated, and would be obliged
to resort to a dissolution. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say,
that whether we regard the honour and character of the
Government, or whether we look to the general advantage
of the country, it is quite impossible that any proposals on
this subject can be looked to with a view to any division in
this house. (Cheers.) Sir, I repeat again, that 1 make no
imputation, no charge against the right hon. gentleman, or
against the great party to which he belongs—(hear, hear)
—but at the same time I think it is matter for tht mem-
bers of that great party how far they should give any coun-
tenance or favour to—how far they should support even in-
directly—any attempt, such as that to which allusion has
been made, to force the Government into an opinion
contrary to their convictions. (Hear, hear.) That, how-
ever, is a matter which I leave entirely to their own sense
of the public interests, and their own sense of that honour
which belongs to all public men. (Hear, hear.) I proceed
now to the general question raised in this debate, and upon
which the right hon. gentleman has thrown an entirely new ,
light. I confess that on Monday evening I thought we were
discussing the question whether, there being no surplus,
the House of Commons might not very well refuse to repeal
the paper duty, and thereby enrich the public Treasury. It
appears, however, that the right hon. gentleman thinks
that there certainly is a surplus, but that there might be
some other way of disposing of it besides repealing the
paper duty. When my noble friend and my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of a
waste of public time, it was not of the time occupied in dis-
cussing the great measure of my right hon. friend. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to the house his
views with respect to the finances of the country; he has
made elaborate calculations; he has stated to the house
what were the results of last year and what were his expec-
tations for next, and I think it became gentlemen who have
been in the service of the Crown, and more especially those
who have been connected with the finances of the country,
to consider the proposal of my right hon. friend. They might
have said, " You are very imprudent ; you have no surplus,
and you ought not to reduce the revenue of the country to
such an extent as you propose." That was one point. They
might, on the other hand, have said, "That there is a con-
siderable surplus has been proved to us, but your applica-
tion of it is unwise. We have a plan for a better
application of it, and we will propose it to the house."
Either of these courses would have been not only constitu-
tional, but perfectly proper; but what they have done is
this—for three nights they have discussed the question
whether there was a surplus or not, without coming to
any decision, evidently trying to catch what was the
opinion of the house as expressed in a vague and
desultory discussion. At last they came to the de-
cision that there was a surplus, and then they
said that the surplus ought to be applied to a reduction
of the tea duty. lam the last person who ought to find
fault with that proposition. It gave rise to a benevolent
struggle between two parties, the one endeavouring to re-
lieve the industry of the nation by removing a tax on an
article extensively manufactured in the United Kingdom,
and the other trying to obtain at a cheaper rate one of the
luxuries of the poor people of this country. When this
question was discussed and decided one would have thought
that it was nearly time to come to a final resolution as to

the manner in which the surplus was *to be appropriated ;
but no ; another question was raised ; and let me refer to
the manner in which it has been treated, for it is one of
great importance. The House of Lords having interposed
in an unusual manner, and rejected a bill sent up by this
house by which the industry of the country was to be re-
lieved from one of its burdens,we submitted it would bo wise
this year to consider in one bill the whole of the financial
measures proposed by the Government, and to send them
up to the other house in that shape. Well, hon. gentlemen
have said that this is not a fair proceeding towards the
House of Lords; that it interferes with the privileges of
that house ; and that this was not the manner in which our
propositions ought to have been made ; although the au-
thority of my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle,
that of the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and that of my right hon. friend the
member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote),
were in favour of the view taken by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. Nay, the right hon. gentleman himself last year said
that it was advisable that all the financial propositions should
be put into one bill. The question, however, was stillopen

for discussion, and the hon. member for North Warwick-
shire, with that honest directness of purpose which always
distinguished his conduct in this house—(hear)—deter-
mined to bring the question to an issue, and proposed that it
should be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill,
so that each tax should be embodied in a separate bill.
Nothing could be a clearer or a fairer mode of bringing the
question to an issue; but, instead of supporting it, the right
hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, who is one of
those who set up for us an entirely new Constitution, and
who proposed that the Loz ds should exercise a power:which
they have never exercised in the whole of our history, gave
some very good reasons why the motion should not be
entertained ; and when it came to a division those who
were to defend the privileges of the House of Lords against
our aggressions slunk out of the house—(cheers)—and the
hon. member for North Warwickshire was left with
only 34 members. One would have thought that there would
haae been an end of the constitutional question then, and
that those who did not Tentnre to support their opinion by

their votes, who had shrunk from a decision by which they
might have been committed to 'an opinion—would never

mention the constitutional question again. But n 4; we
had no sooner got into the discussion on the Paper Duty
than up jumped the constitutional question again—(hear,
hear)—and we were told again that we were going to insult
the House of Lords. I must ask for one of two things—
either let gentlemen bring the question to a decision in any
form which they may think best, or let them refrain from
taunting the majority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen-
tleman opposite has alluded to the times when almost all
property belonged to the barons, and when what he called
an oligarchy established a Government in 1688. But in
those times, when the barons were so powerful, they yielded
to the House of Commons on this subject, and, though
frequent attempts were made to obtain a control over the
taxes, yet on various occasions when it came to a contest
they yielded to the privileges of the House of Commons.
And, as for this oligarchy, they submitted to a tack to a
money bill rather than not allow the privileges of the House
of Commons. How, then, can any one believe that at this
time of our Constitution wo should introduce new practices,
that we should ask the House of Lords to be our partners in
the financial scheme of the year ? But be it observed in this

case that gentlemen like the hon. member for the West
Riding, who have been so tender of the honour:of the House
of Lords, have asked for that house something which they
never asked for themselves. (Hear.) What they did last
year—unwisely, I think, but still it was a question for their
own discretion—was this :—A bill was sent up to them
which they had a right to reject, and they said, " You are
engaged in a war with China which may be extraordinarily
costly, and you ought not to part therefore with any means
by which this cost may be met," and they refused on that
ground to sanction the repeal of the Paper Duty. (Hear,
hear.) There is no such case at present. For what I
know, and for what anybody knows, the House of Lords
may be as much agreed that the Paper Duty should be
repealed as the Government themselves. But hon. gentle..
men say—and reallyl was astonished when I heard the lan-
guage of the hon. memlret for the West Riding the other
night—the Lords may have an objection to repeal the
tax; they had an objection last year, and though that was
an exceptional case, and circumstances have since altered,
yet they may object again to repeal the paper duty, and we
must approach them, therefore, in such a way that it will
be no humiliation to them to agree to that repeal. (Hear.)
I can conceive the House of Lords saying that though last
year, when there was a China war, they did not think it
prudent to part with this tax, yet this year, as there was
no war, they would cheerfully give their consent to its re-
peal. I can understand that being the language of the
House of Lords, but whether it is or not, I submit to the
house that their ancient privileges oblige them to consider
what taxes shall be remitted and what kept on without any
reference to the previous consent of the House of Lords.
(Hear, hear.) It would be an utter absurdity to say that
the House of Lords shall be judges as to the amount of
taxes, and to say that they shall not be judges of the
amount of expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Every year we
send up to them an Appropriation Act, containing the
whole of your army, navy, and civil service expenditure,
in one bill, which they must take in a lump or reject in a
lump. (Hear, hear.) If you say that every tax is to go up
in a separate measure, then every branch of the expenditure
must go up in a separate bill. (Hear, hear.) For all we
know there might be branches of the expenditure which the
House of Lords did not approve, and you would then get
your financial arrangements into a state of utter confusion,
and the present admirable provisions of our constitution
would be totally nullified by this attempt to make a new
constitution. (Hear, hear.) Having disposed of this con-
stitutional question by 190 to 34—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Horsman)—when it was brought forward in a constitu-
tional manner—because I say larding a speech about the
impropriety of repealing the paper duty and the state of
Accerica with commentaries about the power of the House
of Lords is not the way to decid% a great question. (Hear,
hear.) The way to decide a great question is to come down
with a resolution like the hon. member for North Warwick•
shire, and take the sense of the house upon it. (Hear.)
That is what we did. We-190—affirmed the power and
privileges of the House of Commons, and those who were
against the power and privileges of the house slunk away.
(Cheers.)

Mr. HORSMAN—I voted with the majority. (Hear.)
Sir J. RAMSDEN—The noble lord does not seem to be
aware that I also voted in the majority. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Then, that makes the matter more
extraordinary still. (Hear.) Having deeply considered both
last year and this year this question of the privileges of the
House of Commons and the power of the House of Lords and
having started certain new and startling theories which they
were convinced were improvements in our old Constitution
and the views of our forefathers when this question was sub-
mitted to the house in a substantial form they actually voted
against the opinions which they had advanced. (Hear, hear.)

. ,
I come now, however, to the main question before us. Last
year the Government had to consider, having a sum at their
disposal for the relief of the taxation of the people, in what
manner that sum could be best applied ; they came to the
conclusion that the best mode would be to apply it to the
total repeal of the Paper Duty. Various motives have been
found for the Government, but I believe that the ground
on which their decision was come to was, that it would be
the remission which would give the greatest relief to the
country. If they had been of the opinion that the remission
of the tea duties or of the sugar duties was preferable, my
right hon. friend would no doubt have proposed it. The
Government decided in favour of a repeal of the Paper
Duty, and, having been defeated by the House of Lords last
year, they this year consistently ask again to have that duty
repealed as a relief to the industry of the country. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer is too well acquainted with the finances of
the country not to admit that the abolition of this tax will
be a relief to the industry of the country, and, for my own
part, I have never heard any argument which separates
this Excise duty from other Excise duties which we have
repealed. It is, perhaps, not so onerous as those on salt,
leather, candles, and soap, which were Excise duties on the
necessaries of life; but it isone which interferes with the
employment of the people, and which increases the price of
an article of very general consumption. Those appear to
me to be quite sufficient reasons for its repeal, and the argu-
ment against it is stated in a very singular manner. It is
said, in the first instance, this is a tax which does not weigh
on the people at all ; and it is said, in the next, that if we
repeal this duty we shall never be able to re-impose it. I
should say that one or the other must be true. (Hear.) If
the tax is no burden on the people, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer will be able at any future time to say, " The
State is in want of money ; the navy must be increased to
meet the contingency of war, but here is a tax which is no
burden on the people, and, therefore, we propose to lay on
lid. per pound on paper ;" and to that the House of Com-
mons will universally assent. Or I can understand a per-
son saying, " This is a tax which does so affect the industry
of the people, and the abolition of it has given so much em-
ployment, that it is impossible to ask the House of Com-
mons to re-impose it." But then the other ground must
be abandoned, and those who say that the tax can never be
re-imposed must allow that it is a great benefit to take it
off, and that the feeling of benefit would in fact be the obstacle
to its being re-imposed. (Cheers.) I have •looked to see
the general result, in a financial point of view, of 10 years'
experience of the repeal of taxes of a similar kind. In those
10 years we took off the glass duty, £624,000 ; the brick
duty, £456,000; and the soap duty, £l,l26,ooo—total,
4206,000. There were certain Excise duties put on,
amounting to £1,764,000 ; so that the amount taken off
above the amount imposed was £442,000. Therefore you
might expect that the revenue would be worse off by nearly
half a million. But what was the fact ? The whole amount
of the Excise in 1844 was £14,450,000, and the net amount
of the Excise in 1854 was £17,007,000, being an increase of
£2,557,000. (Hear, hear.) Even to the revenue the con-
sequence of taking off taxes which affect employment is to
increase the consumption of other exciseable articles, and
to increase the amount of revenue not only from the Excise
but from the Customs, upon which you could not otherwise
reckon. (Cheers.) A noble lord in the course of one of
these debates said that in France the increase of revenue
had been as much or more, although they had not taken
off any of these taxes. But those who speak like that con-
sider that the relief to the people goes for nothing. (Hear,
hear.) But it is the duty of the house always to consider
the advantage of the people, and if they can find a less
burdensome system of taxation, though it produce not a
farthing more or a farthing less, it is their duty to adopt it.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman who spoke last
said that there are othq,,taxes which we might take off with
greater advantage, and as I understood him, he seemed to
intimate that when we come to the schedules of this bill
we may take off something more from the income tax.
With regard to that, I think my right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair proposition
when he said, " a penny shall be taken off the income-tax
and the duty on paper shall be remitted. There is a direct
tax reduced, and an indirect tax abolished. There is a fair
dig ision."

Mr. DISRAELI—I did not intend to intimate that I
should move any remission of income-tax.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad to hear it. But in sup-
port of what my right hon. friend has done in taking off
part of a direct and the whole of an indirect tax, there re-
mains in my memory what happened in the year 1816, when
the Government of that day proposed a repeal of the income
tax, and we of the Opposition, who were not used to majo-
rities, obtained upon that occasion a majority. We were very
much pleased, but two days afterwards, Lord Castlereagh
came down to the House of Commons with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made a statement that the Government were going to make
another reduction. Lord Castlereagh, I find, is reported to
have said, " But when the members of the house thought
proper to relieve themselves—I do not use the expression in
any invidious sense, but because the income-tax is one which
affects more particularly the upper classes—then Ministers
found it necessary to make some change in their measures
for the relief of the people." And the change which Lord
Castlereagh proposed was a remission of £2,000,000 of the
excise duty on malt. I think it would be some reproach to
r
us in these days if we were to say we agree to the remission
of a penny of income-tax, but we refuse the remission of a
tax which more especially affects the industry and employ-
ment of the people. (Cheers.) Every body was glad to hear
in 1816 that the Government would
make a further reduc-
tint Therelytta certainly 110 surplus then but the Govern-

ment borrowed the money in cr der t 3 J it. (Hear, hear.) We
heard the other night a good deal of political considerations
upon which the argnraentwas founded—that it isveryimpru-
dent to give up this tax. But that argument comes to this, that
we ought to maintain the paper duty and not reduce the other
taxes. Those considerations are mere vague apprehensions—
apprehensions of the interruption of trade or of the disturb-
ance of that peace which this country now happily enjoys with
all the nations of the world. But if mere apprehensions are
to justify the refusal of any remission of taxation, the time
may never come to relieve the country from any existing
burden. (Hear.) I really think that the decision should
be left to the Executive Government. If the Executive Go-
vernment see that danger is near, that it will be necessary
to increase our armaments, surely they will be the first to
wish that there should be sufficient funds in order to meet
these requirements. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member
for the West Riding of Yorkshire alluded the other night
to one sulject in a tone which I was very sorry to hear used
by any one. (Hear.) My hon. friend said that " the great
Republican bubble in America had burst." For my part,
I confess that when I find that a dark and tyrannical des-
potism has been abolished. and that people are likely to en-
joy free government in its place, I rejoice. (Hear.) It is
my duty to represent her Majesty as friendly to all existing
States; but if a despotic Government fall, and the people
who have been suljected to it are likely to obtain better
and freer government, I cannot conceal that it gives me
satisfaction. But I own that I have very different feelings
when a great Republic, which has enjoyed for 70 or 80 years
institutions under which the people have been free and
happy, enters into a conflict in which that freedom and hap-
piness is placed in jeopardy. (Hear.) I must say the joy
which I felt at the overthrow of some of the despotisms of
Italy is counterbalanced by the pain which,
andle thatxperi I stillence
at
the events which have lately taken /Alice
freedom t
in American.
think, (Cheers.)that
in
latdhmisitootunhattrylwheaevnejoythinouorgehrt
the United States have ever done. I admit also that the
great founders of that Republic, wise and able men as they
were, had not the materials at hand by which they could
oinorrteropetoisoen,
oafs
rweensaorne
inabloerdtoordtooinretshnsisincotunhotry, vastshioe curbnatooauntd-
fbauortstths
notf
tthhee
Rpooppuubl al
ire whial ls. b
eene tf
owr Yemcannot
arsbe blind
i grn d o
at ot
atnhae
free State, exhibiting to the world the example of a people
in the enjoyment of wealth, happiness, and freedom, and
affording bright prospects of the progress and improvement
of mankind. (Hear.) When I reflect that the reproaches
which are cast by the States of the North upon the States
of the South, and the resistance which they have called
forth, have arisen from the accursed institution of slavery
—(hear)—l cannot but recollect also that with our great
and glorious institutions we gave them that curse, and that
ours were the hands from which they received that fatal
gift of the poisoned garment that was flung around them
from the first hour of their establishment. Therefore, Ido
not think it just or seemly that there should be among us
anything like exultation at their discord, and still less that
we should reproach them with an evil for the origin of
which we are ourselves to blame. (Hear, hear.) These are
the feelings with which I heard the remarks of my hon.
friend the other night, and I must say that I believe the
sentiments which he expressed form an exception to the
general impression in England. (Cheers.) Indeed, I think
nothing could be more honourable to our country than the
prevailing pain and grief which have been occasioned by
the prospect of that great and free people being about to
rush into arms to destroy each other's happiness and free-
dom. (Cheers.) I have few words more to say. It is neces-
sary I should assure the house that neither with regard to
America, nor with regard to any of the great European na -
tions, do I see at present any prospect that our pacific rela-
tions will be disturbed. The world, however, is in a state of
change, and far be it from me to make any prophecy that
peace will, in all the changes, be preserved. All I can say is
that as far as I know the feelings of all States towards this
country are friendly, that there are no questions pending
upon which any conflict is likely to arise, and that as far as
my humble means can promote the cause of peace and good-
will upon earth, I will exert them to that end. (Cheers.)
Sir J. RAMSDEN assured the noble lord that no word
had escaped from him that could be taken as an expression
of exultation in the recent events in America, which the
committee would remember he had spoken of sFecifically as
calamities which he most earnestly deplored. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Peacocke and Lord Dunkellin rose together, amidst
cries of" Dunkellin, Dunkellin," but Mr. Peacocke caught
the Speaker's eye, and Lord Dunkellin gave way.
Mr. PEACOCK E said that the conduct of the Opposi-
tion in first denying the surplus, and then proposing the
reduction of the tea duty, was not so inconsistent as ap-
peared at first sight. He must venture still to express
doubts as to the surplus. But assuming its existence, he
then said that the paper tax was not the ono that ought to
be selected for repeal. In case of war, the abolished tax
could not be reimposed. The reduction of the income-
tax was a boon to the upper and middle classes, but.
the Budget gave no relief to the poor. Though one hon..
member said they should have cheap band-boxes, and an-
other promised them paper clothes, he thought cheap tea
and sugar would be better appreciated by the poor.
Capt. TALBOT objected to the abolition of a permanent
source of revenue such as the paper duty, in the face of the
threatening clouds which lowered over the Continent, and
the calamitous state of things which existed in America.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that the country had now come to
the conclusion that the question was not wh ther the paper
duty should be repealed or not, but whether the present
Government should be superseded by another to be formed
by Lord Derby. Upon that point he thought there could
be no doubt on the part of the public that it would be pre-
ferable to have Lord Palmerston at the head of the Govern-
ment than the Earl of Derby, and the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London at the head of the Foreign-office
than the Earl of Malmesbury. For his part, he would give
his vote on the ground of keeping the present Government
in office. (Hear, bear.)

Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the paper makers had but
little hope of obtaining any benefit from the repeal of the
duty ; those only who would obtain any advantage from
the proposed abolition were the proprietors of the penny
newspapers. At the present time these persons were driv-
ing a flourishing trade, as was evident from the number of
competitors who were starting up among them ; but the
profits which they at present derived were not sufficient to
satisfy them, and they were anxious to obtain cheaper paper
no matter from what source it might come, so that it was
duty free. If the Opposition expressed doubts in the exist-
ence of a surplus, he thought that was not very much to be
wondered at, and he should feel it his duty to give his vote
in opposition to the proposal of the Government. (Hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY argued that the paper duty was one
which imposed considerable restrictions and inconveniences
on the paper makers ; and in support of this proposition he
referred to the numerous regulations required by the Excise,
and the numerous systems of fines and penalties which were
imposed upon the makers by the officers of the Inland Re-
venue. The hon. baronet who had last spoken had said
that the repeal of the paper duty would benefit only the
proprietors of the cheap newspapers. What, however,
were the facts of the case ? Take a penny newspaper, cir-
culating say 50,000 copies per day; the amount of benefit
which the proprietors would receive from the repeal of the
duty would be about £11,500 a year. But could any one
suppose that the whole of that sum would go into the
pockets of the proprietors ? Far from it. The competition.
which existed, and which would then no doubt be increased,
would have the effect of securing to the public a very
larger portion of this sum. The public would have the
benefit of a better sheet of paper ; and as knowledge was a
marketable article just as paper itself was, the public would
have better means of obtaining information than was the
case even at present. There would be a greater amount of
talent employed on the cheap papers, and they would have
information of greater value provided for the readers of
those papers. Of the £11,500 from which a penny news-
paper with a circulation of 60,000 would be relieved, not
more than £3,000 would go into the pockets of the while the public would have been benefited to the
amount of £8,500 a year. (Hear.) He begged of hon.
members on both sides to take the question on its merits,
and on its merits alone. (Hear, hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR thanked the noble lord opposite
(Lord J. Russell) for having vindicated the honour of both
sides of the house in the course of the speech which be had
delivered. He (Sir M. Farquhar) did not insinuate for a
single moment that the noble lord at the heal of the Go
Go-
vernment had made, or that he was about tomake,any
bar-
gain with the Irish members, but he still thought
Irish members were quite justified, if they believed it to be
for the good of Ireland, to vote for the remission
of the tea
duties instead of that of the duty on per ThelnhYat
right hon.the
in positive terms
member for Buckinghamshire deniedhad.oa
Galway—and yet the
Lion from Ireland on
the
etl
shuebhaj
melt received etihveedwaydfacol
of the Board
presidentof Trade
right. hon. gentleman the
that denial.
seemed to shake his heed at
soN said that the words of the right hon.
Mr. T. M. GIB
that he
r for
Buckingha,,,,,hire were, had had no in-
terviewmemb with Irish gentlemen on the subject.
FARQUHAR said it was splitting straws to carp
Sir M.OO language used, lie had been much surprised
at the Pre,.
on Sunday morning to marab.ounu:
see an organ in the pi:ess--a great
admirer of the noble lord (and he was a great admirer of the
noble lord himself)—state, in reference to the adjournment
of Monday night, that it was owing to the tactics of the
Conservative party.
A great deal had been. said about the
effect on the country, and what would happen if they went
He, for one, was quite ready to go to the
to the country.
country, and so were all gentlemen on his side (A• the house,
and the advance of Conservatism during the pa st 1.2 months
gave them every prospect of success. He could not believe
that on the part of the Government there was a unanimous
feeling, and he felt bound to oppose the meErsure as being
Opposed to the true interests of the country.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there waa one point with
which the majority of the house would agree, and that was,
the wish to go to the country or any where else so as to be
rid of this endless discussion. He thought that the Govern-
ment had no cause to complain of the course adopted by the
hon. member for Dorsetshire, which was something refresh-
ing after the aimless debate which had taken place . He had
been twitted for not having voted on a previous occasion,
and the hon. member who had just sat down heed quoted
certain expressions which he had used. If the quinition now
was solely a financial question he would adhere to. those ex-
pressions strictly, but the question had become owe not of a
Iwo], character, and in order to settle a ditforencei better