The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

LON )ON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1867

The Adjourned Debate upon the Canton Diffi-
culty, briefly opened last evening by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the member for Midhurst,
was again adjourned until Monday on the motion
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
member for Tavistock. The lawyers had the dis-
cussion yesterday almost entirely to themselves.
And never, assuredly, were more extraordinary
differences of opinion manifested within the walls
of the Legislature.
black, Black was white, and white
accordingly as the "facts" of the case
were examined through the colouring lens of poli-
tical predilection. The
"Arrow" was a British
vessel, beyond the faintest
shadow of a doubt,
according to the supporters of her MAJESTY'S Go-
vernment. The "Arrow"
was undeniably no
British vessel at all, according to the sympathisers
with her MAJESTY'S Opposition. Consul
PARKES was at one moment vilifiedfor
his insolence and precipitation, ana
at
another eulogised for his moderation and forbear-
ance. Admiral SEYMOUR condemned by Some
as
cruel, and commended by others as humane. Sir
JOHN BowitlNG, if we were to believe one autho-
rity, Was actuated solely by a petty ambition to
make a sort of a triumphal entry into Canton, he-
ralded bymandarins and surrounded by tom-toms !
His Excellency, on the other hand, if we were to
credit another authority, was influenced exclu-
sively by a, most laudable ambition, to extend as far
as lie
.po3sibly could, by legal means, the advantages
of British Commerce and the blessings of European
Civilisation. At one moment we were told with
impressive ferv.air that the injuries already in-
flicted upon the Cantonese, by our war-vessels,
was altogether so wanton and destructive
that "humanity shuddered" at the mere
remembrance. While shortly after wards the

whole affair was pooh-poohed as the merest
" flea bite" imaginable ! And so the pendulum of
debate oseillated between the extremes o party

opinion. The actual truth of the matter, as usual,
lying pretty nearly midway between those extremes.
The "Arrow," far example, being virtually British
—having been chartered not long before as a Bri-
tish lorcha at Hong Kong—having sailed into the
harbour of Canton under the British flag—having
conveyed thither British merchandise. Consul
PARKES, again, having acted, from first to last,
neither tardily nor precipitately: but most judici-
ously, as it appears to us, upon the festina lente
principle. At once demanding reparation for the
public outrage to a banner hitherto never outraged
in any part of the world with impunity—yet
allowing more than a fortnight to elapse before
the enforcement of that prompt demand by the
guns of the British squadron. And so with the
rest of these statements and counter statements :
startling by their contrast, and irreconcileable by
the sheer force of their exaggeration.

As we have already observed, the lawyers had
it mainly to themselves in yesterday's discussion.
The adjourned debate being opened by the Learned
Recorder of Hull, and again adjourned by the
Chancellor of Chichester and Salisbury. The
House being addressed intermediately by her
MAJESTY'S Attorney. General—by the Lord-Advo-
cate of Scotland—and, from the front bench of the
Opposition (and, therefore, as a matter of course,
on "the other side"), by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, the member for Enniskillen. Sir
Merriam BETH= spoke ably enough on the part
of Ministers—challenged to give his opinion at
the earnest behest of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, the Member for Midhurst. The
Lord Advocate challenged to speak by no
one, and acting solely upon the diclrate of his
own conscience—pronounced his views still more
ably : delivering, in point of fact to our thinking,
incomparably the best speech yet delivered in
behalf of the cause represented in this Chinese
Difficulty by the Members of the Administration.

The watchful presence of several distinguished
menfbers of the House of Lords, sitting under the
shadow of the Strangers' Gallery, did not fail to
impart an additional zest to a debate which—be
it here said with all deference to the Hop. and
Learned Gentleman who yesterday opened the
discussion—notwithstanding the conscientious in-
dependence of "some," is, unquestionably, t„) a
very great extent, coloured by the flush of pas-
, sion, and Warped by the bias of party! Otherwise
black would not appear so white to some—or
white so black t) others. Alabaster glooming into
ebony, and ebony blanching into alabaster—ac-
cording to the light of party or the eye of the
partisan. Doubtless, on both sides of the House,
many who think strongly upon this matter, think
also conscientiously. ‘Ve are • ready at once, for
example, to believe this, and to recognise this in
the instance of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
last mentioned, more particularly when it is ob-
servable that the emphatic declaration of his in-
dependence was en forced in the presence
and hearing of the leaders of his own party by
a magnanimous tribute to thell.Chiefs of the
confronting Government. But others are not by
any means either thus candid, or, let us add at
once, thus conscientious. Every one there cannot
follow the vivida vis anim,i, either in recording his
vote or in enhnciating his opinions. This, be it
said, even of those who delude themselves into the
belief that they aro independent members
of the House, Or, AS Sir ERSKINE PERRY
expressed it, by a ludicrous lapsus ling lice
on Thursday evening, " Independent members
of the Government." The bias of party—irre-
sistible though scarcely perceptible—guides by the
sli ahno-t conceivable, unerringly
guides the bowl of Politicil Opinion t) tie right
or to the left of the goal of a Parliamentary Divi-
sion. And so—doubtless unconsciously to thew-
selves (with a few rare exceptions), will it be in
regard to the division of AI )nday evening or ra-
ther of Tuesday morning. A Division neverthe-
less—be it remembered—affecting not so much
the fate of an Administratism as the Honour of the
British Crown and the glory of the British Con-
stitution.

Although the contest on the precious Budga
has been postponed, it has not by any means been
abandoned. Ministers have gained one victory,
but certainly under I:,y no means auspicious omens,
or such as to afford reasonable expect stions of
future triumphs. Their most efficient allies on
the last will be arrayed against them on the next
occasion, and every collision will take place under
varying circumstances. The general character of
Mr. DISRAELI'S motion was very favourable to
his adversaries. It committed him to no specific
reforms, and the whole tonour of his argument
showed that he no longer recognised the distinc-
tion between permanent and precarious incomes
for fiscal purposes. He also proved, beyond the
possibility of dispute, that it would be utterly
impossible to carry out the so-called GLADSTONE
compact of 1853, or to altogether relinquish the
Income Tax in 1860, or for many sul-
sequent years. Under these circumstances
many professing fiscal reformers voted against his
resolution, although prepared to attack the Bud-
get in detail on what they considered to be suit-
able opportunities. They did not, in truth, desire
the overthrow of the PALMERSTON Cabinet, although
greatly displeased with the financial scheme. There
will, however, be no excuse when specific questions
are brought under the consideration of Parlia-
ment. The independent members whose "most
sweet voices" were uplifted in favour of the Gc-
vernment on a mere abstract proposition cannot
disregard all their former professions when the
more equitable apportionment of the Income Tax
is demanded, or additional duties on tea and sugar
are objected to. Ministers must then either
yield, be defeated, or gain a doubtful vic•
tory by the aid of their quondam opponents
—_a
victory far more dangerous to their own interests
than the most decisive defeat they could sustain.

The whole system of taxation requires eten:
sive revi3ion. The people urgently demand that
the sums to be collected should be fairly and
equitably levied, so that every British subject
should contribute to the liquidation of the national
liabilities, and the maintenance of the national
establishments, in proportion to his means and
position. They do not by any means wish to
evade any legitimate responsibility, but they bit-
terly complain of the undue advantages heretofore
enjoyed by the favoured classes, and insist that
the unjust and inequitable practice should be
forthwith abolished. A
si d eration theet ie factally l
great parade has been
made 01
the 16,000,0001. levied under the
thereofm was
Income
Tax. Bur, without even taking into
epractically levied
da considerableportion
Schedule D we may ry, under
, tobacco,
sixßaty. that more than 35,000,0001.
arcle
otf
eba o
general coosumpti-m,
was; raised on
viz., malt, spirits, Sugar
,s
are reason- utterly independent
s
2ofanthde Irveinvee:
nue that render it highly advisable -
that tLese va-
rious charges should be materially • •
mitigated ; and
it is perfectly notorious that from 50 to ~00 per
cent. more than finds its way into the X.,..ctiequer
is extracted from the pockets of the consumers,
besidse occasioning the practice of adulteration,

whieh is alike injurious to the morals of the deal-
ers and the health of their customers. That sys-

tem, which prevents the complete development of

our trade which must follow if the incontestable
doctrines of Free Trade were carried to their
legitimate conclusions which hinders England
from becoming the commercial emporium of the
world—is maintained solely in order that capi-
talists generally, landholders, fundholders, and all
in possession of accumulated and realised property
should escape with comparative impunity, while
those deserving of the greatest encouragement—
the very " thews and sinews" of the nation—
should be ground down and oppressed to the very
dust.

The hinge on which the whole system vibrates
is the iniquitous assessment of the Income Tax.
Until that all-important problem is fairly solved
we can hope for no fiscal reforms worth speaking
of. There must be taxation in some shape. The
exigencies of the Exchequer must be satisfied. If
the Income Tax be altogether abolished we must
adopt a retrogade policy, and raise indirectly the
required amounts. There is no real difficulty
in the Income-Tax question. As the Times—now
the champion of the moneyocracy—long since
declared, any actuary of moderate experience, any
clerk deserving a salary that would subject him
to the impost, could, in the course of a few hours,
prepare a scheme that would be a vast improve-
ment on the existing law. The pretended diffi-
culty is merely an artful contrivance to enable the
wealthy classes to evade a just liability, and to
transfer the burden, which, in justice and equity,
they ought to sustain, to the shoulders of their
poorer brethren. The impost is rendered so
odious and intolerable that there is a universal
demand for its total abolition—whereas, if fairly
and equitably assessed, it would be by far the
best tax for the community, as it would be one of
the most productive for the Exchequer.

Let the Fiscal Reformers, then, exert them-
selves before the opportunity for its amendment
is irretrievably lost. They well know that the
anticipations as to its abolition inlB6o are utterly
fallacious. They will still be asked to renew it for
a further term. Sooner or later it must be modi-
fied, and there is no use in postponing the inevit-
able task. Sho'ill it he impossible to carry the
improved law into practical operation during the
present session, let the tux be only granted for a
single year. If the people exert themselves
earnestly and energetically, they will obtain
speedy redress. But, on the other hand, if they
appear apathetic or indifferent, their fiscal chains
will be riveted more closely, and they will only
have themselves to blame for the very unpleasant
consequences that must ensue. The game is in
their own hands ; they have only to play their
cards properly to insure a decisive victory.

Last Wednesday the Association for the Re-
peal of the Taxes on Knowledge held it 3 sixth
annual meeting at St. Martin's Hal!. It will be
remembered that on the 4th a deputation waited
on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had a
Lin; conference with him, and that on the 13th, the
night of the Financial Statement, he again snubbed
in pretty cool style the advocates for the repeal of
the duty on paper, and fire insurance, and for lower-
ing of the duties on foreign wine. The meeting
on Wednesday was, therefore, Act 111. in the
Farce, as it must yet be termed, of the Paper-
Duty Repeal. The meeting appears to have chiefly
used the arguments and topics employed by
the deputation. The gentlemen composing it,
made out a clear case that the duty very seriously
interfered with the manufacture, and that it fell
heavily on many persons who use paper in their
trade, but with especial weight upon the authors
and publishers of cheap books and of newspaper:,
and most unfairly of all on persons who published
ho:ks which had the misfortune not to be popu-
lar. Such unlucky manufacturers of int llectual
commodities couldclaiin no drawback on the duty
paid by them for the raw material which they
could not sell. We are not in the secret of how
far this last argument might have specially ap-
peal.,d to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sy,n-
pathies.

Some of tie facts mentioned by the deputation
will be interesting to general readers. It seems
that in the United States where there is no duty.
on paper, the amount used is three times as much
per head as that used in England, and that all
kinds of materials, such as the excise duty and
regulations prohibit here, are there fully employed.
The sartples of brown paper made of flax, straw,
old leather, Indian corn stalks, palm leaves, and
damaged marsh hay were produced ; they were
sold at prices below. the duty charged in England !
The natural consequence, too, is that the'manufae-
ture is so much improved that two persons could
produce in America 100 reams in eight hours of
a sheet exhibited to the Chancellor, of remarkable
gloss and fineness.
The reduction of the duty from 3d. per lb. to
three-half pence and 3-10ths of a farthing per lb.
had increased the production of paper from
70,654,587 lbs. in 1835 to 171,209,295 lbs. in

1853 ; but the manufacture is now stationary or
rather receding. The addition of 3.loths of a
farthing in 1839, too small a sum to charge tile
o9nsumer, had been the ruin of a great number
of small papermakers. If the duty were entirely
repealed such a vast expansion of the trade was
considered probable, by manufacturers, that the
consumption .of taxed articles by the persons em-
ployed in the manufacture would go far to indem-
nify the Exchequer.

It appears that many merchants pay heavily for
packing paper. One firm was mentioned by one of
the deputation which paid 700/. a-year, 3001. of
it duty. The most interesting fact to us is, how-
ever, the bearing of the tax on the diffusion of
knowledge. It is, we believe, precisely on its
diffusion that it presses most heavily. It may be
of but trifling account in the price of a large book,
that is if the work be successful. On cheap and
educational publications, and on newspapers, it
weighs very heavily. Mr. CHARLES KNIGHT, so
well and honourably known as a publisher of books
for the million, paid eighty thousand pounds for
copyright and editorial labour, and in the same

timefifty thousand pounds for paper duty. A daily
paper of 20,000 circulation would pay 2,9401.
annually for duty The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer asked whether newspaper readers would
pay less for their paper. The reply was, they
would be certain to have either a better paper or
a cheaper one. This, of course, we c•tn fully
bear out. Where it is not worth while to in-
crease the size of a paper, the material, rcechi:-
mica], and literacy improvements to be made in
any journal, are always considerable, and the
competition in these is always proportioned to
the means at the manager's disposal.

At the meeting the speakers had it, of course,
all their own way. The repealers boasted, natu-
rally enough, of their triumph over the Adver-

tisement and Stamp Daly. We question whether
they would not have done better to act as the
Free-traders did. They attacked the giant mono-

poly, corn ; with its fall all other monopolies fell
thickand fast. Had they carried the abolition of the
Paper Duty first, the others could not have long
survived. Now they have a deity to attack, of
which, as they al.rays before alleged, the two for-