The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-07 00:00:00

111 E SUN, LONDON, TrEgDAY !EVENING, MAY 7, 1861,

I then ? They would be exceedingly exulting, would make
many lottd speeches, and if the opinion of the country was
against them, they would prepare a new bill with the ob-
noxious clause removed, and send it back to the House of
Lords in a penitential mood. (Opposition cheers.) On the
other hand, if public opinion did not support the House of
Lords, the House of Lords was far too prudent to resist.
However, the House of Commons ought Itself to see that
the new device of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had for
its object the withdrawing of the finances of the country
from its own revision. In old constitutional times the cus-
tom of the House of Commons had been to revise the bud-
get in every stage, but now they were confined to two, un-
less they resorted to the almost revolutionary expedient of
rejecting the budget altogether. He (Lord R. Cecil) said
that while pursuing the shadow of avenging himself on the
House of Lords, the right hon. gentleman was really
damaging himself and the House of Commons. The right
hon. gentleman said on a former evening that he could not
understand the opposition, because he had brought forward
his resolutions in a spirit of conciliation. Ho (Lord R.
Cecil) said that the right hon. gentleman was indulging in
a disastrous raid on the principles of the constitution. He
must have known that they (the opposition) opposed his
measures as they would oppose any measures that injured
the revenue and left future years destitute, but there were
special reasons for opposing his present propositions. They
had a special character—they were the purchase-money of
political support ; they were hush money thrown to the stern
watch dogs of reform, to induce them to condone the back-
sliding from former professions. All he (Lord R. Cecil)
was surprised at was that they should be satisfied with so
cheap a bribe, but they could not expect that members on
his side of the house would be satisfied with measures which
were calculated to produce such detrimental results on the
exchequer of the country.
Mr. L. GOWER contended that the gre dual abolition of
excise duties bad been received with the greatest approba-
tion by the country, but as to the constitutional question,
he did not conceive that it belonged to the present debate.
The present topic was the removal of the excise duty on
paper, which he supported because it was not only a bad but
an arbitrary tax. -He looked upon its existence as being a seri-
ous impediment to the industrial development of the country.
They had the evidence of manyhighly respectable publishers
that without this tax they could very much cheapen the
works they produced, and particularly those of a low priced
character, and he could not understand, in these days when
hen. members were encouraging the establishment of pub-
lic libraries, and doing everything to :attract the labouring
man from the public-house to the mechanics' institution.
how they could ignore this fact. There appeared to be a
general impression abroad that the chief objection in that
house to the reduction of the paper duty was the benefit it
would do to the cheap press of the country. He could
hardly believe such to be the case. It was true that it was
formerly supposed the Tory party considered the diffusion
of political knowledge would be attended with considerable
danger, but he hoped these were exploded views, although
he suspected they lingered on some portion of the benches
opposite. For his own part he thought it most desirable
the working man should be acquainted with the laws he
was bound to respect, and he believed that in this aspect
the cheap press would be of the greatest benefit. (Hear,
hear.) He had watched with great interest the establish-
ment of the cheap press throughout the country, and he had
observed with much satisfaction the entire respectability
with which it hal been conducted. (Hear, hear.) He had
never seen any attack upon morality or religion, nor any
indulgence in personalities. On the contrary, they put
forth their opinions, not by the force of abuse, but by the
force of argument ; and he must also pay a tribute to the
eminent ability which distinguished their leading articles.
The result of the abolition of this tax would be to improve
the paper on which the cheap press was printed, and he
really believed, when that was done, that every man would
be able to obtain for a penny as good a communication as
that for which he had now to pay fourpence. He felt that
all these considerations ought to weigh with hon. ?gentle-
men opposite. He must say the sympathy expressed by
them on this occasion for the poor man appeared to be some-
thing exaggerated and would not bear a very strict analy-
sis, because there could be no doubt that the remission of
the paper tax would greatly benefit every class of the com-
munity. For all the reasons he had stated he was prepared
to give this resolution his most cordial support. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK.—The varied uses to which paper
might be applied had %pen insisted on as an argument in
favour of the remission. One of those uses was alleged to
be paper pipes, but he had heard that where such pipes
had been laid down they were eaten away by rats.
(Laughter.) That fact showed that paper could not come
into such general use as had been imagined. (Hear, hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think the sup-
plementary estimates of
,last year a sufficient warning
against the proposed remission. The Chinese war, he said,
could not be anticipated. Could the right hon. gentleman
foretell what effect the American war might have on the
financial condition of this country ? If not, why dispose of
his imaginary surplus by this unnecessary remission of
the paper duties ? The opposition to the remission was
irrespective of party feeling. (Hear, hear.) He would for
that reason, at this time, :egret any decision that would
necessitate a change of Government. He had reason to
believe that, in their opposition to the resolution on the
paper duties, the majority of the Oppoeitiou were not actu-
ated by any hostile feeling against her Majesty's Govern-
ment. The surplus calculated upon by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer consisted of money borrowed and the casual
receipt of an indemnity from China. Those sources of in-
come should not be dealt with as if they were permanent or
usual sources of revenue. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bentinek)
deeply regretted that the noble lord (Palmerston) should
have given his assent to the proposal of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Would the noble lord undertake to say
that the present state of America would not involve us in
any difficulties ? Would he say there would be no deft •
ciency in the supply of cotton and tobacco ? or that there
would be no consequent distress in the manufacturing dis-
tricts ? (Hear.) From what had occurred since he last
spoke had the noble lord any grounds for altering the opinion
be then expressed ?
Lord C. HAMILTON said that the taunt used by his
hon. friend (Mr. L. Gower) in reference to the working
man's tea did not apply to his (Lord C. Hamilton's) side of
the house, for the term was used by the right hon. the
Chancellor when he was in opposition to Lord Derby's Go-
vernment, consequently the shaft directed towards the pre-
sent Opposition fell short of its intended aim. The noble
lord then said that he house ought to insist upon having
some more solid arguments in support of the Eudget from
the Government than had yet been addressed to the house.
Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer ner the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had given
that information respecting the project before the house
which hon. melhbers were entitled to. The right. hon.
gentleman (Mr. Gibson) said the data rested on by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect to his Budget had
been supplied to him from the Government departments,
and that it was not likely that these departments would
have cooked the accounts to suit the purposes of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Now he (Lord C. Hamilton)
contended that this was an effort to shirk responsibility,
which the Government had no right to resort to. The
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
also said that if the house would have a large expenditure
it must be prepared to meet that expenditure by increased
taxation. Now, that was not language that should be
addressed to the House of Commons. He hoped that
some explanations would be given on these points by the
Government, in the course of debate.
Mr. BAINES considered the Budget of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was founded in justice, and with a due
regard to the development of the industrial resources of the
country. The repeal of the paper duties would largely pro-
mote the value, importance, and circulation of that class of
publications consisting of religious, social, and literary
works—which was eagerly sought after by the working
classes ; and that was one of the great reasons why he
supported this branch of the Chancellor's budget. He stated
on a former occasion the great number of cheap publications
which were now issued, and he believed they would be ma-
terially increased by the present measure. Take the Holy
Scriptures. There was a drawback on the duty on those
published by the Queen's Printer and the University, but
it was not so with others. Then the tax on writing paper
was a discouragement to parties who wished to learn to
write, and the removal of the duty would of course facilitate
it. It was condemned nine or ten years ago by a resolution
of that house. It was positively repealed last session, but
thrown out by the House of Lords. It was therefore one
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to re-
move as soon as possible. After what occurred last year
with the other House of Parliament, the honour of that
house required that it should be repealed. With reference to
the expense of their war establishments, he found that in
1840 they were 14 millions, in 1850 15 millions, and in the
present year it had risen to the enormous, and, he would
say, shameful sum of 25 millions. They had no war in
China, peace was restored in India, and as to tho Great
Powers of Europe, they were on the most friendly terms
with most of them. As to America, the naval power of those
States was absolutely annihilated ; and although a naval
force may be required to protect their commerce in the Gulf
of Mexico, no additional expenditure was necessary. Then
why incur this enormous expenditure ?
Sir L. PALK agreed with hon. members that
a surplus was in the Exchequer, but he did not by any
means approve of the manner in whioh it was applied. What
were they to do with the surplus? Would they reduce the
income
lemea duty, o
tax? Undoubtedly that tax ought to be reduced ;
thebldauurteienwf e
al
isscoitltheyma
ttnhwtehto
a:pledge that was given by the right hon.
gentleman that it should be taken off in 1860 was not kept.
T
ex.%
hv
wa
bshr noi
euohgt
ht
theot bi
Gne
oar
ve
revenue Government e t andopf
rno
pebaoyrs
nearly
o r • sat mil-
lion
i ngue
and a half, and that which pressed least of any tax on
the people—he meant the paper duty. (Hear.) Last year,
when it was proposed to repeal that duty, the House of
Lords stepped in, and by their vote saved that tax to the
country. It was then said that the country would be indig-
nant, and that meetings would be held in disapprobation of
the course taken by the House of Lords ; but no such meet •
ings were held—(hear, hear)—and if there were an appeal
made to the country as to which tax the public would pre-
fer to have repealed—that upon tea or upon paper—he ven-
tured to say the response would be the tea duty. (Hear,
hear.) The bon. gentleman read documents which he had
received Prow §tativuers and ethers, representing tv hire