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

and I confess that T did not expect that there would have
been so much disposition to question that statement, that it
is an unfair mode of putting the case to place against the
repeal of the Paper Duty, and to declare to be the alterna-
tive of that repeal, a measure which would cost at least
twice as much. The duties to which I am referring, there-
fore, cannot, properly speaking, be called war duties, inas-
much as they were nct imposed in time of war or for war
purposes. In the year 1354 the sugar duties were increased
for the purposes of war, and in 1855 the tea:duties were in-
creased with the same object, and I am quite willing to:admit
that the right hon. gentleman says truly when he con-
tends that there is a sort of general pledge given to the
public that war taxes should be taken off when the cause
for which they have been levied has ceased to exist, and, in
point of fact, the increased duties which I have just men-
tioned lapsed with the conclusion of the war itself.
The House of Commons read last year a second time, by a
considerable majority, a bill for the repeal of the paper duty.
For a period of 40 years a vote of that kind on the part of
this house has been accepted by the trade and commerce of
the country as an absolute and final decision. In all such
cases persons interested in the trade industry of the nation
have felt themselves justified in accepting the assurance
which such a vote afforded, and upon the faith of it invested
their capital and pledged their credit. (Hear.) This was
done last year, in consequence of the conclusion at which
the House of Commons arrived, and I now send back to the
right hon. gentleman opposite the challenge which he
threw out, and I say to him, " Keep faith with the country
—(cheers)—keep faith with those who have trusted to the
vote of last session, as they have done to a long list of
similar assurances which in a hundred cases we have given
them." (Hear, hear.) I will not trouble the committee
by going into details upon this point ; but I would illus-
trate by referring to facts the statement which I make, that
a long course of precedents has given the public a title to
rely upon votes similar to that of last year given by this
house. I held in my hand a letter written by Mr. Grey, a
gentleman who is well known to my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Edinburgh, who is one of the most enterprising
men in this country. Ido not know that he possesses
large means; but about 30 years ago, when such enter-
prise was much rarer than at present, he conceived the
ingenious idea of establishing a paper as a gratuitous adver-
tising medium. The undertaking was successful, and con-
ferred, I believe, a great benefit on the country. Well,
this gentleman writes to me to say that trusting to the
vote of the House of Commons last year he had at once
committed himself to his subscribers, and that the conse-
quence had been that there was a considerable diminution
of his profits; but that they were still sufficient to keep the
roof over his head which, after 34 years of indefatigable
industry, he was enabled to call his own, but such could
not continue to be the case unless the paper duties were
repealed during the present session. He adds that he,
perhaps incautiously, trusted to the pledge given to the
public by the vote of this house last year; that he, never-
theless, kept his word with his subscribers, and that the
consequence had been to entail upon him a fearful loss.
In touching on the question of surplus I must not forget
that the member for Norfolk, the hon. member for Hunt-
ingdon, and the hon, member for Limerick have all ques-
tioned the existence of that surplus exceedingly, yet each
and all of these gentlemen voted to take from it, according
to the best official estimate that can be framed, £285,000
more than would be absorbed by the proposal of the Go-
vernment. (Cheers.) And then the hon. member for Hunt-
ingdon comes down here and challenges me about Exche-
quer-bills and Stade dues, and says I shall lose £220,000 by
Stade dues and £50,000 by Exchequer-bills. That would
make in all £270,000, but I should still be £15,000 better off
than their proposal, if carried, would leave me. (Cheers.)
The hon. member found fault with my calculations ; but it
was he, and not I, who ventured to predict what the state of
the money-market would be six months hence. He it was
who said, in his desire to make good the case he was urging
with great ability, that he had calculated the Exchequer
bills for 12 months, forgetting the provision of law which—
Mr. T. BARING—I asked what the amount was.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You
computed it at £220,000, and you—
Mr. BARING—I wish to explain. :(Cheers.) I said that
as it was stated by the right hon. gentleman that the in-
crease on the interest of Exchequer-bills would not be for
more than six months, I took that item at £25,000, and the
payments on account of Stade dues I said were fixed by
public opinion at £200,000. (Cheers.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
very much obliged by the explanation. I thought the hon.
member said the Stade dues would be £220,000, and, in point
of fact, neither he nor we ;had any accurate means of com-
putation, not knowing whether the arrangements would be
completed or not. My noble friend, I believe, is now of opi-
nion that the arrangement will probably be carried out. It
will require a sum of £155,000 or £156,000, and that, of
course, was one of the reasons why we objected to the re-
peal of the tea duty—(Fries of " Oh," from the Opposition)—
feeling it necessary to keep in hand a sum of £400,000 or
£500,000. (Cries of " Oh," and cheers.) Of course in a coun-
try like this you cannot possibly foresee every accruing
charge for the 12 months, and you keep a small surplus, not
exactly in hand, but before you on paper, so as to meet con-
tingent charges which may arise. The hon. gentleman is still
in a very uneasy state about the surplus, and thinks it very
doubtful whether there will be any after all. I must say I
do trust that the subject of a surplus as it has been handled
in these debates will not be a precedent for future times.
To-day it is denied, tv-morrow it is asserted, the next day
it is exaggerated, and the following day it is denied again.
(Laughter and cheers.) One time we are told the surplus
will not admit of a remission of £15,000; next it is endea-
voured to force upon us tho remission of £1,500,000; and
then the hon, baronet the member for the West Riding
rises in his place and thinks it becoming his station and
position—(cries of "Oh !" and cheers)—to say that he
thinks the estimate of that surplus—(loud murmurs from
the Opposition, followed by cheering from the Ministerial
benches.) On this subject, and in discharge of a public
duty, I must vindicate the privilege of speech. (Cheers). I
think it right to call to tho recollection of the house that
the member for the West Riding did think it right to
state—(renewed cries of " Oh I")—that the estimate of sur-
plus which I have submitted was no better than the reckon-
ing of any speculator. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition,
and cheers from the Ministerialists.) If that be a misre-
presentation, I am ready to listen to any explanation.
Sir J. RAMSD EN—I believe, Mr. Massey, the words
were these :—That the estimate of surplus was liable to
prove as fallacious as the scheme of any speculator on the
Stock Exchange. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That ap-
pears to be precisely the sense imputed to the hon. baronet
—(loud cheers and counter cheers)—and which I was in
hopes ho might have been induced to qualify. However,
having been deceived in that expectation, let me deal with
another assumption of the hon. baronet no less astounding.
He said it was unexampled after a deficiency in a particular
year to propose the repeal of a tax in the next. I need
not go very far back to produce a remarkable instance, in
which, I suppose, the conduct of the Government of
the day will not be much disapproved by the honour-
able baronet, as he took office with them shortly afterwards.
In 1857 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary,
having had a deficiency of £4,000,000 in the previous
year, repealed taxes to the extent of £10,700,000, and im-
mediately after this was done the Government which had
been guilty of such astonishing profligacy was joined by
the right hon. baronet. (Cheers.) My hon. friend the
member for Dorsetshire, who made this motion, has thought
MO repeat imputations on me which I have never noticed in
this house. As long as the most sordid motives or the most
questionable proceedings are imputed only by anonymous
writers of the press, or at any rate by those from wnom one
has no right to expect favour or indulgence, I think by far
the best course for a member of this house to take is to pass
them by in utter silence, and to trust to the candour of his
countrymen, which I believe will never fail him—(cheers)
—and, I must add, to their appreciation of his character and
his services, be those what they may. (Hear.) But my
hon. friend, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing from
boyhood, and ray respect and regard for whom no political
circumstances can ever in the slightest degree affect, has
imputed to me that the proposals which I have made in this
house are brought forward for some mysterious purpose of
conciliating the hon. gentleman the member for Birming-
ham. (Opposition cheers.) With regard to any supposed
sympathies of mine with the hon, member for Birmingham,
I must say that if I did sympathise with him I should not
have the slightest hesitation in avowing it, because I know
of nothing in the character—(general cries of Hear, hear)
--or in the conduct of the hon. gentleman which need make
any man who agrees with him afraid to state it. (Cheers.)
His character has, in my opinion, always been marked
with strict integrity, and his conduct has been uniformly
straightforward. (Hear.) But, when a statement of that
kind is made against a person like myself, who am not at
all aware of holding the same opinions in politics as the
hon. member for Birmingham, I must observe that neither
my hon. friend who made it last, nor any gentleman who
made it before, has ever attempted to support or sustain it
by any language I have used, or by any sentiments I have
expressed. I certainly do sympathise with the hon gentle-
man member for Birmingham in regard to the whole course
of that commercial legislation which has conferred such im-
mense boons and blessings on the country, and of which he
has been one of the most distinguished champions. And I
regret to find that that policy still has many opponents in
this house, who, though linable to prevent it from taking
effect in the main, are apparently glad to find any oppor-
tunity of crippling it or of covering it with discredit. I
should not be doing justice to my hon. friend the member
for Birmingham if I attempted to describe my own opinions
with respect to matters of finance by mixing them up with
his, of which I have no knowledge ocher than that which
every member in this house possesses in common with my-
self. But if my hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire,
wishes to make any imputation on my opinions such as I
can explain, lam willing to give him an explanation. I
have no doubt that he has a meaning, which I am obliged
to conjecture, as he has been content to make use of vague
and Shadowy language. He means, perhaps, that I am one
of those who entertain the concealed and covert intention
of changing the system of taxation, shifting the burden
from commodities to property, and affecting thereby a con-
siderable alteration in the relative position of classes. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) If such be the belief of hon. gentlemen
opposite, I have no doubt that the proposal we now make
for the repeal a the paper duty ie regarded as the ineiduous