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

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

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 u.u.
necessary. The sum and substance of his hon. friend had,
in fact, occurred very near its conclusion. His hon. friend
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 the
estimate of revenue and expenditure. True, the surplus
was £1,900,000, and the taxes proposed to be repealed
amounted to £2,400,000. 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 lion. friend asked then to reverse the
principle upon which had been based the most important
financial 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. Ile could
give his hon, friend three instances occurring in the time of
three different chancellors of the Exchequer. In 1848 the
surplus was £113,000, and the House of Commons passed
an act repealing sugar duties to the extent of £1,480,000,
not merely for that year, but comprehending successive
falls for seven years to come. In 1853, with a surplus of
X 93,000, 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 £493,000, 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. frier d 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 complaine-d 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 although 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 plit, 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
propose a measure bearing upon the subject of the tax on tea
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
observed that I ought not to do so without making a pre-
liminary the
leads me
yatshtaetetinhee:te, anlyrdeslseedo.m
lwilnisihnathr Butlanothery on thl occasionreasons
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 surplus of income over expen-
diture, 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 wake 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, hut 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.
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 coramitt,e 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—I 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. The 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, I
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 tespected 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 paity
which then as now he led ? lie did not say, "This is a
proposal so manifestly advantageous, that it at once com•
mands my assent," but declined the responsibility of any
remission
simply upon its own merits. He said on the 13th
May, 1853, "The committee must recollect that when a
proposition was made by the late Government to repeal the
duties on tea, we
purposely combined with it an article of
British growth with which tea was supposed to enter into
competition—namely, the duty on malt." We were asked
to remit the excessive duty on the article of home growth,
and bemuse we did not propose to remit the duty on that
article,
which amounts to about 20 or 25 per cent. on the
price of beer, velel. 200 per cent.,
le the tea duty was
hon. gentlemen
ed the policy, and said that in the
. the right
opinion of the Governm
"nt
of Lord Derby the duty on tea
et
ought not to be reduced without sacrificing the duty on malt.
As regards the merits of the duty, I may say, as it hasbeen
said, that I have wrapped Up my ld. in paper, as the right
e,e
hon. gentleman thought it ue,'..A_ ry to wrap up his tea in
malt. (A laugh.) As regards the merits of the duty, we
think more favourably of the case than he did. We think
this is a remission that, under favourable circumstances,
does not require to be argued, and that would he highly
beneficial to the people of this country.
But at present, we
have to consider it with reference to the extravagant
claims made for it in certain quarters. I showed, in
iatroduciPg tie (Notion, what would be the effect of the •

notremission
cuo pnot ne s
tt he
de c
and o ns uwmh
ie. re ,h and I k
nl likewise we ias this,
cannot
no
be which has
confuted,
that the reduction of mere revenue duties for the benefit of
the consumer has not been the first but the last among all
the great objects of commercial reform for the last 20 years,
and that although good in itself it is and has been recog-
nised 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, but 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 alight 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, but 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 Lome 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
ls. 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 obtain an estimate
of its effect, and my belief is that tbat estimate was gives
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 hon. 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
attention of the hon. gentleman to the course of financial
legislation for the last 20 years. It is a preliminary prin-
cipleiname.liitts-witia owsbornis dative csitablbetted- *Ma by

reason and experience that the first effect of any reduction
we propcse 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 cus 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—tbe 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 oth
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 1841,
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 consump: 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 plaee: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 pet iod, 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 ls. 9d.
to Is. 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. 24c1. to
ls, 10d. per lb. The loss caused to revenue then was 44d.
on each lb., but the consumer gained absolutely nothing
as tea ;remained at the same price after as before
the reduction, namely, 3s. 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. 31d. 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
consumer. (Hear, hear.) Considering the time taken to
propose the amendment, I think something less vulnerable
might have been expected: (A. laugh.) I believe it is a
law of nature that the nobility of animals is in proportion

to the period of their,gestation. (A laugh.) lam sorry to
say the .reverse appears to be the case in the instance of
Parliamentary 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 end 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 thetax. We must
not forget that the deliberate vote of the house rs tl- 8 re-
peal of a tax was conclusive as to its repeal. (11;.1.Y Ido
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.) Ido 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 1815 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 Sirß. Peel was denounced
as the author of an organised hypocrisy. Sir It. Peel also
said that he proposed the absolute repeal of certain duties,
expecting from the increased consumption of other articles
an improvement in the 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
crimes 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 tap-
, 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. Ido 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 prevenls
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 biturninised 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 that would otherwise be
open, remunerative, 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 Maigliah 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 tact, a virtual
drawback ; and upon consideration we came to the conclu-
sion that wo 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 hands 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 hour e with a more certain assurance
of Cie 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 Ist 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 is. 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 ho 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. lIENNESSY 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. Nonnts supported, and Viscount
HOLMESDALE 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 tea duties
was the chief means by which a surplus was to bo 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. Ho fitatzd that he was utterly unable to
make out that the reduction of the tea duty would entail a
loss of £050,000 on the revenue. According to his calcula-
tion it would be £820,000. In 1853 the duties on tea wore
2s. 211, and it was proposed to reduce them to ls. in 1850,
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 duties 2ro ; 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 endeasvour to revive the controversy in another
way. (Hear, tear.) What would have been tho deficiency
of last year if the House of Lords had passed that bill ?
(Hear, hear.) Why, it would have been £2,000,000. He
would now come to the question of finance. He did not
think them 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 ono 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 they had a preliminary ques.
Von, 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. Northcote'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 bettor 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 reducs
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 1 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 now 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, he 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. gentleman 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 nut 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.) There
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 darkness ; 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
supptrt a motion which I myself recommended to the no-
tice of the house. We were net 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 went
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 I 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 importancetn itself—of the utmost import-
ance with a view to the increase of the comfort of the people
—of the utmost importance to 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 he 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 ithe 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.) Fir,
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 rail% 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 ease ; 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 case
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 to.
and Lugar," (Qom) Id 9 not quote ‘O, HAUfißra" A* a

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
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 I aril
aware of has happened to the Government except that they
were beaten one or twice 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 ho had hitherto professed on thisasub-
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 advocated 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 should 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 Ido not wish to enter into any
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 are 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 case, 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 and its rights; and if they had not, why have the
paper makers paid the duty which, if the right hon. gentle-
man he right, it was their duty to resist ? Why, Govern-
ment proposed tt 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 es as 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 cannct, 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-
tain 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 roost 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 not be forgotten when
they are called to decide upon tho 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 partyhav© 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 an 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 of every offence that a public man could
be guilty of, to finish by calling him his right hon. friend.
(Loud laughter.) This deprives the duel between the right
hon. gentleman and my right hon. friend of 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 raitted, 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 are yet to be re-enacted, to assert that there
is no surplus were a truism which nobody could controvert.
Ihoeuiqduesbotion we
applied, h a
thatv have
to
tcsontsoidesrayis, howby
wpabratt remission
nplus
f
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 excise duty on paper ?
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. 5d., and it is an utter misnomer and fal-
lacy to talk ef 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 over 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
You not lens ago nawit hum that the price has Well im-

mensely and is much lower than at any former period.
Then have the duty and the price diminished the consump-
tion ? Why, my right hon. friend (Sir G. Lewis) has shown
you to-night that the consumption between 1853 and last
year has risen immensely, has risen from fifty odd millions
of pounds to seventy edd millions. Therefore you cannot say
that the present state of things limits oppressively the power
of consumption. Then it might be said, " Your supplies are
likely to fail you, and if your supplies diminish and your de-
mand remains the same, and your consumption at home in-
creases, the price will naturally increase, and the pressure
will be felt by the consuming classes. But the right hon•
baronet has answered and removed that objection, because
he has reminded you that the treaty with China and the
treaty with Japan have opened large additional markets for
the supply of tea, and if that be the case yous,supply will
increase, and it is quite clear that the tendency of things
will be to lower the price with the newexisting duty. Well,
then, I say I admit, if we had nothing to consider except
this tax alone, it would be desirable at any time at which
it was practicable to do so, to lower the duty on that, as
well as any other article of general consumption by
the lower classes ; yet I say, on the grounds I have stated,
they; is no such pressing case of urgency in regard to the
duty on tea, to lead you to reduce it in preference to any
other tax which has peculiar claims on your consideration.
It was represented that my right hon. friend the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer said a diminution of the duty would
not find its way into the pockets of consumers in the shape
of a reduction of price. Nuw, my right hon. friend never
said anything of the kind, but what he said was that from
the nature of the measure and the circumstances of the case
it would be a considerable time before the benefit was reaped
by the consumer, and that, therefore, the purpose for which
the remission was proposed would not be accomplished. MY
right bon. friend could not be supposed by any body to be so
little conversant with the principles, of which be knows so
much, as to imagine that a diminution of duty did not in the
long run, by some means or other, produce a benefit'to the
consumer. Thenwe come to the reason why we should pro'
pose the remission of the duty on paper. It is admitted that
an excise duty is a bad duty from its essential nature ; that
it interferes with the manufacture to which it applies; that
it renders that manufacture more expensive, and prevents
improvements in it, and also that it prevents other inven-
tions connected with the manufacture that would otherwise
come into operation. Myright hon. friend stated an example.
He showed you a pipe made of paper, and covered with
other material, which would be exceedingly useful for man,'
purposes, and if the authorities of the Treasury had not
decided that, in point of fact, it could not be deemed to be
paper, that article would have been prevented from cons'
ing into use. I happen to know another instance. In the
valley in which I live a very ingenious man three or four
years ago established a mill in which he was to make not paper
but parchment, to be made out of animal substance in the
same manner as paper by a pulping machine—the article
being applicable to a variety of useful purposes, which would
have superseded parchment in a great degree, being applis
cable to binding books and various other useful purposes•
Well, that manufacture was stopped because it was decided
on appeal to a court of appeal that, inasmuch as it was made
in the same manner as paper, it ought to be liable to the
Excise duty on paper. (Hear.) No doubt theremust be
many others of which we are ignorant ; but these two ex'
amples are sufficient as illustrations of the inconvenience of
these Excise duties, and of the desirability of getting rid of
them, if we can do so consistently with our financial poi'
tion. Well, I say that, taking the intrinsic merits of the
Excise duty on paper, it is a duty which stands in prefer-
ence to others for repeal, if you can afford it without incow
venience to your financial position. (Hear, hear.) But thia
is not the first time this proposal has been made to Parlia-
ment. Parliament is not altogether free to take its decision
on this matter. Individuals have been reminded of the opt'
nions they expressed at former periods under circumstance°
in the country entirely different from those in which we
now stand, by quotations such ss those which have been
given from speeches of my right hon. friend the Chancellor'
of the Exchequer, which I must say are not applicable to
the present state of things. (Laughter from the Opposition.)
•I
say that if individuals are to look back to see what they
said or thought on former occasions this house has also
a character for consistency, and it ought to look bacX
and see what it has said and done in matters cow
netted with the public interest. (Cheers.) Resolutione
have been passed by this house, and bills have beea
passed decreeing the abolition of this excise duty se
soon as the circumstances and finances admitted. Sarelit
then, if the consistency of individuals is to be regarded,
the consistency of an aggregate body ought also to be
regarded ; and if the house wishes to be consistent
with regard to the opinions it has frequently and deli-
berately expressed, we call upon it now to redeem the
pledges it has more than once distinctly given. (Cheers.)
We are told that there is no reason for doing this in cone'
quence of the difference on the subject between the two
Houses of Parliament. Why, last year the same language
was held. I remember that a great deal of irritation Wag
created, not in this house alone, but out of this house, in the
co-antry— (loud cheers)—not by a violation—a technical via"
lation—of the privileges of this house by the other House of
Parliament, because I ventured humbly to submit to the
house, and this house concurred in the opinion, that techni"
tally speaking the House of Lords had a right to do that
which they did—that they were entitled to reject the whole
proposition sent to them, though we disputed their right to
alter or amend its separate parts; but that feeling to which
I have adverted was to be attributed to a difference of °pint's°
on a great question of national policy. (Hear, hear.) Se
man can deny that when a difference of opinion exists be'
tween the two houses or. d question connected with the finely
cial arrangements of the country, with regard to which the
House of Commons has always expressed and maintained
the utmost jealousy as to its privileges—no one can dispute
that it is very desirable to get rid of the grounds on which
that difference rests. (Hear, hear.) We are told, and truly,
that the House of Lords acted last year in the belief and
conviction, as they thought, that there was not at the tirae
of their decision surplus enough to justify them in agreeing
to sacrifice a very large portion of revenue. We are told that
this year that objection does not apply, and that it will not
be repeated when the repeal of this particular duty coraee
again before them for their acceptance. I accept that State
went with the greatest satisfaction. I believe it will turnout
to be true. I say, let us take the House of Lords when they
are in that mood. (Laughter.) Let us avail ourselves of this
golden opportunity for getting rid by mutual consent of that
which last year was a source of dissension and difference, and
may in a future year, if it be.still allowed to exist, give rise
to some fatal differences between the two Houses of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet said he could see ne
political advantage in the course we propose ; but in doing
so he took a very short-sighted view of the practice and
working of the constitution. There is nothing I should se
much deprecate as a permanent or established difference on
any material point between the two Houses of the Legisla'
ture. Most unfortunate would it be if that difference of
opinion were to arise on a matter which we think belong°
to our own exclusive and peculiar jurisdiction, but in regard
to which the other house may think it stands in the position
of a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, entitled to exer-
cise a separate and distinct opinion. I say then, on every
ground—on the ground that the tea duty is not a dutywhich
presses seriously on the lower classes of the community-'
on the ground that the price of the commodity is less than
it was in former years, and that there is a probability that
the increased supply will create a diminution in price—and
on the ground, on the other hand, that we have an oppor'
tunity of settling with the good will, assent, and consent of
the other House of Parliament a question of difference
which if left unsettled may at some future time produce
the same agitation which did exist during the last session
of Parliament—l say, on every ground, commercial, finals"
cial, and political, the proposal which we make is entitled
to your preference, and I cannot believe that the decision
of this house will be otherwise than approbatory of the re'
solution before it. (Loud cheers.)

The committee then divided—
For the resolution
Against it
Majority for the Government ---18
• -

After the division had taken place there was evidently
considerable anxiety on both sides to know the result. On
the tellers taking their places to announce the numbers,
when it was perceived that the Government had a majority
there was vociferous cheering from the Ministerial benches,
and especially
was
PecialiY from the members below the
Whengangway
announced that the "Ayes "were 299, there
was
a
burst of cheering from the Opposition side of the
house, which was repeated again and again when the
,t Noes" were declared to be 281.
The resolution was then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with
respect to the paper duty he could not ask the committee
at that hour to proceed with any resolutions that night,
which hon. members opposite were anxious to discuss, btit
he wished to proceed with those resolutions which would
not require any protracted discussion. (Cries of No, no,
from the Opposition.) He only put the question for the
consideration of the house.

Mr. DISRAELI considered that at that hour of the night
it would be extremely inconvenient to proceed with businesS•
Thore were circumstances when a Minister was supported
by a triumphant majority—(derisive laughter and cheers
from the Opposition)—and exceptions might be made. g°
did not wish to offer any obstruction to the progress of pub-
lic business; but he thought after what had just taken
place, and that this question was carried by a very small
majority, it would be for the benefit of both sides of the
house to have time to reflect on what had passed, and he
thought it would be most unadvisable again to commence
now considering resolutions which might lead probably to
a protracted discussion. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I have not the least objection to
give the right lion, gentleman time for reflection—(hear,
hear, and a laugh)—and therefore they would proceed on
Monday with the resolution on the paper. (Hear.)
The remaining orders were disposed of and the house ad"
joured at half-past one.

At Lloyd's to-day war premiums were required of
20s. to 30s. on American vessels that have sailed from New
Orleans, and £3 on ships that have Yet to start. From NEW
York the charge is only 10s,

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Sayoy, ha the County of MI difelri
Utty 3,1801.