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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EV'ENINV, MAY 31, 1861.

the two Houses of Parliament he would be prepared to vote
for the repeal of the paper duties.
Mr. MONSELL thought that they ought to consider this
measure purely en financial grounds. He was convinced
that any deficiency that might be caused by a repeal of the ,
paper duty, would have to be made up by an increase of di-
rect taxation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said he meant to vote on this question
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 (Any his dictates,
and to reimpose all thedutieshe wished,them to re-impose.
After all, the existence or non-existence of the budget was ,
a 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
net 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 flails., was received with loud cheers.
He said,—lt has not been my fortune, good or bad, to be for
six weeks in the 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 anions 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--that 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 Alth3rp,
with that instinctive sagacity for which he was remarkable,
instantly replied that 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 the tax 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 subject—that,
so 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 raga. (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 cost of the production of any article,
productions,
and that we claimed the right of importing all
and the cheaper they were produced the more we insisted
on it. (Hear, hear.) When you claimed exemption from
that principle—l am speaking now to the landed interest,
which appears to have allied itself with the opponents of this
remission—when you claimed protection against the im-
portation of Russian corn, because you said you 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 simple
for 6s. an acre, whereas the English farmer had to pay 20,,
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 raiseit by free labour,
whereas their opponents raised it by slave labour, and not
only had they no slaves, but it was manes felony to bn. y a
slave. Still we disregarded these argu, 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
novelty 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 Henry Parnell, dated
1831, and I find that on this subject he says :
" Contrary to every sound principle of trade, the manu-
facturers of paper, glass, and printed calicoes have been
selected as subjects of taxation The duty on
paper has an injurious effect on many other trades besides
thatlof the papermaker. The limited consumption which
it occasions injures the makers of machinery, type -founder ,
inkmakers, printers, engravers, booksellers, bookbinder:
stationers, Paperstainers, and several other trades. But
the greatest evil of all is the high price of books which it
gives rise to. By this a great obstacle is 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 mind are carried over the
whole world, and they may be truly called the raw materials
of every kind of science and art, and of all social improve-
ment."
I don't know that anything has been slid 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 during 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 11. Parnell put the first, you ask, "Who
wants the repeal of the paper duty ?" For 10 years to my

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 meetings 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—l
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 thatityields
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 en 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.) lam 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 are 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 that trade 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 bo 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
Taper duty, by which you offer the advantage of employ-
ment to a class superior to those affected by any otb er 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 rut-
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 shou'd 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. lam 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 Ido
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 the benefit of their services even if they suc-
ceed
in overthrowing the Government. (Cheers and counter
cheers.)
struggle, see
w itnhoebuetneentlyt
itsos them,ue which
na longa
promiseud t
hpro-
tracted
advantage, or possibly injure the Government. Therefore
I entreat hon. gentlemen
ereeorsei
t from
rte letom t h this hi s
Opposition.)qu est question
Let
us have
settled.ee Let hon. gentlemen consider
how they
the opportunity of holding out to
the country the prospect
of better measures than those
which
Adminis-
tration can give, and then, with their the present
e
!at numbers, if they
do come into power, they may Dome
cer-
tainty of being obliged to falsify their in without the geprinciples or be
turned out of office. (Cheers, and derisive cheerse from the
Opposition.) lam not going to trouble the h
greater length. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) atl
am
any
not sufficiently conversant with recent debates to do so. But
I thought it my duty to state my views in this plain _
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,—I am sure lam only express-
ing the opinion of the whole house when I express my own
gratification at the return of the hon. gentleman who has
just sat down to his place among us. (Loud cheers.) I
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 coun-
try, aye and this house too, apart from party considerations
—(hear)—he would find the almost universal opinion to be
that any diminution of taxation which the Government
can afford may be applied with far more benefit to the
national interests, with far greater relief to the consumers,
atrleneydrenawaliiitehpf
professes
efe
sa
srpe
ass
pttreoor nbdegueatrsyts.
ot
ni mi(sHu lh
eeudasr
that, toh ienadar u.
); tari th teshhhaonounlb.dyg takeethe-
its stand on the opposition to a repeal of taxation. I
efa
nawtdeestthwad etergi et
rs e
ecr ee. rr
at aoEivnua
But in
hwianot
uwtlhdeebwefires e;
fitwabol uetlhtdoe da
people
:wee
pei t
lhewwith
outitnh t himhe
thet a x ,g,
ri
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 reyeuue should fall

short or the expenditure exceed his estimate, we know 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 are 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 scheme. 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 mint 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 acceptable
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 the 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 beenlfound 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 he 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 foriStamford, who, in a
very 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
apeakhetnisaepntairrliaelyraunenatpwphroearcehtahbele by us—(a (oapplaousgedh
the noble lord. Upon his standing-ground it appears to me
no longer re
estab-
lished fact, resting on the solid proof of a happy
regarded as a matter of opinion but as an
and where we are entitled not
from, the proposition that the relax
argue for, but to
commercial
strictions and the liberation of trade are the commercial r.te3-e
policy for this country to pursue. (Cheers.) Is there
thing so strange, then, in the production by the Govaeny-
ment of the proposal to repeal the paper duties ? In the first
place it is strictly true, with exceptions so insignificant 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 which at the present moment is in all its 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 cell for it from the people ? No such
thing. I had the curiosity to look back to the case of the glass
experience, )t—o hb laugh)—but
st is
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
Parliament, Members of Parliament not belonging exclu-

sively to this side of the house have thought fit to join an
association for promoting the repeal of the paper duties.
The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, for whose
vote the country will look with interest to-night, and
the right hon. baronet the member for Herts,
whose vote upon a former occasion was given in the
manner that we expected from what we knew of him, are
members of an association for the repeal of the paper duties.
The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks is not
himself, as far as I know, a member of any such association.
He has probably acted upon the principle to which I have
always adhered, and, without censuring others, has de-
clined to be a member of any association outside the doors
of this house for Parliamentary purposes. But the object
has received the most distinct, conspicuous, and emphatic
support from the right hon. gentleman. The right hon.
gentleman voted for the repeal of the paper duties in 1850,
when the duty on tea was 2s. 2d. per lb. (Hear.) What did
the right hon. gentleman do in 1858 ? I am afraid I cannot
approach this part of the subject without coming to a point
on which I differ from my right hon. friend the President
of the Board of Trade, because in my opinion all abstract
resolutions on the subject of the extinction of taxes are im-
prudent and unwise. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend thought
differently, and he moved a resolution condemning the
paper duty, selecting it from all other duties, and making
no reservation in favour of tea. Byhis resolution he pledged
the house to the proposition that the paper duty should not
be permanently maintained, and that distinction was con-
ferred upon the paper duty alone. There was one gentleman
more responsible for that resolution than my right hon.
friend. My right hon. friend moved it as a private member
of Parliament—the right hon. gentleman accepted it as the
organ of a Government. (Cheers.) I confess that, as it ap-
pears to me, he did an imprudent act in acceding to that
resolution; but I confess also that it seems to me that, hav-
ing acceded to it, he would have done better to avoid the
temptation which has since been put in his path to endea-
vour to explain it away. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) Why, Sir,
the right hon. gentleman has since told us that that was a
hesitating resolution, passed in a languid house, and it was,
according to him, a resolution that meant that, at some
future time or other—probably in the days of our children
or grandchildren, when the war duties upon tea and sugar,
as they are called—and I will say a word upon that subject
by and by—had been disposed of, and the income tax was
extinguished, then, forsooth, we might proceed to repeal the
paper duty. But does the right hon. gentleman think that
he, as the organ of the Government, was right in advising
the house to give that pledge in the face of the country
—(hear, hear)—and does he think that he is using weapons
which are either safe or honourable when the House of
Commons is encouraged, in order to avoid some momentary
difficulty or to obtain some momentary favour—(hear, hear)
—to hold out promises of that kind which are to be
explained—l repeat the terra—which are to be ex-
plained away in order to meet the prudential considera-
tions which exigencies may subsequently suggest ? (Oh,
oh.) The right hon. gentleman has to-night set up a
doctrine which, as far as I know, is entirely new. In the
first place, I must say that, differing in this respect very
much from some gentlemen who have spoken from that
side of the house, he has stated the issue with perfect fair-
ness. He made a comparison between an Excise and a Cus-
toms duty, and he said, " I admit at once that we are not
to look to the mere question to what extent a reduction is to
be effected in the price of some article of subsistence, but we
are to look to the effect of our measures upon the gene-
ral trade, industry, and employment of the country." With
respect to that I will only say that I entirely agree with the
right hon. gentleman as to the principle, but I believe it to
be impossible for any candid man, after any examination,
however cursory, of the facts of this case, to maintain that
the removal of some 3d., which is the utmost that could be
taken off the duty upon tea, would have anything like the
effect upon the industry of the country that wo must in
common prudence anticipate from the abolition of the duty
on paper. (Hear, hear.) What is the effect of a Customs
duty ? The effect of a Customs duty is by burdening the
article to which it applies to limit the consumption. The
effect of an Excise duty so far considered is the same, but
over and above that effect an Excise has a serious in-
fluence through the medium of its restrictive regulations
and the indirect cost which it entails, which amounts not
merely to a burden, but, in many instances, to an absolute
prohibition. What was it that, in the year 1830, caused
Sir H. Parnell to designate this paper duty first among
those that called for repeal ? That was not the suggestion
of the hon. member for Birmingham, and every authority
from that time to this has concurred in that judgment.
The facts of the case as they concern the paper duty are
these. You are not simply to consider what is the incidence
of the duty upon the paper that is made in this country
—so far I grant that there is a certain parallelism between
that duty and the tea duty—what you must consider is,
what are the trades or branches of trade which are pesi
tively prevented or extinguished by the operation of the
paper duty. Were this the time for details it would not be
difficult to state many such trades to the house. On a for-
mer occasion my noble friend mentioned one instance and I
mentioned another—and that might be greatly multiplied—
of a trade in paper, that is to say in sheets made of fibrous
materials, that is actually rendered impossible, or all but
impossible, in many cases quite impossible, by the opera.
tion of the paper duty. :The right hon. gentleman, feeling
the pressure of the argument, resorted to a doctrine which
I believe to be entirely novel, which I grant to be inge-
nious, and which I admit would have been entitled to in-
fluence our decision if it had been true—(a laugh)—by true,
of course I mean accurate. He said that the tea and sugar
duties are war duties, and that Parliament is under a pledge
to remove them. " Let us therefore," continued the right
hon. gentlemen, " let us above and before all things keep
faith with the nation." Now, sir, lam glad to get the
issue between us some degree narrowed. If the first-
part of this statement can be proved, I do not contest the
latter portion of it. I say "by all means let us keep faith
with the nation." But is it true that these are war duties ?
In what sense are they war duties ? Were they imposed in
time of war ? No. Were they imposed for the purposes of
war ? No. When were they imposed ? They were im-
posed in time of peace, and not for purposes of war. (Mur-
murs of disapproval on the Opposition benches.) Ido not
. in the least complain of those murmurs. My desire is to
convey information, because I am sure that hon. gentle-
men, although they seem to muster as if for a party
struggle, are really actuated much more by a love of truth
and a desire to understand the facts of the case, of a great
many of which I do not think that they can possibly be
aware. (Cheers.) I want to know what is the meaning of
a war duty. Ido not now ask whether this expression
has prevailed as a cant phrase, or has been adopted as a
convenient ono. Ido not know who is the author of it.
I cannot tell whether or not it has ever passed my lips.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition ,benches.) lam
not finding fault with the phrase, because I can under-
stand that if you treat it as a popular designation it is
so far true that the duties with which tea and
sugar are now burdened are higher than those
which were proposed before the Russian war. (Opposition
cheers.) But that does not make them war duties. Is the
present income-tax a war income-tax ? (Yes, yes, and
cheers.) The present income• tax was imposed in 1859. Is
there, then, any pledge connected with the Russian war to
reduce the income-tax? (Yes, and hear, hear.) Ido not
speak of any time that is gone by. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.)
I speak of the tax upon incomes imposed in 1859, and I say
that you may, if you choose, popularly call that a war in-
come- tax, because it is higher than the income-tax as it was
originally proposed—(hear, hear)—when we had an expen-
diture of £52,000,000 or £53,000,000 to provide for ; but I
say that it would be ludicrous to call it a war income-tax in
the sense of founding upon that term an engagement—be-
cause that was what was done by the right hon. gentleman—
an engagement, to reduce that tax as if it had been an income
tax laid for the purposes of war. If there is no such engage-
ment, the whole argument of the right hon. gentleman falls
to the ground. What I say of the tea and sugar duties is
this. In the first place, however, I must complain of the
unfairness which is practised upon this subject. Again and
again we are told how wrong it is—and an endeavour is
made to delude the public upon the subject; again and
again the people have been told that it is absurd to repeal
the paper duty instead of repealing the war tea and sugar
duties. (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord the member
for Staffordshire considers that a fair statement of the case,
does he ? (Hear, hear.) Now, that is exactly the point
to which I want to bring the committee. The noble lord
says that, instead of repealing the paper duty, we ought to
repeal the war tea and sugar duties, the repeal of the paper
duty entailing a loss this year of £600,000, and ultimately
of £1,250,000, while the abolition of the war duties upon
tea and sugar would cause a loss of £2,500,000. (Cries
of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The right hon. baronet
the member for Droitwich denies that statement. I beg
leave to say that, speaking in round numbers, I have stated
accurately what would have been the cost for the year
of repealing what are called the war duties upon tea and
sugar, and I do not think that it can be denied that it is
grossly unfair to represent the repeal of the paper duty to
the public as if it prevented the repeal of another duty
which would cost more than twice the money. [Sir J.
Pakington was understood to say that no proposal had been
made for the sacrifice of so large an amount of revenue.] I
am stating that this is the way in which the subject has
been repeatedly handled in speeches, and the way in which
it is constantly represented to the public. I have in my
hand the last and most authentic instance of this unfair-
ness. You say that the people are entirely in favour of
your policy—(hear, hear)—and you challenges reference to
the people. We have had an 'election within the last few
days. (Loud and derisive cheering from the Opposition
benches.) We have had an election within the last few
days, and the issue raised by that election was a very de-
finite ono, because a most respectable,:most competent, and
well-qualified gentleman made his appeal to the consti-
tuents, whose suffrages he solicited entirely upon the
ground of opposition to the financial measures of the Go-
vernment. Here is his address, and in it a mode of state-
ment is adopted which I have no doubt was suggested from
head-quarters. In the most authentic manner, as if he had
undergone a regular training through a course of these de-
bates, he runs through tho old points of the surplus, the
state of the national finances, and the comfort of the la-
bouring classes, and he then says :
" The permanent sacrifice of £1,500,000 of Paper Duty
seems to be imprudent at present, and the consequent main -
tenance of the war duties upon tea and sugar, those neces-
sary articles of consumption in every home, appears unjust."
(Murmurs from the Opposition Donchoa.) Z merely otato,

and I confess that I did not expect that there would have
been so much disposition to question that statement, that it
is an unfair mode of putting the case to place against the
repeal of the Paper Duty, and to declare to be the alterna-
tive of that repeal, a measure which would cost at least
twice as much. The duties to which I am referring, there-
fore, cannot, properly speaking, be called war duties, inas-
much as they.were not imposed in time of war 'or for war
purposes. In the year 1854 the sugar duties were increased
for the purposes of war, and in 1855 the tea:duties were in-
creased with the same object, and I am quite willing to:admit
that the right hon. gentleman says truly when he con-
tends that there is a sort of general pledge given to the
public that war taxes should be taken off when the cause
for which they have been levied has ceased to exist, and, in
point of fact, the increased duties which I have just men-
tioned lapsed with the conclusion of the war itself.
The House of Commons read last year a second time, by a
considerable majority, a bill for the repeal of the paper duty.
For a period of 40 years a vote of that kind on the part of
this house has been accepted by the trade and commerce of
the country as an absolute and final decision. In all such
cases persons interested in the trade industry of the nation
have felt themselves justified in accepting the assurance
which such a vote afforded, and upon the faith of it invested
their capital and pledged their credit. (Hear.) This was
done last year, in consequence of the conclusion at which
the House of Commons arrived, and I now send back to the
right hon. gentleman opposite the challenge which he
threw out, and I say to him, " Keep faith with the country
—(cheers)—keep faith with those who have trusted to the
vote of last session, as they have done to a long list of
similar assurances which in a hundred cases we have given
them." (Hear, hear.) I will not trouble the committee
by going into details upon this point ; but I would illus.•
trate by referring to facts the statement which I make, that
a long course of precedents has given the public a title to
rely upon votes similar to that of last year given by this
house. I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. Grey, a
gentleman who is well known to my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Edinburgh, who is one of the most enterprising
men in this country. Ido not know that he possesses
large means ; but about 30 years ago, when such enter-
prise was much rarer than at present, he conceived the
ingenious idea of establishing a paper as a gratuitous adver-
tising medium. The undertaking was successful, and con-
ferred, I believe, a great benefit cn the country. Well,
this gentleman writes to me to say that trusting to the
vote of the House of Commons last year he had at once
committed himself to his subscribers, and that the conse-
quence had been that there was a considerable diminution
of his profits; but that they were still sufficient to keep the
roof over his head which, after 34 years of indefatigable
industry, he was enabled to call his own, but such could
not continue to be the case unless the paper duties were
repealed during the present session. He adds that he,
perhaps incautiously, trusted to the pledge given to the
public by the vote of this house last year ; that he, never-
theless, kept his word with his subscribers, and that the
consequence had been to entail upon him a fearful loss.
In touching on the question of surplus I must not forget
that the member -for Norfolk, the hon. member for Hunt-
ingdon, and the hon. member for Limerick have all ques-
tioned the existence of that surplus exceedingly, yet each
and all of these gentlemen voted to take from it, according
to the beat official estimate that can be framed, £285,000
more than would be absorbed by the proposal of the Go-
vernment. (Cheers.) And then the hon. member for Hunt-
ingdon comes down here and challenges me about Exche-
quer-bills and Stade dues, and says I shall lose £220,000 by
Stade dues and £50,000 by Exchequer-bills. That would
make in all £270,000, but I should still be £15,000 better off
than their proposal, if carried, would leave me. (Cheers.)
The hon. member found fault with my calculations ; but it
was he, and not I, who ventured to predict what the state of
the money-market would be six months hence. He it was
who said, in his desire to make good the ease he was urging
with great ability, that he had calculated the Exchequer
bills for 12 months, forgetting the provision of law which—
Mr. T. BARING—I asked what the amount was.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You
computed it at £220,050, and you--
Mr. BARING—I wish to explain. ;(Cheers.) I said that
as it was stated by the right hon. gentleman that the in-
crease on the interest of Exchequer-bills would not be for
more than six months, I took that item at £25,000, and the
payments on account of Stade dues I said were fixed by
public opinion at £200,000. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
very much obliged by the explanation. I thought the hon.
member said the Stade dues would be £220,000, and, in point
of fact, neither he nor we /had any accurate means of com-
putation, not knowing whether the arrangements would be
completed or not. My noble friend, I believe, is now of opi-
nion that the arrangement will probably be carried out. It
will require a sum of £155,000 or £156,000, and that, of
course, was one of the reasons why we objected to the re-
peal of the tea duty—(cries of " Oh," from the Opposition)—
feeling it necessary to keep in hand a sum of £400,000 or
£500,000. (Cries of "Oh," and cheers.) Of course in a coun-
try like this you cannot possibly foresee every accruing
charge for the 12 months, and you keep a small surplus, not
exactly in hand, but before you on paper, so as to meet con-
' tingent charges whichmay arise. The hon. gentleman is still
in a very uneasy state about the surplus, and thinks it very
doubtful whether there will be any after all. I must say I
do trust that the subject of a surplus as it has been handled
in these debates will not be a precedent for future times.
To-day it is denied, to-morrow it is asserted, the next day
it is exaggerated, and the following day it is denied again.
(Laughter and cheers.) One time we are told the surplus
will not admit of a remission of £15,000; next, it is endea-
voured to force upon us the remission of £1,500,000; and
then the hon. baronet the member for the West Riding
rises in his place and thinks it becoming his station and
position—(cries of "Oh !" and cheers)—to say that he
thinks the estimate of that surplus—(loud murmurs from
the Opposition, followed by cheering from the Ministerial
benches.) On this subject, and in discharge of a public
duty, I must vindicate the privilege of speech. (Cheers). I
think it right to calleto the recollection of the house that
the member for the West Riding did think it right to
state—(renewed cries of " Oh In—that the estimate of sur-
plus which I have submitted was no better than the reckon-
ing of any speculator. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition,
and cheers from the Ministerialists.) If that be a misre-
presentation, I am ready to listen to any explanation.
Sir J. RAMSDEN—I believe, Mr. Massey, the words
were these :—That the estimate of surplus was liable to
prove as fallacious as the scheme of any speculator en the
Stock Exchange. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That ap-
pears to be precisely the sense imputed to the hon. baronet
—(loud cheers and counter cheers)—and which I was in
hopes he might have been induced to qualify. However,
having been deceived in that expectation, let me deal with
another assumption of the hon. baronet no less astounding.
He said it was unexampled after a deficiency in a particular
year to propose the repeal of a tax in the next. I need
not go very far back to produce a remarkable instance, in
which, I suppose, the conduct of the Government of
the day will not be much disapproved by the honour-
able baronet, as he took office with them shortly afterwards.
In 1857 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary,
having had a deficiency of £4,000,000 in the previous
year, repealed taxes to the extent of £10,700,000, and im-
mediately after this was done the Government which had
been guilty of such astonishing profligacy was joined by
the right hon. baronet. (Cheers.) My hon. friend the
member for Dorsetahire, who made this motion, has thought
fit to repeat imputations on me which I have never noticed in
this house. As long as the most sordid motives or the most
questionable proceedings are imputed only by anonymous
writers of the press, or at any rate by those from whom one
has no right to expect favour or indulgence, I think by far
the best course for a member of this house to take is to pass
them by in utter silence, and to trust to the candour of his
countrymen, which I believe will never fail him—(cheers)
—and, I must add, to their appreciation of his character and
his services, be those what they may. (Hear.) But my
hon. friend, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing from
boyhood, and my respect and regard for whom no political
circumstances can ever in the slightest degree affect, has
imputed to me that the proposals which I have made in this
house are brought forward for some mysterious purpose of
conciliating the hon. gentleman the member for Birming-
ham. (Opposition cheers.) With regard to any supposed
sympathies of mine with the hon. member for Birmingham,
I must say that if I did sympathise with him I should not
have the slightest hesitation in avowing it, because I know
of nothing in the character—(general cries of Hear, hear)
—or in the conduct of the hon. gentleman which need make
any man who agrees with him afraid to state it. (Cheers.)
His character has, in my opinion, always been marked
with strict integrity, and his conduct has been uniformly
straightforward. (Hear.) But, when a statement of that
kind is made against a person like myself, who am not at
all aware of holding the same opinions in politics as the
hon. member for Birmingham, I must observe that neither
my hon. friend who made it last, nor any gentleman who
made it before, has ever attempted to support or sustain it
by any language I have used, or by any sentiments I have
expressed. I certainly do sympathise with the hon gentle-
man member for Birmingham in regard to the whole course
of that commercial legislation which has conferred such im-
mense boons and blessings on the country, and of which he
has been one of the most distinguished champions. And I
regret to find that that policy still has many opponents in
this house, who, though unable to prevent it from taking
effect in the main, are apparently glad to find any oppor-
tunity of crippling it or of covering it with discredit. I
should not be doing justice to my hon. friend the member
for Birmingham if I attempted to describe my own opinions
with respect to matters of finance by mixing them up' with
his, of which I have no knowledge other than that
which
every member in this house possesses in common. with my-
self. But if my hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire,
wishes to make any imputation on my opinions sieleas I I
can explain, I am willing to give him an explanation:
have no doubt that he has a meaning, which I am obliged
to conjecture, as he has been content to make use of vague
, perhaps, that am one
and shadowy language. He meane
of those who entertain the concealed and covert intention
of changing the system of taxation, shifting the burden
from commodities to property, and affecting thereby a con-
siderable alteration in the relative position of classes. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) If such be the belief of hon. gentlemen
opposite, I have no doubt that the proposal we now make
for the repeal of the paper duty is regarded as the iusiduous