The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1861

report on this subject, but he considered that some alteration
;n, the present system had been rendered necessary.
PRIVATEERING IN AMERICA.
In answer to Mr. J. EWART,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that a naval force had beenem-
ployed in the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting
British interests in:that part of the world. He took that
opportunity of stating that the Government continued to re-
ceive most lamentable accounts of the progress of the civil
war in America. Some of the questions relating to the law of
nations arising out of this unfortunate state of things
were so novel that it had been thought necessary by her
Majesty's Government to apply for advice to the law officers
before sending out instructions to the British squadron.
Her Majesty's Government felt it to be their duty to avoid
taking any part in the lamentable conflict that was being
carried on in America, but it was their imperative duty to
protect British interests. He thanked God that, up to the
present time, they were in no way committed in reference
to the civil war, and he hoped that would continue to be
the case. (Hear, hear.)
THE BUDGET.
On the motion for going into committee of ways and

means,
Mr. HUBBARD moved as an amendment, "That it is
not expedient to remit taxation to such an extent, that the
annual produce of the remitted taxes shall exceed the esti-
mated surplus revenue, in the budget for the current
financial year." lie did not mean to go into the question as
to the right which Government had to expect of receiving
any sum from China within the financial year which had
just begun. He took the assurance of the President of the
e
Board of Trade to be satisfactory on that he
sum of £750,000 which ought to be carried to the credittin
of
the
head respec
of
H
the Chinese expedition, e would ask the attention
manufacturer,
who to the course pursued by
a Pruden t
who carried on extensive operations, and had built a mill,
m"11 was burnt down, and he
which he had insured. first thine. he did was to
received the amount of it. Thewhich he ' or paid
rebuild his mill with the money received,
it away in the discharge of the debt incurred in doing so.
He could not see where the difference lay between the pru-
dentof that manufacturer and that which a prudent
Clia unccoellrosreof the Exchequer ought to take in his dealings
with the country at large. He believed that the £750,000
expected from China ought not to be placed on the credit
bide of the national, account, and the balance of surplus,
instead of being £1,923,000, would be £1,173,000. But he
would assume the balance was really £1,923,000, because it
was not upon one point only which he wished to insist.
his right hon. friend proposed to deal with that sum, and,
in the course of his eloquent speech, he told the house that
he intended to give up about one million income tax, and
£1,400,000 paper duty. He wondered how his right hon.
friend would deduct £2,400,000 from £1,923,000 ; but the
course pursued by the right hon. gentleman reminded him
of the tricks of the conjuror, who produced from the same
box flowers, feathers, and some blind pigeons. (Cheers,
and laughter.) He wondered whether his right hon.
friend would be more dexterous than conjurors at coun-
try fairs, and it was behind the scenes which he wished
the house to go to see how £2,400,000 was met by a sur-
plus of £1,923,000. In the first place the Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed to collect the income tax at
the reduced amount for only three quarters of the year,
and the paper duty he did not propose to remit on the
15th August, because that would trench too much upon
his balance, but on the Ist October next. He now came to
the point to which he desired to call the attention of the
house, and he would ask whether it was a wise and safe
policy for a finance minister to propose so large a remission
of taxation, and to justify that, not by the surplus at his
command, but to measure that surplus at his command
against a distant period of the financial year, within which
he proposed to confine the measures of remission. Assum-
ing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented a
northern constituency to whom the repeal of the sugar duties
would be an acceptable boon, he (Mr. Hubbard) could un-
derstand the right hon. gentlemen, in proposing such a mea-
sure, to say he could not make the remission at present, but
that he would do so from December next, the loss from which
would be only one and a half million. With regard to such
a mode of making remissions, it had, as he humbly sub-
mitted, a most injurious effect upon the future interests of
the country, and hardly came within the province of those
propositions which the right hon. gentleman had chal-
lenged the house to discuss. (Hear.) He would now come
to matters relating to the importation of foreign merchan-
dise, and undoubtedly, taking one year with another, a
country with the productive power of England exported
more than it imported. But from the ordinary course of
trade there would arise exceptional circumstances, and the
year 1847 was a remarkable instance. This country and
the adjacent islands suffered from scarcity of grain, and the
consequence was that they had to import not less than
£20,000,000 worth to supply the wants of the people. That
was paid for by gold to a large extent, and not by exports.
The late season was like that of 1847, and the country had
consequently been sintering from scarcity of grain products.
and that had led to unusually large importations. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that, whereas in
1859.60 this country imported £17,000,000 worth of corn, it
last year and to this time had imported £37,000,000 worth,
being an excess of £20,000,000. But who could say that
that expressed the loss which the country would suffer from
the failure of the grain crops? With rogard to the impor-
tation of wine to the extent of 11 million during the past
year, he was assured by one of the most eminent houses in
the City that the general character of those additional im-
ports of the past twelve months had been of a decidedly in-
ferior description, and that a large quantity of French
wines for home consumption would entail considerable loss
upon the shippers and importers, and would prevent further
shipments. He had been informed that a large quantity of
this wine was spoiling in the docks. One of two things must
follow these importations—the wine must either go into
consumption and ruin the constitutions of those who drank
it, or remain in the docks and ruin those who imported it.
(Hear, hear.) Leaving out of the accounts the money ex-
pended for cheese, butter, and eggs, it appeared that this
country had imported corn and wine to the value of about
£22,000,000, and that was an expression of the loss suffered
by British capitalists and British farmers. (Hear, hear.) Aa
regarded the revenue, it appeared they had received £866,000
from the duty on grain, and about £373,000 in excess of the
expected duty upon wine, making abut £1,200,000 ; and
in addition to that amount ho found from a paper circulated
yesterday that by the system of quarterly collections of the
income tax a large sum had been obtained by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. The hon. gentleman then referred to
letters whi3h he had received, showing that the tax collec-
tors in some parts of the country had demanded the pay-
ment of the income tax due on March 20 three weeks before
that period ; and he also stated that he himself, residing in
St. Margaret's, Westminster, had received a not'ce that in
consequence of the important financial measures of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, imperative orders had been
issued to collect the income tax forthwith, and consequently
he had paid on the 12th March every farthing of income tax
which would fall due on the 20th. He wanted to know
whether the extra £2,000,000 income tax had been
collected under the same pressure ? No doubt his right
honourable friend would say it was perfectly legal, and
so it was, but he (Mr. Hubbard) desired to know
whether this system of collection was to be maintained, for
he had received a series of letters on the subject from all
parts of the country. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to know
whether the taxpayers were to be called upon for the pay.
ment of their taxes, not merely immediately when they were
due, but three or four weeks before they became due. (Hear,
hear.) That was a subject which he hoped the house would
find was not below their dignity to inquire into. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member, having quoted a f)rmer speech
of Air. M. Gibson's, in which the practice of making pro-
spective budgets was censured, proceeded to say that he
thought that admirable doctrine iu any case, but doubly ap-
plicable to the budget of the present year, which antici-
pated not only expenditure but income. It was not equie
table, he contended, irrecoverably to relinquish a tax and
leave the responsibility of providing for the deficit upon the
Chancellor of the Exchequer of another year. One word
in conclusion, He thought the house would not require to
be told that he was not moved by no party feeling, but that
his object was to point out defects which referred to the
present scheme, but might affect the financial system of
the country for many successive years. The hon. member
concluded by thanking the house for the patience with
which he had been listened to.
The CHANCELLOR of the E XCHEQUER said that it
was his intention to reply to the hon. member in the briefest
terms possible ; and he must confess that he failed Mao-
'l'l,er to discern the connexion between a considerable
Portion of that speech and the motion which his hon. friend
had inahraittea to the house ; so much so, that out of the
numerous details into whichhon, friend had entered,
his •
there was net (mebelonged to ano-
ther occasion,wield\ might not have
It /Nil- Gladstone) a
matter of very great appeared to him 0- had been
'-'-inade to thedoubt whether the speech
motion, oe the motion to square with
the speech. (Hear, hear.) It arranged ,
upon him the necessity of saying h"n. friend had imposed
answer respecting cheese, nor nagtethat should make no
which had only the remotest Possible and other matters
question on the table ; neither should hernexion with the
answerfriend's comparison between certain systems of his hon.
'
the proceedings of a young man who might harvielitlagance and
flexions at Newmarket and elsewhere, because three eon-
attacked was that which had been established by''atem
iii
this country, and, with respect to that touching letter which
had been read by his hon. friend, he must say that that
letter having been addressed to his hon. friend in his capa-
city of chairman of the incense tax committee, he (Mr.
Gladstone) regretted, as a mernber•of that committee, that
his hon. friend had not taken the usual course of submitting
the matter of complaint to the executive, so that the whole
affair might have been carefully inquired into. (Hear,
hear.) Ho should not follow his lion, friend into the dry
details which he had quoted from circulars which had been
prepared by persons who were not under the control of the
Government, but if his hon. friend had shown them to him
it would have been his duty to ascertain the facts and to lay
them before the house. There was but one point respecting
the income tax which required notice. His hon. friend
had said that if such extraordinary power was exercised to
get in the income tax this year, the revenue of the coming
year would be proportionably impoverished. Now, that
might be very fair to use in an argument, but was untrue
as a matter of fact, as so far from the collection of the in-
Cerae tax having outrun the. collection of the previous tea-

son it had lagged considerably behind. There was still a
considerable arrear of the third quarter, so that all appre-
hensions on account of the coming year were wholly un.
necessary. The sum and substance of his hon. friend had,
in fact, occurred very near its conclusion. His hon. friend I
said, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
deny the fact, that they were repealing taxes the total an-
nual proceeds of which exceeded the surplus shown on tho
estimate of revenue and expenditure. True, the surplus
was £1,900,000, and the taxes proposed to be repealed
amounted to £2,900,000. Now that was the entire point of the
speech of his hon. friend, and his hon. friend asked by his
motion the house to affirm that they would not pursue any
such course, but would refuse to remit any taxation beyond
the estimated surplus of the year. All he could say on that
point was that his hon. friend asked them to reverse the
principle upon which had been based the most important
finansial operations of the last 20 years. It had always
been the practice of the legislature to repeal taxes to a
much greater amount, and under circumstances far more
venturesome, than those of the present year. He could
instancese Exchequer.
oecurrin I
gin the
n 8 theeti4meof
githreeve his
differenthonfricenhdantneio orsof the
waseal
nLglls3u,osoaor,dauntidestht
toe It
the
oe u
es
xe
toe fn
tC oomf m;l74Bpoa,ossoeod,
surplus p
annotacnaterrely for that year, but comprehending successive
falls for seven years to come. In 18.53, with a surplus of
£493,000, which was considered so large that his right hon.
friend the President of the Board of Trade assailed him
(Mr. Gladstone) with a motion for the repeal of the adver-
tisement duty, which, if there had been a division, he would
have carried, supported by the hon. member for Bucking-
ham, taxes were imposed to the extent of £3,039,000; but
remissions were made to the extent of £5,384,000, so that
with a surplus of £193,000, remissions were made amount-
ing to £2,345,000. (Hear, hear.) That remission extended
over four years. Again, in 1857, his right hon. friend the
Secretary for the Home Department, had a surplus of
£1,931,000, and he remitted in excess taxes to the amount
of £3,800,000, being four and a half millions of the 9d.
income tax, and £1,200,000 on tea and coffee. Therefore,
in point of fact, the motion of his hon. friend did not re-
quire detailed discussion, for to adopt it would be to over-
turn a principle upon which the house had always based its
finances. The present year was a stronger case than those
which he had just read. His hon. friend complained that
their reductions exceeded their surplus by £500,000, but
they must remember that there was this year an extra
charge for China, and which there was every moral cer-
tainty would terminate this year, of a million and a half,
There was, therefore, never a plainer or a simpler case.
(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he should not
trouble the house with any further observations on his hon.
friend's motion.

Mr. NEWDEGATE complained that all the pledges
under which the income tax had been first assented to by
the house had since its imposition been violated, and that
what the late Sir R. Peel had described as an exceptional
expedient had gradually come to be a pivot and a basis of
taxation.
Mr. DISRAELI, who spoke in a low tone of voice, ob-
served that aithough the motion of the hon. member for
Buckingham might be fair as criticising the financial mea-
sures of the Government, still his hon. friend advanced
principles which were at variance with our present manage-
ment of the finances. As, therefore, his hon. friend could
not expect his motion to be adopted without very prolonged
discussion, he trusted that he would not ask the house to
come to a division on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUBBARD expressed his willingness to withdraw
his amendment, but the consent of the house was refused.
The question was accordingly put, and the amendment
was negatived without a division.
The house then went into committee of ways and means.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I rise for
the purpose of proposing on the part of the Government
that we should pass a resolution which continues until the
Ist of July, 1862, certain duties upon tea and sugar, toge-
ther with other subsidiary articles in the same class with
sugar. They are duties which have been called popularly
but not correctly war duties, because in point of fact they
are duties which were enacted by the house in time of peace,
namely, in the year 1857, at a considerable time after the
Russian war had ceased. In 1853 when it was my duty to
tphreoproi
right
ehat
hmoena.sguertietibeepaarinugthuepinenathbeesrufbojr sheeSt.
ueerktuinegthaaxmontierae
observed that I ought not to do so without making a pre-
liminary statement, and I comply on this occasion with the
wish that he then expressed. But another reason leads me
to the same conclusion. We have had a considerable change
of circumstances since Monday fortnight. We then made a
proposition which we considered to be a proposition of con-
ciliation, but the proposal in our view of conciliation has
been received as a proposal of controversy and of war. We
thought that we were offering the olive branch, and it has
been received as if we had been throwing down the glove,
and if that be so, I am bound to say on my own behalf, and
on behalf of my colleagues, that we do not decline the com-
bat. (Cheers.) We have no reason to, and we do not com-
plain of the discussions that have already taken place. We
have the satisfaction of recollecting that for three days the
most minute and searching as well as the most sweeping
criticisms were applied to the estimated balance -sheet of the
year, all founded upon the principle that there was no rea-
son to believe that we had a 1 surp_ua u_ iucuuic over eapC7l-
- and at the termination of the debate we had the
satisfaction of seeing the right hon. member for Bucks
rise in his place and at once and unceremoniously dismiss
all those arguments, saying to the house in language of
perfect truth and good sense that the wisest course for the
house was to adopt the figures laid before them by the Go-
vernment.' (Loud cheers.) I may perhaps be permitted, as
the matter is one a little personal to myself, to make an
apology for a course which on my part was not altogether
favourably commented upon by the right hon. gentleman.
It was observed by the right hon. gentleman, and I think
with great truth, that it was not desirable to bring any. of
the permanent civil servants of the crown before the house,
that the minister should take the entire responsibility of
the estimates, and the least he says about them the better.
I thought, after I had seen a course pursued that had no
parallel in the recollection of any of us, that I had no
choice but to 'rake a clean breast of it, and tell the house
point by point the whole proceeding by which the estimated
figures had been arrived. at. I did this, therefore, under
great pressure, and I do not know that I had any
choice. I was criticised, however, by the right hon. gentle-
man for the course I pursued, and I must confess it was
with some surprise I recollected that when the right hon.
gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, under no pres-
sure whatever, but upon a casual doubt let fall by a deceased
friend (Mr. Wilson) with respect to the estimates of the
right hon. gentleman, he fell back immediately upon the
heads of the revenue department, and said, " I am of course
in no degree disposed to shrink from the responsibility of
having laid the estimates before the committee; on the
contrary, I to the fullest extent accept and embrace them.
r But I may add that I have been empowered to state on the
authority of the gentlemen in whom I, and every gentleman
who holds the position I have the honour to occupy, must
place the utmost dependence, that there is not a figure I
have submitted to the committee that has not their fullest
sanction." (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Those estimates were not estimates
prepared by the Government of which I was a member, but
by our predecessors. (Loud Opposition cheers.) We were
suddenly called upon to accept the estimates of our prede-
cessors, and though this does not justify the reference to the
civil servants, it makes a very great difference.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-4 cannot
admit that the right hon. gentleman is correct in his state-
ment. The estimates of his predecessors were estimates of
expenditure, but the point here in question is really an esti •
mate of revenue. (Cheers.) But I will not enter into that
point of controversy. 'rhe right hon. gentleman said in a
manly manner, " I do not justify the course I pursued."
Then I say by all means, if we are to have these discussions,
let us have them; the more the subjects are discussed the
better will they be understood; and if it were not for one
very inconvenient monosyllable I should be disposed to
quote the passage in " Macbeth," which I can, as it is, only
refer to. I mean the passage which begins with " Lay on,
Macduff," and ends with expressing an uncivil wish with
respect to the man "who first cries hold, enough." (Loud
laughter.) We have before us on the present occasion two
questions. 'We have before us the absolute merits of the
only contested part of the resolution that I am submitting
to the house, namely, that which refers to the tea duty, and
we have likewise to consider the merits of the tea duty,
and its claims to remission in conjunction with another duty
to which much reference has been made, namely, the paper
duty. (Hear, hear.) Take first the absolute merits of the
tea duty, and it is of interest and not altogether without re-
creation to see that the claims of the tea duty to remission
are in such exceeding good odour on the other side. The
condition of the poor man has found its way to the heart of
a very large number of highly respected gentlemen who sit
opposite. But the claims of the tea duty to remission were
not always thus favourably viewed. On a former occasion
when the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed the re-
mission of the tea duty, what was stated by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks on the part of the party
which then as now he led ? He did not say, "This is a
proposaml
y assent,"
omseannifestly advantageous, that it at once com-
mandst," but declined the responsibility of any
remission simply upon its own merits. He said on the 13th
May, 18.53, "The committee muGstovreerncomlleecntt
tt o repeal hatwhenthae
proposition was made by the late
duties on tea, we
to enter into
British growth
and because purposely combined with it an article of
with which tea was supposed
fIN
home
mweere
growth,asked
(:aoln :riel3cm
article,
Ihnei—cnea m
excessive l y,
dutythe
n the on n m
articlea melt." t . '
amounts to about
hon. genteleerra,
price of beer, right
did not propose
20to reerm2ist
per
ie
cent.duty oonnththaet
an
Aousgrhetgnarodt
stothlee
mreedruiteiedo
chile the teeaddtlitypwlasey,2ooanyderscaeidnttlatht thenthe
opinion of Govern: ea ofieLoordl Derby the duty on tea
said, that I have
wrapped v't
tii heuepu myt
duty,sacrificing
say,th e
adsu
right
hon. gentleman thought it accessary to wrap up his tea
ld. in paper, as the
in
malt. (A. laugh.) As regards
think more favourably of theb
this is a remission that, under favourabhleedcidir.cuitmltyVhsPeta:tnshmbcieenaselk,tll'.
esastelliamanerits of the duty, Nye
does not require to be argued, and that would u
beneficial to the people of this country.
al
t present highly
w e
have to consider it with reference to the extravagant
claims made for it in certain quarters. I showed, in
hatroclucivig the questitni, what would In tlo Act 9t tlity

remission upon the consumer, and likewise this, which has
not been contested, and which I know cannot be confuted,
that the reduction of mere revenue duties for the benefit of
firstrefe
reform
t forthe t h lea
lastst a among ng
years, a ll
tt
hh
ee cgorne
as unlr h
tass f no
cton enia he l
t
ob
and that although good in itself it is and has been recog-
nisedejec oblemerte
by statesmen and legislators during that period to be
less advantageous than those great measures which have
been adopted for the abolition and protection and the libera-
tion of trade from its fetters. Since then a new fact has
come into our view. There is an amendment, and several
petitions have been presented from the other side of the
house,hut I am not aware whether any of those petitions
were in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for
Liverpool. Was the petition from Liverpool in favour of it ?
Mr. HORSFALL—The petition from Liverpool was
against the repeal of the paper duty, and praying that any
surplus that might be in the hands of the government should
be applied to the remission of the tea and sugar duties or of
the income tax. I also presented one from Warrington.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— My ques-
tion was intended in courtesy to the hon. gentleman to know
whether the petition he presented was in favour of his
amendment, because if it had been it would have been so
far an argument in favour of the amendment which I am
about to criticise. But I understand that the substance of
the petition, though against the plan of the Government, is
not in favour of the amendment of the hon. gentleman.
Now I confess it is curious to observe the circumstances of
this amendment. Some gentlemen who presented petitions
to-night observed they had been signed very numerously
and largely in the course of a few hours. That is a very
singular circumstance. For nearly three weeks the pro-
posals of the Government have been before the country,
but only within a few hours had a spontaneous feeling on
the part of the trading communities been experienced.
(Laughter.) It took fifteen days to consider what course
should be pursued, bat no time has been lost in arriving
at the decision when this point in question had been
reached. And what is this expression for ? For the re-
duction of the tea and sugar duties. But the very fallacy
we have risen to expose is that if these duties should be
reduced we should be left with less than half the amount
available that we have now. But Ido not think the hon.
gentleman has taken time to consider the grammatical force
and effect of his amendment. Ido not know whether he is
aware of its legal construction, but I am glad of the oppor-
tunity of speaking before him, and before he rises to propose
it I would advise him to make come alteration in its form.
I apprehend that the legal effect of the amendment is this.
It is, in fact, an established principle of construction with
regard to every financial taxing act, that it must be con-
strued in favour of the taxpayer. Now, the hon. gentleman
lays a tax upon tea of ls. sd. per lb. till the 30th of Septem-
ber—for his words are " until the Ist October," which
means up to the Ist of October, and he provides for a tax of
Is. per lb. after the Ist of October ; so that under the ope-
ration of the amendment, as it stands, all those who have
accumulated tea waiting for the reduction of the duty would
upon the Ist of October, have the advantage of entering it
free of any duty whatever. (Laughter.) I merely call the
attention of the hon. member to this point ; it is but a ver-
bal criticism. (Hear, hear, from the Conservative bench.)
But I want to call the attention of the committee to the
effect of the proposal that is now made, and I think it is
quite fair to do so, considering the circumstances under
which the amendment has been framed, and ushered into
existence, with the support of two gentlemen who may be
said in matters of finance to have almost equal authority—
the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, and the
right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. First, what
is the effect of this amendment upon the surplus ? We have
heard a great deal about the unreality of the surplus, al-
though the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
dissents from that opinion. I ventured to say the other
night that I deprecated the exchange of responsibilities
between the Government and the Opposition, and when I

found the Opposition taking upon themselves the custody

of the public purse,' I doubted whether it would come to
good. How does the matter stand ? We propose the re-
peal of the paper duty from the Ist of October, and the
amount of deduction from our surplus on that account will
be £665,000, leaving us an estimated surplus of £480,000.
The moment I saw the motion of the hon. gentleman I
took the utmost means in my power to obt tin an estimate
of its effect, and my belief is that that estimate was given
without any knowledge of the reason why the question
was asked. At any rate the result was this, that the loss
upon tea proposed by the motion of the hou. gentleman and
the provident stewards of British finance with whom he
co-operated was, not £665,000 for the financial year, but
£950,000 that is to say, he takes away £285,000 from the
modest, and as some think insufficient, surplus I have
proposed to retain, and leaves me with £123,000. And this
is the upshot of three nights' debate. (Cheers.) At
length the trumpet sounds, the troops are marshalled, the
preliminaries questioning the surplus and showing that it is
not to be relied upon have been disposed of, and when we
come to actual practice the proposal is to take £300,000 out
of the little surplus the insufficiency of which has been de-
nounced. (Cheers.) I asked no captious question when I asked
if the people of Liverpool sanctioned the amendment of the
hon. member. I deny that they have. I will draw the

legislation for the last 20 years. It is a preliminary prin-
ciple in dealing with customs duties established alike by
reason and experience that the first effect of any reduction
we propose should never be postponed. In 1842, when we
began these operations—when, on the first occasion that
they took legislative effect on a large scale, we had not the
same advantages of experience that we now have, the
government of Sir Robert Peel made a double mistake. 'We
were many weeks carrying the tariff through the house, and
the arrangement made was this : First of all, that the whole
of the reduction in cos toms should be postponed while the
house was debating them, and not take effect till the.
royal assent had been given to the bill; and
secondly, with regard to' timber, the new duty was
postponed till the 10th of October. I will show you the
effect of postponing these reductions now. It is not
possible for me to show the effect with regard to the whole
mass of miscellaneous articles, but I take one of the most
important affected by the general postponement of the re-
ductions. I refer to coffee. The reduction in this case was
proposed at an early date in 1842, but it did not take effect
until the 9th July ; and this was the result—the reduction
was very large, no doubt—the duty was reduced on foreign
and colonial coffee from a range of from 6d. to Is. sd. to a
range of from 4d. to Bd. The consumption before the 9th
July was 10,465,0001b5.,-and in the corresponding portion
of the previous year the amount had been 13,823,0001b5., so
that there was a reduction of about 30 per cent, upon the
whole consumption of coffee up to the 9th July, caused by
our unwise holding over the reduction. After the 9th July
there was an increase, and it was as follows :—ln 1811,
after the 9th July, the consumption was 14,597,0001b5.,
which was increased in the following year to 17,922,0001bs ,
or a rise of 3,325,0001b5.—that is to say, the increase was,
excepting a very insignificant figure, 100,0001bs. or
200,0001b5., although we had made a great reduction in the
duty. Such was the paralysis of trade, that the augmenta-
tion, after the reduction, did but just bring up the aggre-
gate consumption to the consumpt ion of the former year, so
that we lost the revenue without being able to say that we
added to the comforts of the people. I tell the hon. gentle-
man that he is not representing the sentiments of the people
of Liverpool, or of any commercial community in this coun-
try. I will, however, go to the more conspicuous article of
timber, as that will more distinctly test the question, and
compare the results of the postponement of the reduction
of duty upon it in 1842 with those of the previous year.
In 1841, before the 10th October, 554,000 loads of timber
were consumed, and that was a very slack year. In 1842
173,000 loads only were consumed, making a reduction of
381,000 loads, or 70 per cent. of the whole consumption.
But after October, 1841, 191,000 loads of timber were con-
sumed, and in 1842 the consumption was 351,000 loads.
There was an increase, therefore, of 160,000 loads , but
this was not one-half of the reduction previously
caused. The amount produced in 1841 was £760,000, and
in 1842 it was £523,000, showing a loss therefore to the re-
venue of £377,000, and a decrease on the consumption of the
year of £221,000 loads. Then with regard to tea, I will
show the effect of thus paralysing trade. In 1852-3 the tea
duties were reduced in May. The usual monthly consump-
tion at that time was 4,400,000 lbs. In March and April,
two months before the reduction, the consumption, instead
of being 4,400,000 lbs., was only 2,650,000 lbs. In 1853-4
there was a further fall of duty, and that period is more
analogous to the present case, because the reduction was
foreseen for a considerable time. In 1853-4 the usual con-
sumption was 4,750,000 lbs. The reduction took place in
April, and the consumption during January, February, and
March, was 2,750,000 lbs. per month. In 1857-8 a reduc-
tion again took place-on the sth of April. The usual monthly
consumption then was 6,450,000 lbs., but in the course of
three months it was 3,200,000 lbs. only during each month,
or half the ordinary consumption. Such would be the para-
lysing effect of the hon. member's proposal. But what
would be the effect on the consumer during these alterations?
I do not hesitate to say that, as far as my experience goes,
though the reduction of the duty on tea would no doubt be
beneficial in its operation, yet the full effect of that reduc-
tion would not, until after a long polled, reach the consumer
in any proportion coming near to the loss of the revenue that
would be occasioned. Let us now come to the figures as they
affect the poor man, whose claims have been so much
spoken of. The tea duties have been twice reduced, viz., in
1857 and in 1853. In 1857 the reduction was from Is. Pd.
to ls. sd. per lb., causing a loss of 4d. on each lb. to the
revenue. 'What did the consumer get ? He gained three
farthings only. (Hear, hear.) It may be said, however,
that this was the effect of the war with China, then going
on ; and I will take 1853, when there was no war with
China. The duty was then reduced from 2s. 2id. to
ls, 10d. per lb. The loss caused to revenue then was 41d.
on each lb., but the consumer gained absolutely nothing
as tea :remained at the same price after as before
the reduction, namely, 35. 2d. per lb. The average of the
five previous years showed but little difference in compa-
rison. During those years, which were years of peace, the
average price was 3s. 3d, per lb., and there was a gain
to the consumer after the reduction therefore of lid per lb.
These figures show that you may expect about a fourth of
the duty you remit to find its way ;into the pockets of the
hear.) Considering the time taken to
p
the amendment, I think something less vulnerable
:t e been expected. (A laugh.) I believe it is a
cpr or
winogs
might
of
propose
h ne
vt.
ur (Hear,
l
9
that tic Aobility Qf auiciAls is ixt proptatia

to the period of their gestation. (A laugh.) I am sorry to
say the reverse appears to be the case in the instance of
Parliament try motions, (A. laugh.) I must now recall the
attention of the house to the circumstances of last year,
when the question was discussed. When we proposed the
repeal of the paper duty last year, expensive armaments
were on the point of being sent to China. We had remain-
ing a small surplus of revenue. Before the third reading
of the Paper Duties Bill the condition of affairs in China
had changed, and with them the financial prospects. The
Government persevered with the bill for the repeal of the
paper duty, because they thought that the pledge given
to all the interests :concerned should be redeemed,
even at the cost of inconvenience. (Cheers.) I do
not admit what the right hon. gentleman opposite seemed
to insinuate, that it is usual, after a Government has given
all its weight to a financial proposal, for it to substitute
other proposals. I am not aware of any such instance. Last
year the hon. member for Somerset distinctly raised the
question between tea and paper, but I said I preferred paper
but would defer to the wish of the house. But the bill for
the repeal of the paper duty was carried in this house by a
majority of 53. By that vote the house conveyed to the
country the knowledge of their opinion of the tax. We must
riot forget that the deliberate vote of the house for the re-
peal of a tax was conclusive as to its repeal. (Hear.) I do
not know why, after all the circumstances of last year, the
hon. member for Liverpool should come forward with his
amendment. It is said there is no wish for the repeal of the
paper duty on the part of the public, and that it is not a
"recuperative" duty. (Hear, hear.) I do not know where
that word comes from, and I should like to enter my pro-
test against it. (A. laugh.) The principle upon which a tax
should be remitted has reference to its beneficial effect. I
think the name of Sir R. Peel commands some respect on
the other side. In 1845 Sir R. Peel said he proposed to re-
peal certain taxes—not because there was a clamour for
their repeal, but because they were taxes open to great ob-
jection. That was the time when Sir R. Peelwas denounced
as the author of an organised hypocrisy. Sir R. Peel also
said that he proposed the absolute repeal of certain duties,
expecting from the increased consumption of other articles
an improvement in this revenue. (Hear, hear.) I come now
to compare the operation of the repeal of the two duties re-
ferred to in the amendment. I have shown that the remis-
sion of a tax does not reach the consumer for a long time—
never in the first year. (Hear.) Now that foreign paper
comes in on the same footing as paper made here, customs
and excise duties being equal, I think competition will bring
everything to the consumer, except as regards certain high
priced books. Assuming that all goes to the consumer, he
will be richer by the repeal of the paper duty to the extent of
£1,000,000. (Hear, hear.) The increase of trade from the
reduction of the tea duty may set in motion as much labour
as the reduction of the Excise duty might do. But it is the
foreigner whose labour would be first set in motion by a re-
duction in the tea duty. (Hear.) The labour we propose to
set in motion by the reduction of the paper duty is British
labour. (Hear, and cheers.) I am convinced that the people
of this country would prefer that the surplus should be ap-
plied to the liberation of trade rather than to the newly-
discovered benevolence of hon. gentlemen opposite. The
great vice of an Excise duty is not its effect on trades that
exist. If I may be permitted to offer an explanation to hon.
gentlemen opposite, who really seem not to understand
what it is we really contend for. I do not believe that the
duty does immediately act very largely on existing trades,
though I shall show presently that its action in that way is
considerable. But the great grievance is that it prevents
other trades from coming into existence, which would other-
wise spring up and form important branches of commerce.
Many hon. gentlemen may have seen the bit uminised paper
pipes, which are made of paper covered with pitch. They
have these general recommendations that they are only one-
fifth the weight of iron and half the price (I mean without
Excise), and about one-fourth the price of lead. They have
every advantage over iron and lead; they will bear much
greater pressure than iron and lead are subjected to for test-
ing purposes, and they are entirely impervious to the evil
effects of temperature and chemical action. In several very
eminent establishments it is now in use chiefly for sanitary
purposes. Now, Sir, I will give the house a brief history of
this manufacture as illustrative of the operation of Excise.
The source from which I take the facts is a letter from the
manager, which contains all the particulars, and is at the
service of any hon. member, or may be laid on the table,
if desired. The invention is about four years old, and a
patent was then taken out in France. Subsequently a simi-
lar patent was taken out in England, but it lay for three
years entirely and absolutely worthless. Now I can see the
policy of retaining an Excise duty where the revenue is
enormous and where the money is necessary for the public
service, but unless that be so it must be unwise to retain a
tax the effect of which is to prohibit Englishmen from
applying their energies to trades tl at would otherwise be
open, remuner ttive, and beneficial to the community. All
this time the trade was flourishing in France. And to
show that I was right in what I said about the abundance
of the raw material in this country, 1 may mention that,
notwithstanding the duty, the coarse descriptions of paper
are cheaper in England than in any other country. Now,
while this trade was pursued in France, but not permitted
in this country, a branch was established in Australia,
where these pipes were made of materials which were
brought from England, but which was not permitted to
the English manufacturer to use. Some months ago the
trade in England showed some signs of animation, because
enterprising men, finding that a vote of this house had con-
demned the duty, and relying on the fact that no vote of
this house had hitherto been falsified—(hear, hear)—pro-
ceeded on the assumption that the trade would be freed from
this prohibition. In this case the duty amounts to about
25 per cent. of the whole price of the article ; and the con-
tinuation of the duty reduced their trade to one-tenth of
what was expected. They then made an application to the
Treasury to remit the duty, or to make, in fact, a virtual
drawback ; and upon consideration we came to the conclu-
sion that we might do so ; but I must recall to the commit-
tee that this is a very doubtful mode of proceeding. By
what rule are we to exempt and enforce ? (Bear, hear.) You
force into our hsatds an arbitrary power which is foreign to
the genius of this country, and odious in many cases to
those who are brought under its operations. (Cheer.)
And if we were had up before a hostile committee ap-
pointed on the motion of the right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) at a time when he was as favourable to the
repeal of the paper duty as he was at a time when he
thought it more judicious, I do not hesitate to say that we
could only appeal to the committee, and could not show any
distinct principle of justice upon which remission and
enforcement are founded. We are wandering in the dark,
and it is a state of law not consistent with the honour and
credit of the house. Sir, I venture to say that this amend,
ment will not be supported by the majority of this house.
I have some experience of this house in matters of finance,
and this I say with confidence, in conclusion, that I have
never appealed to this hout e with a more certain assurance
of the issue than I now do. I ask the house to give effect to
a proposal to carry out the policy which has been adopted for
20 years with so great benefit, and which will add almost as
much as any of the measures of that 20 years to the autho-
rity and fame of this house, and to the prosperity and hap-
piness of the people. (Much cheering.)
Mr. HORSFALL, in moving as an amendment that the
duty on tea should after the let of October next be Is. per
pound, said that in making this proposition he was but ask-
ing the house to carry out the resolution it had arrived at
some years age—namely, that on and after the sth of April,
1856, the duty on tea should be ls. per pound. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer subsequently came down to the
house and appealed to its patriotism to give her Majesty
the means of carrying on the war. The house, with a ge-
nerosity ill requited, consented to increase the income tax
and the duties on tea and sugar. He believed that if the
reduction he proposed were carried out, the revenue would
recover itself in from three to five years; at all events, he
knew that parties were ready to farm the tea duties for four
years at the present amount, To the repeal of the paper
duty he was not opposed when the proper moment arrived,
but he considered that the labouring classes had a prior
claim to the remission of the tea duty.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON recommended the
house to agree to the propositions of the Government, and
remove a chronic source of irritation between the two houses
of Parliament. If, however, there should be a majority
against the Government, he hoped the Premier would ap-
peal to the country.
Mr. HENNESSY called attention to the circumstance
that, while the Chinese agreed to receive our manufactures
at a duty of 5 per cent., we imposed upwards of 100 per
cent, upon their tea.
Mr. PAGET and Mr. NORRIS supported, and Viscount
HOLNIESDALE opposed,
the resolution.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE denied that there was as yet a
surplus which enabled a choice to be made between the re-
mission of two taxes. The question was with what taxes a
surplus was to be made. The reimposition of the lea duties
was the chief means by which a surplus was to be obtained
at all. He argued that the proposed reduction of the duty
on tea was based on principles of general policy, en the en-
couragement and promotion of trade, and on the best prin-
ciples of finance. There was also the question of good
faith, for the house had pledged itself to reduce these duties
at the earliest
possible period after the cessation of the late
war. All these considerations were to be sacrificed for a
false point of honour, involved in a supposed insult received
last year from the House of Lords, in correcting a great
financial error. He Aat..!cl that he was utterly unable to
make out that the reduction of the tea duty would entail a
loss of £950,000 on the revenue. According to his calcula-
tion it would be £820,000. In 1853 the duties on tea were
2s. 21d., and it was proposed to reduce them to Is. in 1856,
but for the sake of the French treaty that had been post-
poned—(Opposition cheers)—and now it was again pro-
posed to postpone the reduction, notwithstanding the pledge
given in 1858, in order that the paper duties might be
remitted. This was the way in which the Government had
broken faith with the working classes. (Cheers.) The
Government were continually disappointing the working
classes of the country. (Prolonged cheering.) It was
said that the honour of the house was engaged to the
repeal of the paper duties. But what was the nature
of this honour ? His idea of honour was that it was
the perfection of justice to keep Pledges—(cheers)—but the
honour of some gentlemen was that which induced them to
persist in a course of wrong. That was the honour of the
duellist, but not true honour. (Cheers.) Did they think
that the House of Lords rejected the bill of last year because
they approved of the paper atAticg r No; they rejected the

bill because they did not think there was a sufficient provi-
sion made for the finances of the country. That was the
rebuke which the House of Commons had received, and it
was a just rebuke. (Hear, hear.) It was just because by
an overwhelming majority it was agreed not to challenge,
but submit to the decision of the House of Lords. (Hear,
hear.) The House of Commons should now let bad alone,
and not endeavour to revive the controversy in another
way. (Hear, hear.) What would have been the deficiency
of last year if the House of Lords had passed that bill P
(Hear, hear.) Why, it would have been £2,000,000. He
would now come to the question of finance. He did not
think there was, in any fair sense of the word, a surplus ;
but, at the same time, he never ventured to criticise the
figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only
questioned one item—the Chinese indemnity; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer having explained that, of
course, with his means of information, his explanation
must be admitted. But the real question for the conside-
ration of the house was this, whether, supposing the ex-
istence of a surplus, the remission should be on the tea or
on the paper duty. He treated this subject on the
broad ground of national advantage and of individual
benefit, and in so doing he had come to the conclu-
sion that it would be better to take off the duty on tea than
the duty on paper. The tea duty might replace itself, but
not so the paper duty. He contended that it was safer,
financially, to reduce the duty on tea than it was to destroy
altogether the duty on paper. But after all, the question
was whether we should renew these war duties ? Without
saying a word against the repeal of the paper duties, when
the proper time came, he asked the members, representing
the commercial interests, to unite with those who wished
to take off the duty on tea. It was quite possible that they
might make out a case in favour of putting on some other
duty to take off the paper duty; and he would not object if
they could find a suitable substitute, which they ought to
find no difficulty in doing, seeing how ingenious a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer they had. (Cheers and laughter.)
He put it to the hon. gentleman to consider this matter in
the interests of their constituents, for while they were quar-
relling amongst themselves the people were suffering.
(Hear, hear.) Let them first then take the tea duties and
leave the paper duties for subsequent consideration. He did
not love the paper duties, but thy had a preliminary ques-
tion, and that question he asked them to consider, laying
aside all prejudices, voting for the hon. gentleman the
member for Liverpool, and afterwards they could deal with
the paper duties when the proper time came. The hon.
gentleman then resumed his seat amidst loud and protracted
cheering.
Sir G. C. LEWIS pointed out that Sir S. Northcoto's
argument was founded on a verbal distinction, which was
inconsistent with the practical nature of a financial debate.
He thought that the question of the existence of a surplus
was disposed of before the late debate closed ; but it seemed
to have been now revived with a sort of cobweb logic which
had better be swept away. Starting with the assumption
that there was a large surplus, the question was as to its
disposal. There was no necessity to apply it to the refine.
tion of debt in this year, for which there had been of late
years no encouragement given to finance ministers by the
house. The next question was how the surplus was to be
applied to taxation. He should be glad to have the income
tax reduced to its original amount of 7d. in the pound, and
he could have understood a motion for the reduction of that
tax from the Opposition instead of that for the reduction of
the tea duty. The right hon. gentleman then pointed out
the advantage derived from the repeal of an excise duty ;
and as regarded the argument of good faith, the balance in
that respect was in favour of the paper duty as compared
with that on tea. He trusted the house would support a
budget founded on just and economical principles.
Mr. DISRAELI—I never, since I had the honour of a
seat in this house, have heard a question more completely
and more fully'put before the consideration of the house than
I have heard it this evening in the speech of my right hon.
friend the member for Stamford—(cheers from the Opposi-
tion)—supported as it was by such ample knowledge, illus-
trated in a manner so happy, and supported by reasoning so
irresistible. I think the debate of this evening has on many
accounts been of an interesting character. It was opened
by revelations on the part of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer of the spirit in which his policy was conceived by
the Government and his new financial scheme originated.
But what I think is peculiarly admirable in the Chancellor
of the Exchequer is the tremendous courage with which
he supports any opinion which suits him at the moment.
Once a stout Protectionist, ho has laid down every
principle and axiom which he has since opposed. (Hear,
hear.) I ask the house if he has not been met fairly
upon every one of his points ? I say every argu-
ment of the right hon. gentlelnan has been completely met
by my hon. friend the member for Stamford. (Hear, hear.)
This was not the opinion of the right hon. gentleman in
former day s; it was not his opinion in recent days. Very
recently the right hon. gentleman did entertain the opinion
that the price of an article did affect the interest of the
consumer. He thought it entered very largely into the con-
dition of the working classes of the country. (Cheers.) '['here
are many sitting in this house who must remember, in 1857,
the strong, the violent, I will say the passionate, language,
in which the right hon. gentleman addressed the house upon
that occasion. The right hon. gentleman was not then
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers.) Another gentle-
man, who seems to despise that cobweb logic which is some-
times heard from the Treasury bench, was then the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and is now the colleague of the
right hon. gentleman. In what terms did he express his
opinion upon the budget of the present Secretary of State,
especially with reference to this question of the tea duties ?
He said that if this impost was not to be taken off, if the
duties on tea and sugar were not to be repealed, that should
not be kept a secret from the people. (Cheers.) Such a
deed ought not to be done in darkne,s ; he would raise his
voice and let the people of England know who were the
statesmen, and what was the policy which entailed upon
them such a burden. (Laughter and cheers.) This is a
feeble recollection of the fiery language of the right hon.
gentleman in 1857. I remember, with circumstances of
some self complacency, the occasion on which the right
hon. gentleman made that declaration. I remember that
on that occasion the right hon. gentleman condescended to
support a motion which I myself recommended to the no-

tics of the house. We were not successful by our combined
efforts in disturbing the present Prime Minister on that
occasion. (Laughter.) I did not wish to prolong an in-
effectual contest; I abstained from any further effort; but
the right hon. gentleman, reproaching me for no longer
standing by him, in his chivalry determined to carry on
the contest alone, or with the assistance of those right
hon. friends who generally act with me. The right hon.
gentleman, confident in those great powers which we all
recognise, feeling that he was an army in himself, that he
alone could do it, continued the war. He was determined
that the house should reduce the duties on tea. He
hurled his thunderbolts at the head of the Secretary
for the Home Department; and I confess I am astonished
when I remember what the Secretary of State wont
through when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
that he still survives to occupy a place in that
peaceful Olympus in which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer himself sits. (Laughter, and cheers) So when
the right honourable gentleman, confident in his own
unrivalled resources, without the support of any party in
the house, either before him or behind him, brought for-
ward his motion on the tea duties, the inexorable, irre-
sistible force of the language he used—no cobweb logic—
(laughter)—perfectly astonished me. I could not help
saying, much as T admired what I have heard to-night,
had the right hon. gentleman spoken upon the occasion
when we were beaten by a majority of 80, with the powers he
has employed to-night, that majority must have been greatly
diminished. For he carried his subject to a length to
which no member on either side of the house could follow
him, and I could hardly myself accept the consequences.
I never read " Hansard"—(laughter)—except as an illustra-
tion of history, but perhaps the committee will pardon me if
I trouble them with the conclusion of the speech of the right
hon. gentleman. Understand, every argument the most
subtle, every statement the most exaggerated, every phrase
the most plausible had been used only four days before
to induce the House of Commons to abolish the war
duties on tea. This was the way in which the right hon.
gentleman concluded :—" I am deeply convinced that the
vigorous maintenance of the pledges given by Parliament
is of the utmost importance in itself—of the utmost import-
ance with a view to the increase of the comfort of the people
—of the utmost importance t 3 the satisfaction, contentment,
and loyalty of the people—and, speaking of these proposals
as precedents (the motion he had himself proposed), I do
not hesitate to add, of the utmost importance to the stabi-
lity of the political institutions of the country." Taking
the war duties off tea four years ago was of the utmost
importance to the political institutions of the country
—(cheers and laughter)—and those institutions still stand
although four years have passed since the right hon. gen..
tleman gave his views to the house. The right hon. gentle-
man went on to say " because," for ho gave his reasons,
" in this country there were representatives of the people
who were elected not by the labouring classes—and it was
most important, if they intended to have tranquillity and
contentment, that the labouring classesshould see that their
interests were cared for by a liberal Parliament—(hear)---
and that there was no disposition to respect unduly and un-
equally the interests of the higher classes ;" and " if I
were an agitator," the right hon. gentleman continued,
" for an extended organic reform in Pie Parliamentary:re-
presentation of the people, I should not desire a better case,
to go forth among the people and to say to them, here is a
fair test of a limited representation." (Loud cheers.) sir,
I do not find that this repeal of the tea duties is now a
matter of high political importance—(hear)—nor are the
war duties on tea disapproved of by the right hon. gentle-
man's, I cannot say colleague, but coadjutor, the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), 'who may raise upon it
the basis of a new agitation in the next autumnal recess.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman told them that if he
were an agitator he should have desired no better case ; but
perhaps in 'those days he was not prescient as to who might
be his fellow-labourer, or the war duties on tea would not
have been the subject on which to establish his scheme of
agitation. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman in pur-
suing the argument on that :occasion said, " It was a ease
in which Parliament had power in their hands to reform
the revenue laws, and that was the course of Parliament to
take up the matter and undo the work of a former year and
of a former Parliament, and to reduce the duties on tea
Aa §upr," (Cheers.) 149 act quote " Ilaunrcl"