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

the two Houses of Parliament he would be prepared. to vote
for ,he rcpcal of the paper duties.
Mr. MONSF.LL thought that they ought to consider this
Saes 3ure purely en financial -"rounds. ITe was eenvinee,3
'
that suy &money that might be caused by a repeal of
e di-
rect paper duty, would have to be made up by anincrease of
taxation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said he meant to vote on this qaestien
on its merits, and not on any party grounds. He could
not agree with those who thought that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had a surplus on the year. The right hon.
gentleman had based his surplus on the assumption that
the House of Commons were bound to obey his dictates,
and to re impose all thedutieshe wished;them to re-impose.
After all, the existence or non-existence of the budget was
s very immaterial question. If arguments were wanted
against the budget, he could find nothing more conclusively
condemnatory of the financial system of Mr. Gladstone than
his own speeches of 1853 and 1857. No one could tell what
would be the next step in our finances, or what would be the
position of our finances. The repeal of the paper duties
was unpopular, and many of the signatures to the petitions
against it were signed by Liberals. This was the case at
Norwich and at Coventry. He always voted according to
his conscience, whether it was popular or not, and he would
not impute to gentlemen opposite that they did otherwise,
but if they wished to give a popular vote, they must give
it against the repeal of the paper duty.
Mr. COBDEN, on rising, was received with loud cheers.
He said,—lt has not been my fortune, good or bad, to be for
six weeks in tho house during the time this complicated
question has been discussed ; I do not, therefore, know
exactly what has already been stated, and I am fearful that
in what I may say I should probably only be repeating
what has been better said before. I will be very brief,
then, in what I do state, and I should not speak at all but
that I am anxious to make one word of allusion to a subject
with which I have been myself concerned. Now, sir, I
will treat this question as it appears before us, without im-
porting any extraneous matter. The proposal is that we re-
peal the paper duty. I thought the question of substitu-
ting tea and sugar for paper had been disposed of. (Hear,
hear.) I thought the question of whether or not we had a
surplus had been settled. (Hear, hear.) But whether or
not, for my part I am willing to take paper from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer as he proposes ; and as to the sur-
plus, I leave him responsible for his calculations for the
future as to that. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, it is something
new in Parliament proceedings to see a party united,perseve-
ring, constant in their resistance to the repeal of a tax. (Hear,
hear.) I have seen—nobody has seen it more than I—we
have seen parties united to maintain what are
called protective duties—the t is, duties not laid on for
purposes of revenue, but for the protection of a
native industry. That I can understand, as being
a good basis for a party, and the party who had that cause
in hand fought long and boldly for it, though they were at
last defeated. But in all my Parliamentary experience,
and I have looked beyond it, I have never yet met a case
in which a party has taken its stand in opposition to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to prevent the repeal of any
tax. We have had a systematic opposition to the repeal of
this duty, a party banded together for the purpose—and in
whose interest ? Who are the parties who, outside of this
house, have opposed the repeal of the paper duty? We
cannot disguise it from ourselves that they are the large
papermakers and the large paper printers. (Hear.) These
are the parties who have originated the movement. (Hear.)
It is not a new thing—it is not unnatural. I have seen
something of the kind before. The very earliest public
movement with which 1 was connected nearly 30 years ago
was accompanied with the same thing. I recollect coming
up to London with a deputation on the subject of the repeal
of the duty on printed cottons. We saw Lord Althorp—a
shrewd, sensible man, as we all know—and I remember
quite well that in the course of our conversation the remark
was made that, although all the young calico printers and
many of the most respectable among the old firms were in
favour of the repeal of the duty, the very oldest of the prin-
ters were opposed to the repeal of the tax, Lord Althorp,
with that instinctive sagacity for which he was remarkable,
instantly replied thrit he had never heard so strong an ar-
gument in favour of the repeal of the tax, for it was quite
evident that if any cotton printers were interested in keep-
ing thetas on, it would not be for the public interest. (Hear.)
And what are the grounds on which these parties—who are
not cotton printers, and not, as our opponents then were,
harmless individuals in their strength—who have power,
who use a mighty instrument, who are organs of a public
opinion to which many of us have succumbed in past times,
and to which too many of us are ready to succumb now ?
What are the grounds on which these parties justify their
resistance to the repeal of this tax ? Last year the whole
of Europe resounded with the cry for free rags. I was at
the time on the Continent, and I declare that the Chan-
celleries of almost all the embassies in Europe were
ringing with this question •of rags, simply because
this notorious print that wished to make a party
question of rags, sounded the alarm that we had
been defrauded in the treaty with France, because she
would not allow rags to come in duty free. I may say in
passing--and it is all I have to say on the subjeet—that,
BO far as regards the French Government in its dealing
with this question of rags, it acted towards me not merely
with perfect good faith—for that is a small compliment to
pay any Government—but it showed an enlightened appre-
ciation of the business it had on hand, and it took especial
precaution that there should be no misunderstanding upon
the subject of rags. (Hear.) The French Government, as
we all know, had a prohibition on the exportation of rags,
but we know also that other countries on the continent—
such as Belgium and the Zollverein—had a prohibition
against their exportation as well. The French Government
contemplated, after completing the treaty with us, making
treaties with Belgium and other countries on the continent,
and they wished to retain in their hands the power of con-
ceding on the question of rags to those other countries from
whom they might in return ask for reciprocity. If they had
allowed exportation to those countries without stipulating
for reciprocity it must be evident that they would at once
have parted with their power of preventing their rags find-
ing their way into those countries. Exportation differs from
importation in this—you may give one nation an advantage
in importing goods, but when once you allow of the expor-
tation of goods you cannot prevent their free circulation
into other countries. The French Government therefore,
with my full consent, retained that question of rags in their
hands. (Opposition cheers and counter cheers.) The house
may remember, if it is worth while to go back to them,
what foul imputations were made on the Emperor of the
French and his Government, what unscrupulous charges of
having imposed upon me in this matter of rags. (Hear, and
counter cheers.) That is the spirit in which this matter was
resisted, and let it be a warning to hon. gentlemen:opposite
—(a laugh)—how they touch this question, and how they
deal with these parties. How is it that at this moment you
hear very little of that question ? It is because the cry, the
falsehood has been extinguished by subsequent knowledge
of the truth. (Hear.) But, leaving this question of the
treaty, how does the question of rags really affect the matter
in dispute? Have the papermakers any more right to claim
protection for paper because other countries have the ad-
vantage in rags than you had to claim protection for your
corn because other countries had an advantage in the pro-
duction of that article? (Hear.) Nothing is more certain
than that we adopted it as an inflexible principle that we
would never regard the coat of the production of any article,
and that we claimed the rightof importing
the
orting all productions,
and the cheaper they were
youevrehproduce-
Claim
dmore we insisted
on it. (Hear, hear.)
exemption from
that principle—l am speaking now to thee landed interest,
of this
which appears to have allied itself with the opponents
remission—when you claimed protection
against
yon the im-
portation of Russian corn, because you said
could not
compete with Russia, where corn was produced by the
labour of serfs fed on black bread—and protection against
corn from America, where land could be bought in fee simpleis
for 6s. an acre, whereas the English farmer had to pay 208,
an acre for rent—these very parties laughed you to scorn,
and denied you the protection you then sought. (Hear,
hear.) The case of sugar is still stronger, because whenwe
claimed the admission of foreign sugar there was a strong
argument in favour of protection to colonial sugar. The
Planters said they were obliged to raise it by free labour,
whereas their opponents raised it by slave labour, and not
only had they no slaves, but it was made felony to buy a
slave. Still we disregarded these arguments, and admitted
foreign sugar on an equality with colonial sugar. (Hear, hear )
All these things must be well remembered, particularly by
hon. gentlemen opposite, who were then refused the protec-
tion they sought in their own case. (Hear, hear.) What is
the ground on which this paper duty is to be an exception to
all other Excise duties? Is it a novelty that we are now
coming to ask for the repeal of the Excise on paper ? By
the way in which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer is attacked one would think that this is some
noveltyrn
suggested entirely by my hon. friend the member
for Birmingham, that the right hon. gentleman had taken
his inspiration from him alone, and that the thing had
never been heard of 12 months ago. Why, it is one of the
oldest questions we have had before us. I turn to the
" Financial Reform" volume by Sir Henr dated Parnell,
1831, and I find that on this subject he says :
" Contrary to every sound
principle of t
printed pde the manu-
facturers of paper, glass, and calicoes have been
selected as subjects of taxation. .
• . The duty on
paper has an injurious effect on many other trades. besides
that;of the papermaker. The limited consumption
it occasions injures the makers of machinery, typini;vdheiresh,
inismakers, printers, engineers, booksellers,- type_
stationers, paperstainrrs, and several other trades.bookbinders,
stationers,
the greatest evil of all is the high price of books which it
gives rise to. By this a r•rent otbst:,ele thrown in the way
of the progress of knowledge, of useful and necessary arts,
and of sober and industrious habits. By the use of books
the productions of the human mini are carried over the
whole world, and they may be truly called the raw materials
of e very kind of science and art, and of all social improve-
nient.''

I don't know that anything has been said on the subject of
paper which could much enlarge on the language of that
report, and :that was in :1831, when my hon. friend the
member for Birmingham had not yet reached man's estate.
Recollect that daring those 30 years every other Excise tax,
not including alcoholic and fermented liquors and hops, has
been abolished. (" Malt ?") I ally malt with alcoholic and
fermented liquors. (Hear, hear.) You have abolished the
duty on soap, on printed cottons, on glass, on leather, and
every other article, and now, when paper comes the very
last, which Sir IL Parnell put the first, you ask, "Who
Wants the repeal of the paper duty?" For 10 years to ray

knowledge there has been a society for effecting the repeal
of the paper duty. I, who highly approve that mode of car-
rying reforms in this country which enables us by resorting
to public opinion, to publications, and to public meee ngs to
carry reforms instead of descending into the streets to fight
for them, have long been a member of that association. I
have been a member of that association from the first--I
believe it was formed in 1849—and yet it is said, who has
asked for a repeal of the paper duty ? Then we are told
that therepeal of the duty will do no good, and that it yields
a small amount of revenue. The same argument might
have been used against the repeal of the duties on glass,
bricks, butter, and other things. They were all items much
smaller than this. They have been removed one by one—
not more than one in a year, and that year forming an epoch
in our finance. Yet, from the successive removals of these
restrictions on industry has proceeded that state of content
and quietness which the hon. gentlemen opposite are con-
stantly vaunting as proofs of the Conservatism of the age,
(Loud cheers.) I am old enough to remember when the
streets of London were periodically crowded with multi-
tudinous and violent men calling out for some impracticable
measures of reform, nearly allied to revolution. (Hear.)
I remember that every three or four years we were liable
to have the State thrown into confusion from the possible
failure of a harvest or of a market for our industry. But,
as we have expanded those markets, as we have removed
restrictions, as we have given further development to capi-
tal and more employment for labour in all our various
manufactures, we have placed ourselves, humanly speaking,
in that position in which it is scarcely possible to believe in
any great calamity happening to this country from any par-
ticular quarter, without finding it more than compensated by
the prosperity and advantages which we enjoy. (Cheers.)
Is it a hard, is it a difficult thing to govern a people who
ask only to be allowed to work ? (Hear, hear.) They are
contented if you allow them to labour and to earn moderate
wages. Do not tell me that the people have not clamoured
for these reforms. We are here because we aee assumed to
know better than they. (Hear.) That is our only title to
be here. (Cheers.) And with this long experience can any
one doubt that the true policy is to proceed in the path
which has been marked by such a career of advantage and
prosperity ? (Cheers.) It is attempted to frighten us by say-
ing that there are some impending calamities overhanging
us from the Western hemisphere. There is a danger—the only
danger which can menace this country, for I can conceive
no other danger of a great calamity or catastrophe but that
which may arise from a short supply of the raw material of
our industry. From everything else we guard ourselves by
the number of our markets and the variety of our resources.
A. catastrophe may come from such a source. I hope it will
not be so bad as some hon. gentlemen surmise. (Hear,
hear.) But, admitting the worst—admitting that danger—
what can we do better under the circumstances than follow
the path pointed out by experience, and by removing the
shackles from industry give a better chance of finding em-
ployment for the people ? (Loud cheers.) We have been
told that instead of taking the duty from paper we ought to
take it from tea or sugar. I have no objection to either or to
both. I can even hope that with the average prosperity we
have seen for the last few years in another year we may
greatly diminish the duty on tea and sugar. (Hear, hear.)
But I am not sure that the argument made use of with con-
siderable stress by the right hon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire with regard to a market for our ma-
nufactures in China is well founded. We were greatly dis-
appointed with what was called the opening up the trade
with China in 1840. I think that within four years we had
a committee sitting to inquire into the subject, and here, in
passing, I may say that I have no faith whatever in what
is called opening up China to Englishmen. From what I
hear of China, the Chinese merchants are quite as clever as
our own. (Hear, hear.) They have superseded the English
merchants at Singapore ; they have the whole trade with
San Francisco, and I believe if thaltrade is epened with
the interior of China it will be by Chinese and not by Eng-
lishmen. (Cheers.) But, at all events, Ishallbe very happy
to see a reduction of the tea duty, though it may not be
with the same certainty of an expansion of trade which
may be procured by the repeal of the tax on paper. (Cheers
and " No" from the Opposition.) Have hon. gentlemen
considered what is to be end of the present struggle ? I
fancy I see hon. gentlemen opposite arraying themselves
very much in the same way they did some 16 or 18 years
ago, opposed very much to the same people ' and the same
influences, and likely to be landed in very similar disaster.
(Cheers.) What are you aiming at? You are aiming at
preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from continu-
ing in a course which he has not chalked out for himself.
I cannot give him the credit of the least originality. He is
only going in the path which every Government must fol-
low, whether it be called Whig or Tory. (Cheers.) It is
for the advantage of hon. gentlemen opposite that they
should place themselves in this position? If you succeed
by a majority in overturning the Government and coming
in yourselves you must instantly adopt the very policy
which you are opposing tooth and nail. (Cheers.) There is
no alternative. The principle retained in the public mind
of England is to remove these barriers which impede the
progress of commerce and manufacture, so as to give the
chance of employment for a rising and increasing popula-
tion. You yourselves have the greatest interest in promot-
ing that policy, and in nothing more than the repeal of the
paper duty, by which you offer the advantage of employ-
ment to a class superior to those affected by any other article
subject to the Excise duty, for bear in mind that there is
no article which gives employment to the same educated
class of men as paper. (Cheers.) If I were a young man,
just fresh from college, with nothing but a good education,
I should look with much interest to making perfectly free
the press of this country—(cheers, and " Oh, oh," from the
Opposition)—by removing all the taxes which tend to ren-
der dear and scarce literary productions. What should I
want ? I should want employment for my pen. Is it not
an advantage to rising educated young men that more edi-
tors, more contributors, more shorthand writers should be
required ? (Hear, hear, and oh, oh I) Do not treat this as a
light matter.) I am not going to offer a menace to hon. gen-
tlemen opposite. I am the last man who would hope to in-
fluence them through their fears. But do not shut your eyes
to the fact, and let it be an element in the calculation of
success in the course you are pursuing, that all the cheap
and rising and growing literature of the country is in
favour of the removal of this duty. (Cheers.) You have
nearly 300,000 daily papers at a penny issuing from the
press, and almost every one of them is advocating the re-
moval of these duties. Fortunately, their interest is the
public interest, and therefore I am very happy to find them
advocating the removal of this duty. You have 70,000 or
80,000 dear papers issuing daily, and generally they are
silent, or they are trying surreptitiously or openly to pre-
vent the repeal of this duty. But can you doubt, if it comes
to a struggle, to a dissolution, to a change of Government,
that these 300,000 papers, with a multitude of weekly papers
at a penny, will every one be opposed to those who are op-
posed to the emancipation of the press? (Cheers, and oh.)
I am sorry to say it is not a question which can be argued
at length upon its merits as a fiscal question. The minds of
hon. members are straying to other subjects. This is made
a political question. I cannot go into the lobbies, and I can-
not stand here without seeing that it is made a political
question. (Hear, hear.) I ask, then, hon. members oppo-
site to take that view of it, and I say that the course they
are pursuing cannot possibly lead to a successful issue.
("Hear, hear," and murmurs of dissent from the Opposi-
tion.) I have been so little in this house of late that I do
not pretend to enter upon the question of the rival
strength of parties. I may say, honestly, I like to
see an Opposition which has some principles belonging
to it (hear, hear) which may make it eligible for the
country to resort to it, if it has occasion to seek better mea-
sures by a change of Government. At whose instigation
this course is being pursued I know not. It cannot be that
the wise heads of that party are the instigators of it. (Laugh-
ter and cheers.) But I tell them candidly they cannot give
the country tho benefit of their services even if they suc-
ceed in overthrowing the Government. (Cheers and counter
cheers.) I can see no benefit to them, but a long and pro-
tracted
evatar t e aa
(Hear,
hear,
hon, .
ngden a dtelerinz
struggle, without any issue which can promise them
ad
ge, or possibly injure the Government. Therefore
I n
opposite
fromite t o letth tehi squestio
Opposition.) question pass.
t.
us have this Budget settled.
how they can Let hon. gentlemen consider
adopt a couthe opportunity of holding r
s
e
of
policy which can give thorn
the opportunity of holdin
out to the country the prospect
of better measures than those
tration can give and th se which the present Adminis-
-1 ell, with their b do come into power, they ma great numb ers, if they
cer-
tainty of being obliged to Y come in without the falsify their ownprinciples turned out of office. (Cheers, and deris' or be
Opposition.) I am not going to tronbleiv
the
eheers from the '
house
greater length. (Hear, hear, from the Opposihti at any
°)
1 am
not sufficiently conversant with recent debates to do o
pleis. But
n
I thought it my duty to state my views
in
this
ner, and I sincerely hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will
allow this Budget to pass, and allow us to proceed with ,
other business of a practical character. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. T. G. BARING said,—l am sure I am only express..
ing the opinion of the whole house when I express my own
tification at the return of the hon. gentleman who has
gratification
just sat down to his place among us. (Loud cheers.) T
cannot help thinking that the hon. gentleman gave strong
evidence of the length of his absence from the country when
he described the opposition to the repeal of the paper duty
as consisting of only a few monopolists, and asserted that
there was no feeling at all on the subject throughout the
country. (Hear, hear.) Let me tell him that the opinion
of the country is, that if it be in our power to remove any
tax, this is not the moment for the removal of the paper
duty. (Cheers.) I believe that if he were to poll the cou n-
tty, aye and this house too, apart from party eunsideratio)ae
—(hear)—he would find the almost universal opinion to be
that any diminution of taxation which the Governme:at
can afford may be applied with far more benefit to the
national interests, with far greater relief to the consumers,
and with a far stronger stimulus to industry, than by the
repeal of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The hon. eema- 4'
professestlernan to be astonished that a party should take
its stand on the opposition to a repeal of taxatiou. I
would agree With him if we were certain that we wet .0
able to do without the tax, and that its removal would bene-•
fit the people in the greatest degree. But in the first
place, we on this side do not feel quite sure that you can
with benefit remove this tax, because we know that, if once ,!
removed, it can never be re-imposed. (Hear, hear.) No
man is gifted with omniscient sagacity, and if by any mis-
fortune there should be an error in the calculation
of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer--if the revenue should %A

short or the expenditure exceed his estimate, we 'mow that
you cannot revive the paper tax. We know also full well
that there is an elastic tax—the income tax--which will be
employed to meet any deficit. (Hear.) Again, we oppose
the immediate removal of this tax because there are other
duties to the reduction of which the house at large, and the
right hon. gentleman especially, is pledged—l mean the
war taxes on those articles which enter into the consump-
tion of the people. (Hear.) I recollect that the financial
reform sketched out by the hon. member for Birmingham
a year and a half ago comprised the reduction of taxation
on the consumption of the labouring classes, the reduction
of the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco ; but I think he
made no mention whatever of paper. (Hear, hear.) The
removal of the paper duty will not stimulate industry nearly
so much as the reduction of the duties on those articles
which we receive from other countries, (Hear.) The
hon. gentleman made an observation in regard to the pro-
hibitive duty on the export of rags from France which
ought not to pass unnoticed. I quite agree with him that
the French Government acted with the greatest good faith,
and we have now his own admission that it was with his
assent and approbation, and almost on his suggestion, that
they refused to make any change in regard to that duty.
(Cheers.) I have always thought that our Government
might have made better terms in that respect, but this is
the first time we have heard, on official authority, that the
French Government acted in this matter with the assent of
our representative. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman
maintains the principle that we ought to receive a commo-
dity from the country which can produce it most cheaply.
That is true ; but we must remember that on the occasion
in question we went on the principle of a treaty, and were
bound accordingly to get as much advantage for ourselves
as we could in return for our concessions. (Hear, hear.)
The honourable gentleman reminds the house that there
is a branch of the press which extends throughout
the country, and which will resent the continuance
of the duty, and urges us to conciliate them by re-
moving it. That is just the argument which we have been
using against the repeal. We object to it, because it will
benefit a class, and not the community at large. (Cheers.)
I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that the house ought
to accept the estimates of revenue and surplus from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer without examination or discussion.
I hold that it is the duty of the house to scrutinize them
carefully, and subject them to every test which doubt or
criticism can suggest. (Hear, hear.) I hope, with the
hon. gentleman, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is
sure of his surplus. lam no prophet to tell what will
be the revenue of the next year. The right hon. gentleman
may have under-estimated some of the items of revenue
—probably he has under-estimated some of the items of
expenditure as well. (Hear, hear.) There are two items
which have sprung up since the declaration of the right
hon. gentleman. There is the increased interest on Ex-
chequer-bills, which has already led to an addition of
about £50,000. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—It is
only for six months.
Mr. BARING.—It may be so in the meantime; but the
right hon. gentleman must be gifted with second-sight to
tell what will be the state of the money-market at the end
of that period. (Cheers.) Then there is another item of'
expenditure in the payment on account of the Stade
Dues, which public report fixes at about £200,000.
Similar items of expenditure arc always liable to spring
up, and if we abolish this duty we shall be able to meet them
only by falling back on direct taxation. (Hear.) The
noble lord the member for the City said that he
could not understand how we should object to the
calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without
proposing a vote of censure upon them. When I objected
to the Budget without moving an amendment, I did so
because I wished the house to reflect upon the course it
was called on to pursue. I believed that the proposals were
unpopular, and that representations would be made to the
Government which would lead them to reconsider, and
perhaps to modify, their schema. As I anticipated, there is
throughout the country a feeling that it would not be wise
to repeal this tax at the present time. I for one am
anxious that a sufficient surplus should be maintained to
meet every possible expense. Ido not hold myself at all
bound to the proposal of my right hon. friend the
member for Bucks, to make a further reduction of taxation,
if this measure be rejected. (Hear, hear.) Any further
reduction of taxation must be regulated by existing cir-
cumstances, and from day to day there seems to me to be
greater uncertainty as to the future, and greater change in
those circumstances which ought to guide this house in its
financial measures. It is, consequently, more and more in-
cumbent upon the Government, on its own responsibility, to
maintain such a surplus revenue as may guard us from any
future difficulty, and to preserve at once the faith of the
country and its influence in the world at a moment when the
influence of England is becoming more and more important.
(Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, the
committee has just heard delivered the opinions of two
gentlemen among the most distinguished and able of its
members, and men whose high characters are not less re-
markable than their abilities. One of them is the hon.
member for Huntingdon, the other is my hon. friend the
member for Rochdale. The latter recommends the repeal
of the paper duties as a measure wise, politic, and accoptable
to the country ; the former recommends the rejection of
that measure as being neither wise, nor politic, nor accept-
able to the people. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Under
these circumstances it is natural to examine into the com-
parative authority of those two hon. gentlemen, and to seek
for the sources of that authority by a recurrence to the ad-
vice which respectively they have given on previous occa-
sions. (Cheers and counter cheers.) In the member for
Rochdale we see the man who, more than any other, living
or dead, contributed to the destruction of the Corn Laws—
(cheers)—the man who eloquently advocated the repeal of
the Navigation Laws—(cheers)—and the man who on every
point in a struggle of twenty years has taken the most
active and powerful part in recommending that legislation
which has not only augmented the wealth of the country,
but done more for its Conservative principles than all the
measures promoted by hon. gentlemen opposite. (Con-
tinued cheering.) On the other hand, the hon. member
for Huntingdon opposed the repeal of tho Corn Laws as a
national calamity, bewailed the repeal of the Navigation
Laws as probably involving the ruin of the country, and
upon every—or nearly every—occasion when it has been
proposed to amend our commercial laws, and to relax
the existing restrictions of our system has beenifound their

stoutest and most ardent defender. (Cheers.) I say, then,
that upon this occasion the man who has always heretofore
interpreted rightly both the wishes and the interest of his
country is more likely to give sound advice than the man
who throughout the whole of his past life has misunder-
stood both the one and the other. (Cheers.) The committee
I know must be wearied with hearing the discussion of the
paper duties, and it is with an unfeigned reluctance that I
present myself to them on the present occasion. I trust,
however, that I may be allowed to occupy some small por-
tion of their time because, whatever may be said as to others
—whatever senses or constructions may for others be put
upon this discussion—at all events there is one man in the
house for whom it can bear but one construction, and that
is the person who now respectfully entreats your attention.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Radnor-
shire made some remarks which will lead me to the point
on which I wish to address the committee, for I want to at-
tain, if I can, to a true conception of the position of both
parties upon this subject. My hon. friend declared—and he
declared with perfect sincerity—that the Opposition had no
greater desire than to give their support to her Majesty's
Government. He stated that nothing but an absolute neces-
sity has brought them on this occasion upon the field of
battle, and that it was the excessive and wilful unreason-
ableness of the Government in making so strange a pro-
posal as the repeal of the paper duties which really left to
hon. gentlemen opposite, however pacific might be their
inclinations, no choice whatever, but compelled them to
step in for the purpose of restraining us in our rash and
furious career. Here, according to him, is the secret and
explanation of the present party conflict. (Hear, hear.) Is
that really a fair and just statement. We have heard a va-
riety of opinions expressed in the speeches of hon. gentle-
men opposite, who, nevertheless, concur in their votes.
The right hon. gentleman the• member for Bucks frankly
admits that an Excise duty is a bad duty, and that ho re-
tains the opinion on that subject which he has expressed on
previous occasions ; but the tendency of the minds of many
gentlemen opposite is explained much more accurately
by the noble lord the member for:Stamford, who, in a
vary ingenious speech, went back to the legisla-
tion of 1842 and 1844, ridiculed the argument of Sir
Robert Peel upon the glass duty, and contended that the
present progress of the country neither was nor could have
been owing to free-trade legislation, but was due to a set of
causes entirely different. I have no argument to address to
the noble lord. Upon his standing-ground it appears to me
that he is entirely unapproachable by us—(a laugh)—but I
sakin a Parliament where the opinion opposed to his is
no longer regarded as a matter of opinion but as an estab-
lished fact, resting on the solid proof of a happy experience,
and where we are entitled not to argue for, but to argue
from, the proposition that the
relaxation of commercial re-
strictions and the liberation of trade ere the true and wise
policy for this country to
pursue.(clie
t.t by the ers.) Is there any-
thing E 0 strange, then, in the production
Govern-
ment of the proposal to repeal the paper in
place it is strictly true, with exceptions so insignificant
gn? In the first
t
t that
I need not refer to them, that except as to the constituents
of strong liquors, which by the necessary principles of
your fiscal system are and must continue to be heavily
burdened, the trade in paper is the one within the limits of
this country ss liieh et the present moment is in allits branches
burdened, and in many of its branches actually proscribed.
(Hear, hear.) Every other restriction is gone. Every other
excise, one after another, has been sacrificed. Was that
because there was a 0,11 for it from the people ? No such
thing. I had the curiosity to look back to the ease of the glass
duties. I believe the whole number of petitions for the re-
peal of the glass duties in three years, including 1845, the
year of the repeal, was one. (Hear, hear.) For the repeal
of the brick duties there may have been six or eight peti-
tions. For the repeal of the soap duties there was not a
single petition before the proposal was made by the Govern-
ment, and even then the number was very insignificant.
The paper duty is the only excise duty for the repeal of
-which there has been a constant demand from the country,
and that demand has been supported by many members of
.Rarliment, Members of FarliAment not belonging exclu-