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

Now, these arc minute statements, and I think 1 need not
carry them further. - But in closing this part of tkesubject
1 will observe that it is not the business of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to frame his estimates with reference to
extraordinary circumstances. He is bound to frame the
estimates iu accordance with the circumstances in which he
stands. It would have been wrong if the estimates of last
year had been so framed as to meet a harvest unequalled in
its badness for the last half century. The estimate that I
now present is an estimate based on the expectation of an
ordinary season; and I venture to say that, founded on that
expectation, it is the fifth time that it has been my duty to
preeent estimates of this nature to the House of Commons;
and I never presented them with a stronger conviction, if
we have anything like ordinary circumstances, that they are
raore likely to be followed by an excess of revenue as com-
pared with the estimates. (Cheers.) There remainsone other
question which this is not the time to discuss, and that is
the pa; er duty. There will be a great many opportunities
when this subject may be discussed in committee, when tha
whole question may be discu,sed in its economical and social
hearings. It is commonly assumed that the paper duty is a
eenetantly increasing duty. 1 do not think that the increase
in the paper duty up to the last year was at all remarkable,
when we consider the vast expansion of the general trade
of the country which has taken place in the last 20 years.
The paper duty is not now, therefore, an increasing one. In
1859 it was £1,142,0e0, in 1860 it was £1,291,000, and in
1861 it' produced £1,305,000. Whether it be from the in-
fluence of foreign competition, or whether from the paralysis
occasioned by the votes and proceedings in this house, I
cannot say, but the paper duty has lost its spring and elas•
lieity, and I doubt very much wheth©r any effort of ours
will ever restore it. (Hear.) It is complained that there is a
very scanty surplus, and at the same time it is said that we
ought not.. to be so improvident as to abolish the duty on
paper, which costs £600,000, but we are to reduce the duty
on tea, which will cost £BOO,OOO. It has been assumed that
whatever we give away in the matter of tea will reach the
consumer, but what we give away in the matter of paper is
certain not to reach the consumer. (Hear, hear.) but how
does this matter stand? While the price of tea is 2s. Bd. a
pound, you are to be persuaded to make a remission of 3d.,
which will be about 91 per cent. The value of paper is from
3d. to ls. per lb., and striking an average the value isabout
ed. The duty which it is proposed to remit on paper is one
penny halfpenny per lb. or 25 per cent., and it is well known
that when yonremit a duty of 25 per cent. on the value of an
article you are more likely to confer an advantage in a
commercial point of view, and one whichlis likely to reach
the consumer than where the duty removed is only 9 per cent.
—(hear, hear)—and it is a fact clearly shown that the remis-
sion of part of the duty which took place long since on tea
has never yet reached the consumer. But the duty on paper
b 'ins removed, increased competition will follow, and it is
quite certain the reduction will reach the persons inte-
rested in its consumption. There is one topic on which 1
must address the house as to the removal of the duty on
paper; because of the very high flown doctrines of philan-
thropy preached by hon. gentlemen on the other sideof the
house, whose great regardfor thelabouring classes has been
placed in contrast with that of those who desire the removal
of the duty off paper. That is a matter which requires
some little consideration from this house. As respects the
general question of the removal of the paper duty, it was
fairly stated on a former occasion by the right hon. gentle-
man the rrember for Bucks that different opinions might be
entertained as to du ies upon advertisements and newspapers,
but there was no financial evil abstractedly greater than
the evil which was connected with an excise whereby, as in
the present instance, a physical and moral disadvantage was
created, and the right hon. member supported that state-
ment by the vote he gave at a period when the duty on tea
was not Is. sd. a pound, but 2s. ld. per pound. (Hear.)
that this matter cuts rather deeper than is supposed into the
reat principles on which this house has been engaged for
the last 20 years in reforming the commercial laws of the
coieutry. We are told the first obligation of the house is to
neinee those fixes which are levied for the purpose of re-
venue on articles of popular consumption. If that is true,
it. is not the principle on which former Parliaments or the
present Parliament have acted with regard to commercial
reform. It is not the principle which was carried out in
1841 by Lord Melbourne's Government. It is not the prin-
ciple acted on in 18-12 by Sir R. Peel. The reduction of
duties upon articles of exclusive popular consumption was
not the first, but the last, of the objects which he had in
view—(hear)—becar a) he knew, and the Parliament knew,
that in point of fact the true secret of improving the condi.-
lion of the people was in the removal of duties, not the mere
reel aetion of price on this or that article, Lut the liberation
and extension of trade and the increase of it. (Cheers.) In
1842, when these reforms commenced, and when the income
tax was imposed, in order to make them practicable Sir R.
Peel declared the principle on which he should proceed.
That principle was to diminish or abolish protection, and to
away with all prohibition, to repress smuggling, and to
liberate trade from its fetters; and the mere fact of reducing
the price of articles of popular consumption was far behind
in importance. In 1842 we sacrificed £1,600,000 of duties,
nearly all of which consisted of differential dutiee ; £,000,000
of it was :or raw material—namely, timber. Those who
say the course now proposed is not a provident one
will see that in 1845 a still larger sum was given
away, but there again not on a single article was the
sacrifice made with ,a view to cheapening what was
consumed by the people, if he excepted the article of
sugar. £700,000 was given away on cotton. What an
improvident Parliament was that to assent to a mea-
sure which was not in the last recuperative. Now that pro-
tection is gone and cannot be openly recommended or de-
fended. Substitutes—and they are poor substitutes indeed
—are invented and palmed off on us, and we are told we are
not to abolish the duty because the proceedings would not
be recuperative. In the same year two other duties,equally
objectionable, were abolished—namely, the glass duty and
the auction duty. In 1846, £115,000 was given away, not
to cheapen any article of popular consumption, but for the
liberation of trade by the removal of differential duties. In
fact, the same principle has governed every buiget pre-
sented to us, proposing extensive changes in the law, with
one exception only, and that exception was the-budget of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks in 1852.
lie adopted the principle which he called unrestricted com-
petition, and did not touch any of the remaining differential
duties. What he did do was to propose a large reduction
of the duty on tea—(opposition cheers)—and with respect
to the excise he proposed to give away about two millions
on the malt duty by taking off half the excise; but he left
the reatrainti upon trade in full vigour--(hear, hear)--and
I cannot complain now if the right hon. gentlemen con-
tinues to hold those principles, in opposition to the vria-
oiples which guided Sir R. Peel and the hon. members who
sit near me. But let it be understood who are the innova-
tors; because when we are accused of a rash and desperate
peliey, we are only carrying out those principles which have
lone received the assent of the 13tieish Parliament, and ob-
tained icr it. she respect of the world at large for the man-
ner its which it has extended the trade and industry of the
couairy. We do not claim any originality on this subject.
1 Logan as an humble labourer sisal disciple of Sir 11. Peel,
and I only desineto continue to apply the principles on
which he always acted. (Hear, hear.) There are those in
the house who know that. when her Majesty's Government
thin preipeeal to take off a penny from the income tax
awl to repeal the- paper duty, they were offering a measure
coneiiiatiou to the minority in this house. It was by a
champion on the other side that the issue was raised last
year upon the point whether the house would
consent t.) remit the paper duty, or would forego the tenth
penny oat the income tax. The hon. member for Somerset-
elates ntovea a resolution to the effect that as the repeal of
Um duty on paper would necessitate the imposition of an
adtlitienal p.'nny on the income tax, its repeal at that time
west inexpedient. We understood those words to mean sim-
ply and plainly what they expressed. We were not to sup-
from that resolution that the paper duty was to be in-
dehniiely postponed. (Hear, hear.) The motion did not
eieteseeet e llf ilibt as to the expediency of the removal of the
duly, bet only as 1 the price at which it was to be effected.
1-;arely there could I,e nothing more legitimate and natural
than that we, when we found ourselves in a position to do
so, should maintain the connection between the income tax
and the paper duty by proposing t ) repeal the latter and to
take the penny off the former—(hear)—and thus, as I think,
make a proposal couched in the spirit of conciliation. In

asking the house to vote fir that which closed the contro •
versy of 1860, and not to vote for that which will hand it
over from year to year, perhaps to be brought forward again
under circumstances of greater doubt, and difficulty, and
danger, we have done that which will be felt to be correct
by all those who bring a candid mind and independent view
to this question. I do not know whether there will be any,
or if any, how many divisions on these resolutions. We
thought when we submitted them that theywere very simple,
but though more thav fortnight has elapsed we have not
yet been permitted to take a single step upon them. I hope
that if gentlemen really entertain the feelings which they
have described, we shall have some mode of ascertaining
the sentiments of the house. (Cheers.) Quite apart from the
14t`,rest of any government or any party, I do not believe
that these long-drawn and &rniess debates, with intervals
of "1" es tree nights between them, supported by men of
great name, but hardly any two of them agreeing, even in
the course of their arguments, and none of them willingito
submit a distinct proposal to the house—l do not believe
that the teethed of conducting public business is favourable
to that which we alt desire to maintain, viz., the credit of
parliament with the country. (Cheers.) ,I am quit: sure
we shall find those on the other side as well as those on this
who
are ready to tike a wise and comprehensive view of the .
important considerations whichare involved in our decision
over and above those cctereer(al. and financial elements
which give to the plan itself a uffipient and conclusive
weight—(hear, further, I ate convinced that
ttle linage, when it
examines In. full ,the Wilulo of the mo-
tives and arguments that bear on the proposition we now
maize for liberating the la,t article of British manufacture
the fetters of the excise'—'(cheers)—.will be satisfied
that in making that proposition We are in the
....

_
kttlis of those who haveon former 0cc..4 stuns given wise
ul-
viee 1) Parliament, and the adoption of whose recot;unle,
i/1113 at various intervals during tho last 29 yeirs hay
Iloilo much to 'extend the tame and credit of the nation with

foreign lands, and established the Parliament and Crown or

.. , __..
this country in the affections of the people. (Cheers.)
Air. DISIIA.F.LI—Sir, 1 must repeat the surprise which
on the first night of this debate I ventured to express at
the iwpatienco which the Government have evinced at this