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

precedent for others, but merely to show what were the
views of the right hon. gentleman who to -night tells us
that virtually the duty upon tea is a matter of no im-
portance whatever, and that it is neither a social nor a
political question. (Hear, hear.) Only four years ago the
right hon. gentleman, I may be permitted to believe, spoke
with feelings not less sincere and deep than he has spoken
to-night, and that he then brought to the consideration of
the subject care not less elaborate and thought not less pro-
found than to-night. (Hear.) lam surprised to find that
this house, in not taking off the duty on that occasion, was
establishing a case which may be used against the institu-
tions of the country. (Cheers,) Now, sir, this is my answer
to the tone of the right hon. gentleman to-night, who, with
singular indiscretion, rose so soon in this debate to deliver
himself of opinions so much at variance to the policy which
he advocated and enforced upon the same subject in a for-
mer year. What can have happened between that luminous
and elaborate statement and the restrained and courteous
conduct which characterised the right hon. gentleman on
that occasion and this evening ? What, I repeat, can have
happened between Tuesday evening and the present ? I am
not aware that any remarkable circumstance can have
brought down the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a
paroxysm of emotion to open this debate in a manner so
unprecedented and so remarkable—(hear)—and that he
should, as it were, have given up all those opinions which
F he had so long professed--(hear, hear)—that he should sud-
denly come down and declare that the amount of the duty
on tea was not a matter which affected the consumer, and
that to lower the duty at present would greatly injure the
revenue, while we have authentic evidence that no injury
would be done to the revenue, or at least it would be of a
very limited character. (Hear, hear.) Nothing that lam
aware of has happened to the Government except that they
were beaten one ortwice yesterday; but that has happened
before, and as the defeats have generally been on eccle-
siastical subjects, it was supposed they had the right hon.
gentleman's sympathy. (Laughter.) It is true many of
us passed yesterday evening in a way I need not men-
tion, except that it must have been entirely satisfactory to
all who were present. (Laughter.) The right honour-
able gentleman came forward to oppose the motion—he
does not condescend to argue, that is a "cabinet" process
which he leaves to secretaries of state—(laughter)—
but he denounced with scorn, and almost with tirade, all
those notions which he had hitherto professed on this sub-
ject, and maintained the most ultra views on the opposite
side, a change which unless it is explained by the noble lord
who will probably address us to night, must remain a mys-
tery. (Hear, hear.) I will only say one word to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who seems to reproach us with a
new policy and new principles in upholding the expediency
of reducing the duty on tea. I was not aware that the
policy on this side of the house was new, or that the prin-
ciple we cdvocated was new. It is, the right hon. gentle-
man says, a newfangled policy so far as we are concerned ;
but considering that we were the first party that proposed
that there should be a reduction of the duty upon tea, and
that the final amount of that duty shonld be ls. in the pound,
I think there is a great want of judgment in the right hon.
gentleman's chocsing to reproach us for having, under the
circumstances in which this house is placed, and when we
have a surplus to distribute, urged the house to follow the
counsels which we recommended to it eight years ago .
We believed that it was a policy that would contribute to
the comfort of the working classes, and of the great mass of
the community ; and I may be permitted to say that hon.
gentlemen opposite have no claim to arrogate to themselves
the right to be considered the peculiar representatives of the
working classes. The principles upon which they are
founded may be right, or they may be wrong, but a variety
of laws have been passed through Parliament during the
course of the last 20 years, the object of which has been to
alleviate the labour of the people, to increase their comforts,
and to recognise their claim to that portion of their time
which may tend to their cultivation and general improve-
ment. All those laws have been opposed by hon. gentlemen
opposite. (Hear,) Though I do not wish to enter into auy
controversy now about statutes which, however opposed at
first, have been eminently successful, which have produced
none of the evils which were predicted by hon. gentlemen
opposite, and which are now received with affection and con-
fidence by the great body of the people, still I may be per-
mitted to say that it is rather unwise in hon. gentlemen to
assume a monopoly of affection for the working classes,
when, whatever may have been our errors, there can be no
doubt that upon these subjects we have been right, and hon.
gentlemen opposite have been constantly and invariably
wrong. (Loud cheers.) In 1852, in recommending that
policy which I have referred to in regard to the tea
duty, we had—l will;not say a higher, but a not less
important result in view than the improvement of the
condition of the people. We looked to see an increase
of occupation by opening up new markets and stimu •
lating old ones. And what aro the circumstances of
the present day with regard to that sul ject ? If the ex-
treme East was at that time a subject of great interest to us,
what is our present position with regard to China and
Japan ? That, sir, is a much more important subject for us
to consider than any bickerings between this and another
house of parliament, if those bickerings ever existed, and I
am surprised to find hon. gentlemen opposite treating it as
as an acknowledged fact that we have been defeated and
treated with contempt in the other house. Then if that
was the e.s., why did you submit to it ? (Loud cheers.)
If I had supposed that the House of Lords had interfered
with our privileges, 1 should not have been so silent as the
right hon. gentleman. But the House of Lords has its pri-
vileges end its rights; and if they had not, why have the
paper makers paid the duty which, if the right hon, gentle-
man be right, it was their duty to resist ? Why, Govern-
ment proposed a resolution vindicating the privileges of the
House of Lords ; and is it now the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, who, of all Ministers, is to treat as an historical
fact that the House of Lords had interfered with the privi-
leges of this house? (Hear, hear.) What did the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer do last session ? He brought in
a second budget, and included the paper duty as part of his
ways and means. (Hear.) I throw away, therefore, all
these arguments, covered with cobwebs, respecting our
privileges. I deny that they have been out-
raged ; and if they had, I believe there is spirit enough in
the House of Commons to vindicate them. The House of
Commons did not resist, because after a calm consideration
it was found that they had not been violated, and my
belief is that the House of Lords will never violate the
privileges of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) I
say, in conclusion, that we cannot, in deciding on this ques-
tion, keep such petty considerations as have been advanced
before our eyes. If there is a surplus revenue—if a remis-
sion of taxation is to be made, and it is to be distributed
for the benefit_of the people, it is the duty of this com-
mittee to consider the way in which that distribution
should take place. Will you open great markets and sus-
' Min your commerce ; will you clear those new channels of
trade which ought to be encouraged and improved, or will
you for some private understanding, some petty cause in
comparison which even yet is obscure, and which it has
been most difficult to unravel in the course of this de-
bate, but which all have acknowledged to be almost of
a personal character, will you forego this great opportunity
of supporting and stimulating the commerce of the
country ; or will you, on the other hand, take the course
which at best will obtain comparatively petty results, and
will encourage inferior interests ? That is the point upon
which we are going to decide ; and whatever may be our
present and immediate decision, lam sure that the principle
involved in the question before the house will sink deep
into the hearts of the people, and will notbe forgotten when
they are called to decide upon the conduct of their repre-
sentatives. (Opposition cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, those who have been in the
habit of attending to the course of debates and discussions
in this house must have observed from time to time that
when a great partyhave found themselves defeated in argu-
ment—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—they naturally
' have recourse to personalities. (Cheers.) They select for
their attack some leading and principal member of the party
by whom in argument they have been defeated, and they
endeavour to save themselves by an attack on that indivi-
dual, acting on the well-known principle in law, "No de-
fence, vituperate the counsel for the plaintiff." (Loud
cheers.) Well, that is the course which has been taken on
the present occasion. After long discussion on the various
details of the different proposals that have been made, we
have this night been favoured by a pouring forth of invec-
tive from the right hon. gentleman opposite upon my right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Oh, from
the Opposition.) But, sir, lam sure that my right hon.
friend, if no other consolation were offered him, will derive
comfort from au incident in the speech of the right hon•
gentleman opposite, for in the midst of his laboured invec-
tive the kindly feeling of his heart—(loud laughter)—
triumphed, and induced him, after accusing the Chancellor
of the Exchequer
to finish
hfequerofevheyryeaolffligennce that a public man could
be guilty
him h
(Loud laughter.) This deprives theduieslrbiegthwtehenon frien
d.
(Loud the right
it
hon. gentleman and my right hon. friend sof everything like
personal animosity, and we come back, therefore, to the real
merits of the case. (Cheers.) The question is brought to this
single issue. A surplus is ad mitted,al though the hon.baronet,
' who spoke with great ability, contended that we had no sur-
plus. We all know that at the beginning of the year,and when
part of the taxes areyterttiosmbewrhe-ieehnancethedod,
ytoeaosusledrtcetnhtartetvheerrt.e
is no surplus were a u
The questions we have to consider is how part of the surplus
should be applied, that is to say, by what remission of
taxation part of the surplus should be made to relieve the
taxpaYer With regard to a remission of a portion of the
•
income tax, that is disposed of. Then the question resolves
itself simply into this, shall we remit a portion of the exist-
ing duty on tea or shall we abolish the exoise duty on paper P
Now if the duty on tea were a very high duty, higher than
had ever been imposed during a period of war, and continu-
ing now at the rate to which it was raised during and for
the purposes of war, I should admit that that would be a
strong argument in favour of the reduction. But that is
not the state of the case. The duty now is lower than it
ever was at any former period. The duty imposed during
the war has been taken off since the war ended. (Hear.) It
is now a duty of Is. 51, and it is an utter misnomer and fal-
lacy to talk of repealing the war duty. Then in the first
place I say you cannot argue that the duty now existing is
a duty higher than it ever was before, or higher than it was
at any former period. That argument must fail. You
might say, however, that the price was high, but those who
, compare the price of tea now with what it was in former
Years not log Bo allot kiloYf tit the Prio (411911