ADJOURNED DEBATE. SECOND NIGHT.

HC Deb 08 May 1860 vol 158 cc920-67

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th April], "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given notice— That the present state of the Finances of the country renders it undesirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise Duty on Paper. I feel I ought to explain my reason for putting this notice on the paper, instead of the usual Amendment that the Bill be read a third time this day six months. I have for some time been of opinion that there was no probability that this Bill could be proceeded with at present. I thought there was other business which must take precedence of it; and it was, therefore, with great surprise that I heard last evening the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was intended to resume the debate to-night. Considering the bearing which the Estimates of the year have upon this question and that we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing them, I certainly did think that we should, before proceeding with this measure, have been allowed to make ourselves acquainted with the financial condition of the country, and to ascertain whether we are now in exactly the same position as when the Budget was brought forward. We have this year departed very widely from the ordinary routine of financial business, because usually some progress is made in the Estimates even before the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his statement to the House. That course, no doubt, is sometimes departed from, but seldom, if ever, has there been a year in which such important business has been brought forward before any progress had been made in the Estimates; and it appears to me that this is not a year that should be chosen for deviating from the usual practice in such matters, because the financial measures of the Government are very important and the annual Estimates of a very peculiar character. The Budget was announced before a single Estimate was produced, and we were compelled, therefore, to take them upon the authority of my right hon. Friend. Since his statement, however, we have had a good many of the Estimates laid on the table, and, to my great surprise—I can hardly now believe I am not under some mistake—I find a considerable difference in one class between the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the statement which appears in the Estimates. I was unable to give earlier notice of my Motion because, until last night, I never thought this Bill would be brought forward before we had made some progress in those Estimates. With regard to the form of the Motion, it is not my wish to dispute the third reading. I do not intend to maintain that the paper duty is a good duty, nor do in any way dispute the case which my right hon. Friend has made against it. But it appears to me that this is not the right time for repealing it, and in making this Motion I think I am acting in the spirit of the Resolution which was passed two years ago, and to which so much reference has been made as a reason for that repeal. I feel bound, however, to protest against its being considered that we are in any way bound by a Resolution passed in a former Parliament, and especially by a loose Resolution of the sort which was passed in 1858. It is not, indeed, pretended that we are practically and absolutely bound by it, but is said that the question is, to a certain extent, prejudged by that Resolution—the more so because it was adopted, after full deliberation, with the assent of the then responsible Ministers of the Crown and without a division. If we look, however, to the terms of that Resolution, and to what took place in the debate upon it, I think the case for the repeal of the paper duty in the present year is not at all strengthened. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade moved a Resolution of two parts, the first containing the abstract proposition that the paper duty was not a good permanent source of revenue, and the second declaring that measures ought to be taken to put an end to it. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deny the first part of the Resolution, that it was not desirable to maintain the paper duty as a permanent source of revenue, but he demurred to the second part, that the House ought at an early period to abolish the duty, because he said other things ought first to be taken into consideration. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London also, while assenting to the general proposition that the tax was not a good one, used strong language as to other things which ought first to be done, and said that the faith of Parliament was almost pledged to make remission first of the war duties on tea and sugar. The present Home Secretary reminded the House that they were pledged on the first favourable opportunity to repeal the income tax, and he said he did not like the second part of the Resolution, because it interfered with the redemption of that pledge. The latter part of the Resolution was struck out, and it was generally understood that, although the abstract Resolution was adopted, it was not intended to give effect to it. It may not be a wise thing for the House to adopt an abstract Resolution of that sort; but when it is adopted with the express and distinct refusal to attach words which would give it a practical operation, I cannot find in it any argument that the House is pledged, much less that the Resolution pledges a Parliament which is not the same as that in which the Vote was taken, to any particular measure for giving effect to it. I think it, therefore, a most undesirable precedent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer to an abstract Resolution as one which commits the House to a certain policy; and if abstract propositions are so taken up I think serious mischief may follow. Not denying that the repeal of the paper duty is a good thing if we can afford at, I say the present is not a good time to take such a step; and if it was not thought a good time in 1858, when, the expenditure was £63,500,000, still less can it be a good time now, when the expenditure is £71,100,000. Although there may have been a reasonable probability in 1858 that we should have an opportunity at a future time of dispensing with the tax, the case is very different now, with a much larger expenditure and greater difficulty of meeting it. I admit that my objections to the repeal of this duty, are in the nature of objections to the whole financial scheme of the Government. One of the main objections is, that I think we are now sacrificing a large and important portion of indirect taxation without having previously settled the principles upon which the direct taxation to be substituted is to be placed. I do not wish to be understood as saying that I object to the substitution in a proper way of direct for indirect taxation. What I mean is this—that we ought to take very good care to make direct taxation as free as possible from objection, and to put it in such a shape that when we strike away indirect taxation we may be in a position to fall back on direct taxation, with the certainty that it will not fail us in consequence of the objections which it will engender. This is the point in which the scheme of the Government fails. It is very easy and pleasant to strike away indirect taxation, but is it prudent to do so when we have in its place only the income tax, which high authorities tell us is unsuitable as a permanent source of revenue, and when no one can assure us that it can in any way be altered or improved? The other objection which I have is, that for the purpose of change we are forestalling and using up all our resources, postponing burdens, calling in credits, and taking other temporary aids, and accumulating for next year a deficit, which, to say the least, is most undesirable. I think those two objections have become stronger since the financial statement than they were at that time. I will now venture to call the attention of the House to the discrepancy between the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Estimates now laid on the table. My right hon. Friend estimated the charges for the current year—including the debt, the Consolidated Fund, the Army, Navy, Civil Service, and Revenue Estimates, together with a Vote of credit of £500,000 for the China expedition—at £70,100,000. The items for the debt, the Consolidated Fund, and the army and navy amounted to £57,400,000; the Vote of credit to £500,000; the Miscellaneous Estimates to £7,500,000; and the estimates for the collection of the revenue to £4,700,000. Those were the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement, and to the estimates for the collection of the revenue I must request my right hon. Friend's particular attention, because he told us that they showed an apparent increase of £225,000, which would probably be to a great extent recovered by the superior yield of the Post Office amounting to £80,000. Since then the estimates for the collection of the revenue have been laid upon the table, and instead of £4,700,000 they amount to £4,932,432, showing therefore a difference of no less than £232,342. Considering that the estimated surplus was only £464,000, this makes a most serious difference in the calculations upon which the Budget was founded, because it at once does away with something like one-half of that surplus. I have looked at that once or twice, thinking that I must be mistaken, but on referring to the printed Report of my right hon. Friend's speech, I find that I have not misrepresented him in supposing that he took the amount at £4,700,000, and I am sure that I have taken that of the Estimates upon the table correctly at £4,932,432. Had we gone on with the discussion of these Estimates we might have received some explanation of this discrepancy, which would so far have mitigated the objection which I feel to this part of the financial scheme; but it is unreasonable to ask us to grant remissions of taxation before we know what our expenditure really is to be: and therefore I think I am justified in saying that, so far as we can judge, the financial state of the country does not admit of our proceeding with this measure at present. The Miscellaneous Estimates my right hon. Friend took at £7,500,000, including, I presume, the £100,000 which is usually taken for civil contingencies. As yet but six classes of these Estimates have been laid upon the table, but they amount to £6,644,328. Class 7, at the amount at which it stood last year, and the £100,000 for civil contingencies make up an item of £1,128,236, raising the amount of the Miscellaneous Estimates to £7,772,564, which would be an excess over the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman of £272,564. Now, I am aware that there will be a reduction in the amount of Class 7; but is it reasonable to suppose that you can obtain a diminution of no less than £270,000 upon a single class of estimates, the total amount under which is only £988,000? I do not say that it may not be done, but it would have been more satisfactory that we should have had these estimates fully before the House, in order that we might see whether it was a real saving or only a postponement of Votes which will come upon us in a future year. I know that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to reduce these Estimates, but except a reduction in Class 1, which I suppose is in the nature of a postponement of works, and in Class 4, a reduction of £22,000, which has been balanced by an increase of £20,000 in Class 3, he has been able to make no diminution. On the contrary, taking the estimates for the collection of the revenue together with the other classes, I find that there is an actual increase of no less than £85,000 in the present year. I know that I am apparently, in legal parlance, travelling out of the record, but it is a course which is forced upon me, because I cannot state my objections to the course which we are pursuing without pointing out in some detail the difficulty which I experience in going on with this legislation before I can ascertain what is the real state in which the Estimates will ultimately stand. I must also call attention to what has happened with re- gard to the Army Estimates. It is true that their amount is now pretty much that which my right hon. Friend stated. He said that the charge for the army and the militia would be about £15,300,000. I find that the Estimates upon the table amount to £14,842,000, which, taking the charge for the militia at £460,000, as last year, would give almost that amount. But a very remarkable operation has been performed upon these Estimates. After they had been laid upon the table and the number of men required had been stated at 143,000 and some odd hundreds, they were withdrawn upon the ground that the Governor General of India had sent home more troops than was expected, or something of that sort. They were withdrawn and revised, and in the revised Estimates I observe that the number of men, instead of being 143,000, is 145,000, the actual addition being about 1,900 men; but notwithstanding this there has been no increase of the Estimates. There has been an increase in some Votes, but that has been balanced by a decrease in others, and among these latter are the Votes for clothing, provisions, and warlike stores. Those who have objected to Votes for clothing and provisions after the number of men had been voted have often been told, and it is an argument which has been delivered ex cathedrâ, that they ought to have objected to the number of men, because after that has been passed the Votes for clothing and provisions follow as a matter of course. That to uninitiated persons seems an argument of great weight, and has, I know, closed the mouths of many persons who were disposed to raise objections; but it can never be used again, because in this instance, although the number of men has been increased, the Vote for clothing has decreased by £18,000, and that for provisions, including forage, by £2,700. The presumption which is raised by these facts is either that the Estimates were originally incorrectly or negligently framed, and the House was asked to vote an unnecessarily large amount, or that they have now been improperly reduced, and we shall at a future period be asked for a Supplementary Vote to supply deficiencies, as has occasionally been the case before. I have had the curiosity to look at the Supplementary Estimate of £1,050,000 which was voted last year, and I find that of that sum £290,000 was voted for clothing, and £350,000 for provisions, that is to say, the Estimates were insufficient under those two heads, under which so remarkable a reduction has now been made. I do not wish to question the accuracy of these Estimates. The circumstances which I have mentioned may be susceptible of a complete and satisfactory explanation, but we ought to have our minds set at rest upon these matters before we proceed with the financial scheme. If we abolish the paper duty, and the Government is afterwards obliged to ask for more money, there will be no means of raising it except by adding a penny to the income tax, or something of that sort, and therefore we ought to have an opportunity of going into these Estimates, and sifting them very carefully, before we agree to the abolition of that tax. These are not the only Votes upon which I would remark. In the item of warlike stores the revised Estimates show a reduction of not less than £80,000, which is a very curious feature, and lets us into something more. The original Estimate for warlike stores was £743,000, of which £250,000 was to be deducted for sums chargeable to the Indian Government. In the revised Estimates the Indian Government is charged, not with £250,000 but with £300,000, and the amount to be voted for miscellaneous stores is reduced from £743,000 to £713,000. Does this mean that India requires at one time one sum and another at another, or that the whole system of the accounts between the Indian Government and the Home Government is one incomprehensible labyrinth and maze, and that you may really make use of it as a matter of account to state things very much as you please? That is a matter on which I want information. We ought to have an account current between this Government and the Indian Government. I do not say anything is wrong, but all this is matter of inquiry. Of course we shall have that inquiry sooner or later; it cannot be prevented; but we should have it with much more profit to ourselves if we had not decided nil our financial arrangements before we set about it. I might go into other details, but, in truth, I think I have stated quite enough to prove the case I was anxious to submit to the House that it is really necessary, before we proceed any further in the way of reducing taxation and throwing away for ever these duties on paper, that we should go into our Estimates and ascertain how the country really stands. I have not touched on other matters which are very important indeed, and on which I have in vain endeavoured to extract from Government some information. There is the Vote for fortifications for instance, which stands in the Estimates at £649,000. Do you, or do you not, mean to make any further proposal on that subject? I formerly asked that question, to which no reply was given. I repeated the inquiry, and the answer of the noble Lord was that a Commission had reported on the subject; their Report was under consideration, and when the Government had made up their minds what to do he would inform the House, But there the matter rests. I do not blame the Government for letting the matter rest there; but in the meantime they must not be surprised if rumour is busy spreading reports that they are going to have a large loan for this purpose. If the sum of £10,000,000 is to be borrowed, the interest of it will pretty nearly absorb the amount of the anticipated surplus. Perhaps you mean to deal with it in another way. Perhaps the loan is to be raised in Exchechequer bonds, which are to be paid off from year to year; but if you are to spread the repayment of £10,000,000, or £5,000,000, or £6,000,000, over so many years, you will have a million a year or more to provide for that purpose, which might be got, perhaps, from the paper duty better than in any other way. Then, again, this fortification Vote is in a very anomalous state; there is this peculiarity about it, that no details whatever are given. In former years these details were always supplied; but here we have only the bare sum put down of £649,000. Under these circumstances, I think I am not making an unreasonable proposal when I ask the House to affirm my proposition. I wish inquiry; I call for no expression of opinion as to the policy or impolicy of repealing the paper duties, if the finances of the country were in a position to admit of their repeal. I do not wish to raise the question on the merits. All I say is, that you are not now in a position, financially speaking, to part with this important tax. I really do feel that this question of the Estimates and the expenditure, deserves much more consideration from the House than it has yet received; because the whole case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to rest on the hope that in future years there will be a considerable reduction of our expenditure. It hangs very much on this, that he looks forward to a time when we shall not have to spend so large an amount on our military and naval establishments. I, too, hope with my right hon. Friend, that this may be so: but I do not see in these Estimates anything that leads me to believe that this anticipation is at all likely to be realized at an early period. A great many Gentlemen, therefore, who were disposed to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals with confidence and joy, trusting to the reduction of expenditure, are very likely to change their opinions on this subject, and come more nearly to the views we on this side of the House have adopted, because, however anxious to concur in the reduction of expenditure, we have not seen our way to such reductions. When the Budget was brought forward, we were told that, in consequence of the measures proposed with regard to our commercial relations with France, and especially arising out of the new treaty, we should find ourselves in such relations with our neighbours over the water, that it would soon be unnecessary to maintain these great warlike establishments; and that, on the other hand, the prosperity of the country would increase so much, owing to the growth of our trade with France, that the elasticity of our resources would soon recover, notwithstanding the reductions which had been made. I ventured to doubt that proposition at the time. But I must say that, looking at what has since taken place, looking at the state of feeling which has been engendered, the sort of distrust, I will not say that has sprung up, but which has increased from time to time as to the position and conduct of the Emperor of France—looking, at the same time, to the dissatisfaction entertained by many of our merchants and manufacturers at the arrangements which have been made—the extension of trade and the prosperity which were promised us, are not altogether so sure as we were led to expect, And the expectation of prosperity from that treaty has been, I will not say destroyed, but very much weakened. Having thus stated the object I have in view, I would just say one word as to the example and precedent set by Sir Robert Peel, so frequently referred to. When Sir Robert Peel put on the income tax it was because our system of indirect taxation was then in a very unsatisfactory condition, it was necessary to effect a reform in that system of indirect taxation, and he put on an income tax for a time to cover the experiment on indirect taxation. Now, we cannot say that our indirect taxation is in the same unsatisfactory state as in 1842; but, on the other hand, it is now our direct taxation which is in a state which requires the most careful and attentive consideration, the most tender and delicate treatment; because, if you are to improve and render it permanent, you will require time both to mature your plans and to bring them into operation. I therefore urge you, if you really wish to follow the example of Sir Robert Peel, to take the converse of his course, and keep your indirect taxation so as to enable you cautiously to put your direct taxation on a sound basis. When my right hon. Friend opposite imposed the succession duty, he had indirect taxes to fall back upon while waiting the result of his experiment. Next year we shall have to grapple seriously with the income tax, to see what can be made of it; whether it can be altered, or made more palatable, or whether it can be replaced by any other system or collection of taxes, direct or indirect. That will be a matter of time and patience; probably it will take years to bring about; and if my own wish could prevail, I should be glad to see this paper duty maintained until we have brought our direct taxes into such a state, that we can repeal it, as Sir Robert Peel proposed to deal with the income tax, when the indirect taxes had sufficiently recovered. But that is not what I ask now. All I ask at present is, that, looking to our present condition and our prospect for the next year, the House, without pronouncing any opinion condemnatory of its principle, will refuse its assent to the Bill for the present.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word 'That to the end of the Question in order to add the words 'the present state of the Finances of the Country renders it undesirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise Duty on Paper,"—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. MILNER GIBSON

Sir, until the close of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I was at a loss to understand precisely what his object was, and what he wishes the House to do. But if I correctly apprehend what he seeks, it is that we are not to maintain the paper duty as a permanent source of taxation, but that we are to hold it, as it were, in suspense until certain operations have been performed upon the income tax, or upon some other portions of our direc- taxation, in order to make them satisfactory to the taxpayers of the country. I would really submit that that is not a practical proposition to put to the House. I can understand an hon. Member saying, "I decline to repeal a particular tax." I can understand an hon. Member saying, "I will vote for the repeal of such a tax." but I do not understand the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken, namely, that we are to hold this tax under a sort of sentence of death—and to keep the great industries of the country affected by it constantly under the impression that it may at any moment be repealed. If there be one course more objectionable than another it is to condemn a tax, and avow your intention of soon repealing it, and when the opportunity presents itself of carrying out the views you have expressed, to refuse to avail yourselves of it. The hon. Member has not correctly represented what passed upon the occasion some two years ago, when the Resolution was passed to which he was a party.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I was not in the House at the time.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

The hon. Baronet was a Member of the Government, and must have concurred in the course taken.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I do not think I was in the country at the time. I certainly was neither in the House nor a Member of the Government.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

Then I was mistaken in considering him a party to it; but I do not know that the point is at all material to the argument. The hon. Gentleman has not, however, correctly represented what then took place. A Resolution was moved to the effect that the paper duty ought not to be maintained as a permanent source of revenue. A second Resolution was proposed to the effect that measures ought to be taken to enable Parliament to dispense with the duty. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman opposite—objected to the second Resolution, that is, to taking immediate measures for the repeal of the tax, but consented to the Resolution which condemned the tax as a permanent source of revenue. The House unanimously supported the Government in the view they took. The right hon. Gentleman said then not what the hon. Member for Stamford has related, but this—that although he was not prepared to say that the tax should be immediately repealed, he was prepared to say that it ought to be taken into early consideration. Well, Sir, what is early consideration? Two years have elapsed since that period; and it has been well explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 1860 is a remarkable year, for in this year a large sum falls in from the annuities; and it has been repeatedly stated that an opportunity ought to be taken this year to give some relief from indirect taxation by the repeal of the war duties on tea or sugar or something of that kind. Why has not such a measure been proposed? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" from the Opposition.] Then you differ from the hon. Member for Stamford, for he came forward in behalf of revenue; but I understand those cheers to be, not on behalf of revenue, but on behalf of a proposal for substituting the repeal of the duty on sugar or on tea for that of the duty on paper. I really do not think this is an opportunity for raising a question of that kind—upon the third reading of the Paper Duty Bill. If you preferred a repeal of the duty on sugar or on tea, I respectfully submit that this is not the occasion when such a proposition should be addressed to the House. How do we stand? A Bill is brought forward for the repeal of the paper duty. It is read a second time in the House, after full debate, and after ample notice. The Bill passed through Committee without any material opposition. The drawbacks to be allowed to the various persons affected by the repeal of the tax are settled and arranged; and contrary, I maintain, to all precedent—after such a course as this has been taken by the House of Commons the hon. Member for Stamford comes down and asks us not to agree to the third reading of the Bill, but to hold the question in suspense; and the cheers of his friends announce to us that they now want to abandon the paper duty repeal and to substitute the repeal of the war duty on sugar. ["No, no!"] Then what am I to understand? My hon. Friend is very anxious about the Army Estimates. He says he does not understand the Clothing Vote and the Provision Vote. Well, I cannot explain them to him. I am not bound to explain them to him; but I am bound to believe that what the War Department informs the Government is the necessary vote has been considered by them. It is not for me to presume to enter into an argument with the War Department as to whether the exact sum is sufficient which has been asked for the provisions and the clothing of the army. Nor is it for me to go into the point of the expense of the collection of the public revenue, which is a Vote never taken, as I am informed, till the end of July; and therefore it will be absolutely necessary to deal with those financial measures—if you deal with them at all during the Session of Parliament—before that time. I am also surprised at the hon. Member for Stamford telling us he expected that this Bill would not be proceeded with, and that that was the reason he did not give longer notice of his Motion. Why should he expect that the Bill would not be proceeded with? This is an adjourned debate. The third reading of the Bill was moved ton days ago, and the objection then taken was not the objection we have heard to-night, but simply that it was too late in the night to proceed then with the third reading. We heard nothing then about the provisions and clothing Votes of the Army Estimates, or about the expense of collecting the public revenues. I ask the House whether it is fair to deal with a question of this magnitude in the spirit in which it is now proposed to deal with it? I ask you is there no consideration due to the important industry which is affected by the tax? Can you say that it is nothing to keep an industry, employing perhaps, considering all the subsidiary trades, some ten millions of capital, in a perpetual state of suspense as to whether this tax is to be repealed or not r I believe many contracts have already been entered into, in the full belief that the House of Commons would not retrace its steps in a tax repealing Bill; and that after the Bill had been read a second time, after full and ample discussion had taken place, and a division had followed, there was a complete conviction throughout the country that the measure would be carried into law. But if we now hang it up, if we hold it in suspense until the hon. Member for Stamford has settled the principles of his direct taxation, and has made himself thoroughly acquainted with a variety of minute details in the Estimates which at present he does not understand, I say we shall not be acting according to precedent, we shall not be acting with justice to the great industry and the great capital which are employed in the paper-making trade of the country, and we shall be striking at the root of that confidence which has hitherto always been reposed in the first decided step of the House of Commons upon questions affecting taxation. Now, Sir, we have heard a great deal of anxiety expressed about the public revenue. Nothing but a desire to take care that we do not part with too much of our income has actuated the hon. Member for Stamford in proposing his Motion to the House. But I want to know whether that desire is shared in by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Droitwich, because he voted the other night for the Bill for repealing or at least materially reducing the duty on fire insurances? Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire on that occasion? He may indeed have paired, but certainly if there was that excessive anxiety about our parting with income and creating a deficiency, for some future year, I think it certainly was remarkable that he should not have been in his place to protest against a course which would be so dangerous to the revenue of 1861. But let me recal to the recollection of the House the position in which we stand in regard to this Bill. Upon the second reading, the whole question was raised in connection with the income tax, upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire, (Sir W. Miles) declaring that, as the repeal of the paper duty would necessitate an addition of 1d. in the pound to the income tax, it was inexpedient to proceed with it at that time. The hon. Member for Stamford voted for that Resolution; he voted against the repeal of the paper duty, because it would necessitate an addition to the income tax. But the House overruled that proposition by a decisive majority, and the penny was added to the income tax—and now you turn round, and you say, contrary to the spirit of that Resolution, that, having got the income tax, you will not give us the repeal of the paper duty. I say it is a very strange and inconsistent course of proceeding to connect the penny addition to the income tax with the paper duty, and then, when the House has decided to have the additional penny and not the paper duty, to turn round and say, "We will have the 10d. income tax and the paper duty into the bargain." The speech of the hon. Member for Stamford is an attack upon the whole principle of the Budget of the Government. It in fact takes the finances of the country out of the hands of the Government, and lays down a totally new scheme, utterly at variance with the principles which the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the House. After the speeches which were made when the Budget was submitted to the House, there can be no doubt that one of the leading features of the Budget was that there should be in the present year a certain amount of remission of indirect taxation, for the benefit of the trade and industry of the country, and that the expenditure of the country should be provided by the requisite augmentation of the income tax and the imposition of other duties for the purpose. That, in fact, was the principle of the Budget, and if you now say you will strike out so great and material a feature of the whole financial scheme as the Member for Stamford proposes, I am of opinion that you are attacking the very principle of the financial measures of the Government. But I want to ask the hon. Member for Stamford if he succeeds in maintaining the paper duty, what he will do with the law on the subject? Are the opinions of the Commissioners of Inland Be venue to go for nothing? Is their deliberate report to be ignored—the report made to this House that this tax is no longer tenable, in justice to the parties affected, without legislation? The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, of their own free will, presented a report, in which they stated that it was necessary to change the mode of levying this tax, if it was to be maintained as a source of revenue. I ask hon. Gentlemen then if they are prepared to legislate upon the subject of the paper duty, and to make its application one that can be carried out with justice to the different interests affected? I cannot imagine that they can be averse to take that course, but I do most emphatically protest against a course of uncertainty, and of doubt. If you mean to maintain this duty upon paper, say so boldly, and apply it to those cases to which it ought to be applied, and which are now exempt; carry out your tax equally and justly to every branch of those industries which ought to bear it, being in competition with each other; but do not by your halting course leave all those anomalies and injustice without remedy, and expose the trade and industry of the country to a system of vexation and injustice, which, I venture to say, in the whole history of our Parliamentary proceedings, is entirely without precedent. I, for one, deny altogether that the question of the repeal of the paper duty stands upon mere financial grounds. It has never been advocated by those who have agitated for its repeal, simply as a question of a pecuniary burden. The repeal of the paper duty has been advocated upon high moral grounds, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire has himself told us most emphatically, that his reason for wishing for the repeal of the paper duty was not to get rid of this pecuniary burthen when opportunity offered; but that he advocated its repeal for moral, literary, and educational considerations. Now, those are high grounds, and I say the financial view of this question is insignificant, as compared with the moral and educational view that may be entertained in reference to its hearing upon the diffusion of knowledge in this country. I hope, Sir, this House will not be induced to retrace its steps upon this important question. I believe sincerely that no measure is more thoroughly consistent with the policy of the age in which we live, than a measure for untaxing the press and the cheap literature of this country. You are voting large sums annually for the education of the people of this country. You are beset with all kinds of difficulties of a religious character in the endeavour to diffuse knowledge amongst the people. I say, then, do what in you lies, at least, to allow the people to educate themselves by taking from the books that must be the instruments for conveying knowledge—take from them the exciseman's hands and these fiscal burthens, which, most undoubtedly, do operate most materially to deteriorate the quality of your cheap literature, and to prevent the diffusion of knowledge amongst the great body of the people, you have in your Reform debates complained of the ignorance of the masses of the people, and their unfitness to exercise the franchise from their inability to form a right judgment in regard to political matters. I say you can take no course more logical or more direct towards spreading information among the people, than by repealing a tax of this description, which most undoubtedly presses most heavily upon that very literature which is to circulate amongst the masses of the people, and which is to diffuse the knowledge that you desire should be spread through the country. Sir, I will not discuss the merits of this great question; but I protest against its being placed simply upon financial grounds. But, putting it upon financial grounds, I say that the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) has made out no case why we should retrace our steps or why we should upset the financial measures of the Government. He calls upon us to admit that when the measures of the Government were introduced we committed a great and grievous error. ["Hear!"] Yes, but we cannot admit that. Neither, after the divisions that have recently taken place, do I believe the House of Commons will admit it. Nothing has transpired since those measures were brought forward to induce us to adopt a total change in our policy. I entreat hon. Gentlemen, then, on all sides to support this Bill. For myself I take an interest in it far beyond any ordinary party question, and although I should regret to see any one of the excellent financial measures of the Government interfered with, I should doubly deplore the rejection of this particular Bill, because I believe it contains within itself the germs of great moral benefit to the great mass of the community.

MR. BALL

said, that having last year deemed the question of the abolition of the paper duty a proper one to be taken into consideration by the House, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would that night have advanced some reasons why he (Mr. Ball) should continue to hold views which, he owned, the information he had since been able to obtain had tended very much to shake. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that to keep the question longer in abeyance would lead to discontent and put the paper trade in jeopardy. He (Mr. Ball) had made extensive inquiries of persons whose authority was entitled to the highest trust; and he affirmed that he had not met with a single individual interested in the paper trade who had not declared that if the proposal of the Government were agreed to it would entail almost certain ruin upon all who were engaged in the trade. It was most unfortunate, perhaps, but upon every part of the subject that the right hon. Gentleman had opened to-night he seemed to be totally in error, and his statements to be contrary to the facts. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there were ten millions of capital employed in the trade.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

explained, that he merely spoke upon speculation.

MR. BALL

Then the right hon. Gentleman, considering the position which he occupied, ought not to have indulged in such speculations. He ought to have been careful how he put forth assertions which he could not sustain, presuming them to be disputed in that House.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he had stated that it was probable ten millions of capital was engaged in the manufacture of paper in this country, and the subsidiary trades with which it was connected.

MR. BALL

The right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for contradicting him; but it was not probable that £10,000,000 were so employed, seeing that the returns for the whole quantity of paper made gave about £6,000,000 a year. But be that as it might, it was only fair to argue that in proportion to the extent of the interest with which the House was called upon to deal did it behave them seriously to consider the results which might flow from the mode in which they were asked to legislate. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the revenue derived from paper last year was about £1,400,000, but last year's revenue surpassed the ordinary amount contributed from that source. It would be fairer to take it at £1,200,000. Was it right, however, to interfere even with that sum when the deficiency could not be supplied without the imposition of an extra penny as income tax? He contended that it was most unjust, and that the tax of a penny would take more out of the poor; clerk's pocket than the value of all the paper he consumed in the course of a year. But there was another objection to the repeal of the paper duty. He had been told by persons conversant with the subject, that that repeal would tend to do material injury not only to the manufacturers themselves, but to those whom they employed. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, informed the House to what I extent he thought the operation of the Bill would be to diminish the number of those who earned their livelihood in that way. He might add that the materials from which paper was made were from 40 to 50 per cent cheaper on the Continent than in England; and it was only the extra 1d. per pound, between the 1½d. excise duty on English and the 2½d. customs duty on foreign paper that had hitherto enabled the English maker to compete with the foreigner. He asked, then, would it not have been wiser for the Government, when negotiating the Treaty with France, to have said—"We are giving you a great boon; you must grant us an equivalent. What is free trade for England should be free trade for France; and in framing a treaty which is designed to blend together in closer harmony and friendship these two great nations, we must have that treaty based upon principles of equity and justice; and you must allow the free exportation of rags." Moreover, the Government had not fairly considered what they owed to the poorer classes of the country. Surely it was their duty, in the first place, to have considered how our own poor were to be employed and maintained, and contentment promoted amongst them. It was all very well to say that by advancing a portion of the people to the possession of the legislative influence they would be gratified and pleased; but as soon as their bread was taken from their mouths they would inevitably show that no mere right to vote for the election of Members of this House would, in their view, be equivalent to that of which they and their families were deprived.

MR. PULLER

said, the questions of the Excise duty and the Customs' duty on paper were quite distinct. Two years ago the House condemned the paper duty as a permanent source of revenue, and as the House during the present Session undertook to review the finances of the country, it was bound to abolish the Excise duty; and if the abolition of the duty caused a deficiency in the national income, that deficiency ought to be made up, either by a loan or by such a proposition as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a penny should be added to the income tax. The real question raised by the hon. Baronet was merely whether since the second reading of the Bill any new circumstances had arisen which ought to induce them to reconsider their decision and retain the duty? That entirely depended upon whether they had confidence in the estimate which Her Majesty's Government had formed of the expenditure of the current year. Those who believed that the sums which Her Majesty's Government had asked for would be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the public service had no alternative but to vote for the third reading. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) had raised another and an altogether different question—a question well worthy of attention, but not one that they could then properly discuss, namely, the effect which the abolition of the Customs' duty would have upon the British manufacturers of paper and those whom they employed? The hon. Gentleman would see that no possible injury could accrue to the British manufacturer from the remission of the Excise duty, the mischief could obviously only arise from the abolition of the protective duty of a penny a pound now levied upon foreign paper. But the House had already affirmed the commercial treaty with France, by which this country bound itself not to place on any French article on which an Excise duty was charged a Customs duty higher than that excise. It followed, therefore, that if the paper duty of 1½d. per lb. was maintained, they would be obliged to reduce the Customs duty from 2½d. to 1½d. per lb. He trusted that the House would agree to abolish the Excise duty altogether, and then, as the article of paper would drop from the Treaty, the House would be free hereafter to impose a protective duty of a penny, which he hoped would never be given up, unless, indeed, the Government were able to obtain from France a perfectly free trade in rags.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, that the question for the House was, whether that was the proper time for the remission of the paper duty. A great deal was said about the Resolution by which the House of Commons had pledged themselves to abolish the paper duty as a source of revenue; but the Resolution did not pledge them to take it off until the Treasury was in a position to spare it. He confessed he was surprised at the course the Government had taken on that occasion, when he found what were the opinions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion on the hon. Member for Ashton's (Mr. M. Gibson's) Resolution in 1858. In that debate the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) said— He believed the object of his right hon. Friend in bringing forward this Resolution was merely to put on the records of the House the opinions of hon. Members on both sides, so that, whenever the condition of the Treasury should be such as to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to the abolition of this tax, the right hon. Gentleman would select it as the very first for remission, and so get rid of it. What said the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) on the same occasion? This, He objected to the Motion as first proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He agreed with him that the maintenance of the Excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic, but could not agree with him that such financial arrangements ought to be made as to enable Parliament to dispense with the tax. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, who certainly had given the hon. Gentleman no encouragement, said— That, when they knew that they had a surplus revenue and the means of diminishing the taxation of the country, then was the proper time to consider what, under existing circumstances, were the taxes which had the first claim to reduction. These declarations formed one of the grounds of the surprise of the country at the determination of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to seize the present occasion to repeal this tax. He would only quote one more authority, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—he said distinctly— The House would recollect that last year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income tax should be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and that instead of 1s. 3d. the duty on tea would he 1s. 3d., and that there should be a proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year they had allowed the income tax to fall from 7d. to 5d. in the pound, but they had kept up the duty on tea at 1s. 5d., and also retained the proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. It was therefore almost a matter of good faith when next there was a reduction in taxation, that the duties on tea and sugar should he reduced, which were in fact war duties, and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxation than in those articles of consumption which entered so largely into the comforts of the people. Was this, then, the proper time for taking off the paper duty, when there was not only a deficit, but when that deficit was being increased by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when, too, he was reimposing the duties on tea and sugar, and was not only maintaining, but increasing the income tax? The fact was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to rejoice if the Bill were rejected, as its rejection would leave him in possession of funds which he could not afford to lose; and as the income tax had been imposed, should the paper duty be retained, he could only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having that amount to meet any difficulties that might arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton expressed his surprise that they should object to the Bill on the third reading. Surely he had been long enough in the House to know that they had a right to dispute a measure at every stage, on the first and second reading, on going into Committee, and on the third reading. Since the period when the Budget and the Commercial Treaty were brought forward, the feeling of the country had materially changed. The people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to exist, on the part of a neighbouring country, to meet the free-trade proposals of the Government. Under these circumstances, it might be fairly argued that the House ought not to press the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had been taunted, he thought unfairly, in relation to the question of fire insurance, for having stated last year as a Minister of the Crown the course which he felt it his duty to adopt with regard to it. He himself was in favour of a reduction of that duty, but he had not voted on the question either last year or during the present Session, as he did not wish his motives to be misinterpreted. He was extremely glad the hon. Member for Stamford had brought forward the question, and he hoped the House would declare its opinion that it was unwise to sacrifice revenue amounting to £1,300,000 when a great deficiency existed in the present year, and it had been shown that the deficit for next could not be less than £12,000,000.

LORD HARRY VANE

said, he differed in opinion from the hon. Member who had last addressed the House, and who, he thought, had somewhat wandered from the issue before the House—namely, that without further financial explanations from the Government, it would be imprudent on the part of the House to assent to the third reading of the Bill. The principle of the Bill had been decided on on the second reading, and consequently they were not then in a position to dispute the propriety of repealing a tax that the House had already declared ought not to form a permanent source of revenue. The point raised by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford, and upon which he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford some information was, that inasmuch as the House would probably be called on to adopt larger Estimates than were at first contemplated, and as the last of these Estimates had not yet been presented, it was desirable, before so large an amount of revenue was parted with, that the House should be in a position to arrive at a just conclusion. In this view he entirely concurred; and though it might be said that the increased amount of the Estimates would not absorb the entire of the available surplus, there were other questions looming in the future, as to which they ought to have some information. It was stated, for instance, that the Government intended to propose certain plans of fortification: and it would be well that the House should be in possession of the fact, before coming to any definite Resolution, involving such an extensive sacrifice of revenue as they were now asked to make. He differed from those who thought that an income tax ought not now to be imposed, with a view of removing other kinds of taxation, for the principle had been already adopted. The sole question was, whether sufficient provision had been made for the additional expenses to be incurred. He did not find fault with the Government for not having produced these additional estimates; for, in the position in which they found themselves at the opening of the Session, they had no choice as to the manner in which they should introduce the financial details; and he believed it was customary for Chancellors of the Exchequer to bring in towards the close of the Session a supplementary estimate, embracing all additional and miscellaneous charges. He differed from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller), who thought that the Excise and Customs' duties were not intimately connected; on the contrary, they were so intimately related, that he could not conceive how any hon. Member could vote with respect to the one, without anticipating that he would be called on to vote in similar sense on the other. And, therefore, he thought himself justified in assuming that the decision that night would virtually decide the question on Monday, as all who now supported the Government would vote against him on the future occasion. He was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. M. Gibson) should take credit to himself for having brought the question to an issue; for it was he who, by an argument of great ability, induced the House, two years ago, to agree to the Resolution which had placed the paper duty in its present anomalous position. But that position had existed ever since; and he did not see that any great injury would result from the postponement of its final decision till next year; the House, in so doing, would be acting in strict accordance with the principle which had guided them since that Resolution was passed. The capital of £10,000,000, alleged to be vested in the manufacture of paper, would remain in exactly the same position it had occupied during that interval. He could see a clear distinction between the reduction of Customs' duties, and the present case. In the former, the House proceeded by way of Resolution, and pledged itself to take off or reduce certain charges; but with respect to duty imposed in accordance with an Act of Parliament, its repeal was not accom- plished until all the successive stages had been gone through; and nobody had a right to complain, if in any of these the Bill for effecting that object was defeated. He by no means contemplated the permanent retention of the paper duty, against which many reasons could be assigned, especially its harsh operation in the case of literary men, and of certain commercial interests; but he believed the injury which it entailed was very much exaggerated. There was no tax which was absolutely free from objection; and in every instance it was a question of comparison as to the least objectionable mode by which the Exchequer could be supplied. In support of the paper duty, it might be urged that it was of long standing, having existed ever since the time of Queen Anne, and that interests had grown up under it and become accustomed to it; while duties more recently imposed had interfered with existing interests, and ran more directly counter to the ideas and habits of the people. Unless, therefore, some fuller explanation were afforded than had yet been given, and unless fears, which were not unreasonably entertained, were more satisfactorily allayed than had hitherto been the case, it would be an act of imprudence in the House to part at such a moment with so large a portion of the revenue.

MR ELLICE (Coventry)

Sir, I wish to explain to the House in a few words why most reluctantly I shall feel obliged to vote against the third reading of this Bill. I do not come to that determination on any of the narrow grounds I have heard stated since I came into the House, but upon the general view I take of the resources and revenue of the country, which I think are placed in considerable jeopardy by my right hon. Friend's Budget for this year. In the few remarks I made at the beginning of these discussions I described the Budget as being in my opinion an ambitious Budget, and the experience I have acquired of it since only confirms that opinion. I have sat in this House the greater part of half a century, during which time I have paid some attention to the financial condition of the country, and this is the first instance within my recollection when a Chancellor of the Exchequer has come down asking us to repeal certain taxes connected with the permanent revenue of the country, at the same time admitting that he leaves a deficiency, to be supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year, of somewhere about £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. I do not know that any Gentleman in this House can furnish a similar precedent. It is a course full of danger, and it is full of inconvenience; for at the beginning of the next Session we shall be launched into exactly the same discussions which now prevent us from proceeding with the ordinary business of the nation. If it should turn out that some of the great measures of this Session do not succeed or are not carried we must recommence our discussions upon them in the beginning of another Session, and at the same time we shall have to provide the means, which will be then very much more disputed than now, of supplying the deficiency of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. Again, we have no security that the sums asked from us on account of the Estimates constitute the whole expenditure which we shall be called upon to provide for the service of the year. I have the greatest misgivings with respect to the Vote for the China expedition. As to that item, we must be guided not only by the actual Estimates before us, but by what our own judgment suggests as to the probable expenditure we may be called on to face. With respect to the tax which we are now discussing, I have not a word to say in its defence. It is about as odious a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a tax which interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an important branch of manufacture—being almost the only tax of that description now left in our fiscal system—but it also impedes the circulation of information and of knowledge. Upon all these grounds no man is more disposed to repeal this tax, whenever we can do so without robbing the Exchequer. But when we are called on to repeal it at the risk of leaving a large deficit, or when we are called on to impose other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we should wait until some more favourable time presents itself. It is upon these, and upon no mere narrow grounds, that I object to the repeal of this tax. Another reason why we should suspend our judgment is this:—My right hon. Friend proposes other taxes which have not yet passed the House. Some of them are objected to by various classes of persons who will be affected by them. For instance, the mercantile classes object to the petty taxes which are to be imposed upon trade. It is true we remit duties on consumption, but we impose petty, vexatious, shackles on trade, such as 2d. or 3d. on removing packages, which are not imposed on the commerce of Hamburg, Belgium, Holland, America, or of any other country in the world. It is the first time in the history of the country that such vexatious taxes were imposed. I feel strongly the objections to such imposts, and it is therefore not quite clear to my mind that others may not object too, and that my right hon. Friend may not experience some difficulty in carrying them. At all events, I think it will be better to wait until they are carried before we proceed to remit other duties. Though greatly indisposed therefore to do anything in the least opposed to the measures of the Government, I feel obliged in my conscience to vote against the third reading of this Bill.

MR. G. W. HOPE

said, that if he had voted upon the second reading of the Bill, he should have voted in its favour, because he had at that time believed that it would afford a considerable relief to the paper manufacturers, and that it would lead to an important reduction in the price of paper. But everything that had since passed, both abroad and at home, upon that subject, convinced him that that expectation was but a delusion. He believed that the measure would not be productive of the advantages he had at one time anticipated, and he should, therefore, vote against the third reading. He felt convinced, too, that the Estimate of the Government on account of the Chinese war would be found utterly insufficient, and with that conviction he could not, without some overpowering reason, such as did not, he believed, exist in that case, consent to the extinction of a large amount of revenue.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I must frankly admit that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) does found his opposition to the third reading of this Bill upon no narrow grounds. I might, indeed, question the correctness of some portion of those grounds as matters of fact. He complains of the Government because they are proposing the imposition of a number of new taxes upon trade which have not yet received the sanction of this House, which may therefore be uncertain as to their fate, and with respect to which it is desirable that we should know whether they are to be adopted before we surrender revenue. My right hon. Friend says he has attended the debates of this House for nearly half a century, and it is, perhaps, no wonder, therefore, that he has become so weary of hearing them; that the taxes of which he speaks have been debated by the House, and, with an insignificant exception, have received its deliberate approval without his knowledge. Therefore, as regards that part of my right hon. Friend's statement, if it has materially affected his judgment on the immediate question before us, I can only regret that a voice so authoritative should have been guided or misguided, as the case may be, by considerations so entirely erroneous. As to my right hon. Friend's larger allegations and criticisms on the general policy of the Government scheme of finance, I must point out to him that he has spoken somewhat late. His statement, which resumes and sums up, in fact, the most prominent objections urged against the financial plans of the Government as a whole, would have been extremely important if it had proceeded from his mouth, with his authority, some two or three months ago, and would then have, at least, been in place and in time. At present, I hardly know what purpose it can answer beyond that of eliciting warm expressions of approval from that portion of the House which finds a large amount of sympathy in a quarter where sympathy with them was not previously known to exist. But I must submit to my right hon. Friend that it is too late to discuss these matters now. ["No, no."] With great respect I must decline to follow my right hon. Friend into the mere enunciation of counter-statements which it would be perfectly easy for us to make, or into that very minute examination, and, as I think, that not very difficult refutation, of his opinions, which would, in point of fact, involve the repetition of our principal debates for the last three months. I beg to state to the House what I conceive not to be the question now at issue. We are not debating the general principles of the financial plans of the Government, and I venture to tell my right hon. Friend that if he really has entertained these sinister and dismal apprehensions, it might have been better either to have uttered them in their full force at the time when they might have operated on the decision of Parliament, or possibly to have kept them to himself. The time, Sir, has passed by when the decision of Parliament can be governed by these prophecies, because in the main, as I shall endeavour to show to the House, the principal questions raised by them are already decided. I do not ask your assent to that proposition just now, but I will attempt presently to show that it is a sound and correct proposition. We are not discussing to-night the question whether it would have been wiser on the part of the Government to have refrained from proposing a repeal of the paper duty, which was to be made up by an additional penny of income-tax, because that additional penny has already become law, and has, at the moment I am speaking, been levied from many of Her Majesty's subjects, and a large party in this House opposed to the policy of the Government has, by its deliberate vote, in its own self-chosen language, sent forth to the country that the proposition of a tenth of the income-tax and the repeal of the paper duty were correlatives the one to the other, and inseparably united. That has been declared by the Motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles), and supported generally by the party opposite. Neither are we discussing the question whether the Government would have done better to have proposed the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar rather than of that on paper, because we have seen that while it has been argued that at any rate it would have been a preferable change, yet there has been no serious intention of recommending a change of that sort, or it would have been submitted to the House in the shape of a formal Motion. Neither are we discussing the question whether a protective duty of a penny per lb. is to be maintained upon foreign paper in consideration of the legislation of foreign countries. I think, Sir, I may venture to assure my noble Friend who lately addressed the House (Lord Harry Vane), that, as far as argument at least, the two questions of the duty to be imposed upon the importation of paper from abroad and the question of the retention of the Excise duty on paper at home are entirely distinct. He may say if he pleases, and he has a right to do so, that the same inclination which led a majority of the House to vote for the one may lead them to vote for the other; but, in truth, the two things are quite distinct Neither at this stage do I propose to re-argue the general question of the repeal of the duty on paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry has not gone further than to say that a more odious tax than that for the retention of which he argued could not be conceived. And this most odious tax he desires to retain after the House has given to the Exchequer the equivalent which was stipulated for when the repeal of the duty was proposed. I do not re-argue the general grounds against the tax. I merely recite them. Among them, were, of course, the general objections to Excise duties upon what is called a legitimate and unexceptionable manufacture. Prominently among them are the uncertainty and inequality of the present law, which have led the responsible Department to report that It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we are levying a duty upon A while we allow B to send out goods precisely similar in nature without any interference from the revenue officers. So that according to the opinions of those who are most competent to speak upon the subject it is not possible to go on longer as we are, and if the duty is not repealed there remains for Parliament the doubly odious task of new vexatious and restrictive legislation. Another and a less weighty ground is the Resolution of this House, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who voted for that Resolution, meaning, apparently, nothing by it, will derive from that vote a salutary lesson for the future, when they see what effect such a vote produces in weakening the hands of those whose duty it is to maintain and enforce the law. My right hon. Friend has said that this duty is a tax on literature and education, and, as such it has long stood in evil odour in this House. And observe, the effect of it is to confine within narrow limits the whole manufacture from fibrous substances, which it is reasonable to expect, if the shackles of the law are removed, may become the basis of a trade vastly multiplied, and which will contribute to the general prosperity of the country in a degree far beyond the measure of tribute which it now supplies to the revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) stated the case not unfairly. I understood him to take as his ground, not the general proposition that the financial policy of the Government ought ab initio to have been rejected, but that since the House had adopted the principle of the repeal of the paper duty such changes had taken place in the prospects of our expenditure as imposes upon us the duty and obligation of withholding the relief we had promised in respect of this particular item of finance. The state of our expenditure and the probable demands upon the public purse were declared by the Government at the com- mencement of the Session, and it requires no declaration from the Government to show that it contained some element of uncertainty, because we had undertaken to send, in conformity with what was our duty and honour a costly expedition to one of the remotest countries of the globe, with respect to which the cost must necessarily depend much upon circumstances attending the despatch of that expedition and the course of political affairs which might follow its departure and arrival. I never disguised this, nor do I now, that there is a degree of uncertainty affecting the expenditure of the present financial year, and probably that of future years. That is not a matter that is new to the House, but one which it had in view when it assented to our financial propositions and gave them its sanction and approval. And although the precise amount of that expenditure has received some degree of modification—the precise amount we are not able to say—yet there has been no such change as would justify us in altering the financial propositions which we submitted to the House. It is still a case of uncertainty, I admit, but still it is substantially the same case of uncertainty upon which the House gave its vote in the mouths of February 'and March. Now I come to the specific case upon which my hon. Friend rests. He said there was a change in the estimates for the collection of the revenue, and he intimated that there would be a similar change in the estimates for the miscellaneous services, although those changes would not involve any increase of charge. I think my hon. Friend will see, although he may be perfectly right in principle, when he says a material change in the probable charge of the country will justify a corresponding change in your intentions with regard to the provisions for it, that there is no such material change at this moment, as will justify his Motion. He says that several military Votes have been altered. It is true, and when we come to discuss those estimates a good reason for the alteration will, I am sure, be given, and the hon. Baronet knows well that a state of accounts involving such large sums between the Governments of India and of England is necessarily a disturbing cause, which from time to time tends to vary Estimates and to modify charges on either side. The Estimates as presented by my right hon. Friend he is prepared to stand by; and the House will, I think, admit that he is not in the habit of presenting Estimates got up to meet the incidence of an immediate charge and then relying upon supplementary estimates to carry him through the year. Of course I did not understand that any offensive charge was made against us; and all I mean to say is—that the Estimates now presented in respect to the Votes to which the hon. Baronet alluded—namely, the clothing, provisions, and stores—will be defended by my right hon. Friend, and they must be understood to represent the mature convictions and the latest information of the department over which he presides. My hon. Friend adverted to the Vote for fortifications, and asked for details. Undoubtedly, nothing can be more reasonable than that the House should be informed as to the details of that Vote; but the House and the Government are essentially in the same predicament, inasmuch as while it is known to them both that a special body has been appointed for the purpose of considering the important questions connected with the defences of the country, the Report of that body, embodying the recommendations which it may think fit to make to the Government, is not yet in the hands of the Cabinet for its consideration. What course, then, has been taken by the Government under the circumstances? Why, this; they have submitted to the House necessarily a sum without details, which remains in a great degree unfixed, but, at any rate, a sum which is much more than the Vote of last year, or, indeed, of any preceding year, for the purpose of fortifications. But that matter stands precisely now as it did at the time when the House arrived at the decision which it is now asked to retract. I come now to the third head—that of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which my hon. Friend anticipated would be increased to £7,772,000; but that is sheer anticipation. I think I may venture to assure him that that is an inaccurate estimate, and that the charge for the Miscellaneous Estimates will approximate nearly to the figure at which I originally stated it. I will not say there will not be a variation of some £20,000 or £30,000, because my hon. Friend knows that in the course of public business there are always some items of these Estimates unsettled at this period of the year, but substantially that charge will correspond with my former Estimate. Then there remains the charge for the collection of the revenue; and, with re- spect to that, there is something in what has been stated by my hon. Friend, because, owing to the early period at which the Estimates were proposed, they were stated at a lower figure than that at which it was afterwards thought prudent to fix them. But it is impossible for me to state even now in what degree that change in the figure is likely to represent a real increase of expenditure, because, as my hon. Friend knows, important alerations are contemplated in reference to the revenue establishments and the collection of the taxes, and at present it would be impossible for me to say in what degree any changes that may be made in that sense may affect the Estimate; but even if the whole of the difference my hon. Friend anticipates were to be represented by a real expenditure—that difference being above £200,000—although it may constitute a change in the circumstances since the Budget was proposed, yet constitutes no change of a nature or magnitude that would justify us in stopping the course of a measure which involves a revenue of five or six times that amount. So far, therefore, as regards change in circumstances since the period when the financial statement was submitted to the House, there is nothing that would justify the Government in making new financial proposals to Parliament. But even that is not the whole of the question before us; and I entreat the House, before coming to the vote of to-night, to consider what its meaning and bearing really are. The third reading of a Bill is now contested, and you axe, in circuitous and vague terms, but still with no doubt as to the practical object, invited to reject that Bill on the adjourned debate on this its very last stage, the object of that Bill being to repeal a duty which involves a large amount of revenue, and a trade producing many millions worth of goods every year. I intreat the House to consider what is really involved in that proposal. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) says he has sat in this House for nearly half a century, and I ask him if he has ever known such a vote given as that in which he is going to join to-night. If any other hon. Gentleman has known it, let us have the precedent. Has my right hon. Friend, I repeat, ever known a case in which the repeal of a tax affecting trade, deliberately proposed by an executive Government as part, and a fundamental part, of its financial propositions for the year, long debated in the House of Commons, variously discussed on both sides, and deliberately affirmed by a large majority—I say has he ever known a case in the half century of his experience in which, at the last moment, on the Motion for the third reading of a Bill, the House of Commons has interfered and arrested the boon on its way to the people? What does this involve? I am appealing to hon. Gentlemen conversant with trade and taxation, and I ask them what is the effect that is uniformly produced on the House and the country when the repeal of a tax upon trade is announced by the authority of the Queen's Government, and is accepted by the higher authority of this House? I state without the slightest fear of contradiction, that such an arrangement, when so announced, is almost uniformly taken for granted as a thing accomplished. ["No, no!"] These are surely matters for a free expression of opinion, and I state it as my opinion that even upon the announcement by the Queen's Government of the repeal of a tax on trade, that repeal is usually taken for granted. But what I insist upon is this—and here I challenge contradiction in any form—that, without exception, when such a remission of taxation has been proposed by the authority of the Government and accepted by a deliberate vote of the House of Commons it is from that time regarded by every person concerned as if it were already the law of the land. Is there an exception to that? Can my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) furnish me with an exception? Let us recollect what this matter really is. The business of the Queen's Government is to make demands on the House of Commons for the sums necessary to carry forward the public service, and to suggest the means by which those charges are to be met. But this power of altering the taxes of the country is one of the greatest, most important, and most vital parts of the whole functions of the House of Commons; and what I now wish to bring to the particular notice of the House is that there is no instance of the correction of a deliberate vote of this kind. Directly the remission of a tax is announced by the Government and accepted by the House of Commons every description of trading arrangements begin to be made by those who are affected by the tax. Those who intend, when you remove a tax of excise, to create new establishments—and, in this ease, to erect new mills—begin to make their arrangements—those who intend to import from abroad begin to make their arrangements to import from abroad—those who intend to make arrangements to dispose of a valuable stock, commence their arrangements for disposing of that valuable stock; the whole operations of that trade are, in point of fact, dependent on the vote of the House of Commons; and when the House has deliberately given that vote I say it is always and without exception regarded as the definitive and authoritative expression of its opinion. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) must be led to consider whether, even for the purpose of retaining the paper duty, it would be worth while to give such a shock to public confidence as the new course of practice now recommended could not fail to give. During the half century of my right hon. Friend's experience you have at intervals repealed from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 of taxes, and in every one of these instances the first affirmation of the House has been accepted by the country, and are we now going to break up the traditions of the House, and destroy that confidence which the country has ever felt in its declarations relative to taxation? The hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) says we have not lost our right to vote against the Second Reading of a Financial Bill because the principle of it has been affirmed in a preliminary Committee, nor to object to the Third Reading because it has passed through Committee. Certainly not. No person asserts that either the individual Members of Parliament in this House have lost their right to do what they please in the matter. I am not questioning the right of the House of Commons, but addressing arguments to its sense of fairness, and to that disposition which the House almost uniformly shows to paying regard to its own traditions, and to fulfil those expectations with regard to financial changes which the previous proceedings of Parliament has raised in the country. I know not in what way an executive Government would be able to meet the allegations of parties who, building upon an unbroken course of practice, had made arrangements which were subsequently interfered with. I must also say that I do not think that, even in a financial point of view, you can effectually reanimate the paper duty. You have gone too far. Your own deliberate and unanimous Resolution, sanctioned by the Members of the Government of that day, in whose recollection it seems now to dwell somewhat lightly—the consequent announcements of your own confidential servants, whose business it is to collect the revenue—the proceedings you have this year taken, and the voice of your own majority would have this effect, that even if you persuaded the House to reverse its vote—which I think you cannot do—you would only bring back the trade to a paralyzed existence. You would check the manufacture, you would proscribe all enterprise, and you would only half obtain the fiscal objects which you contemplate, while no small loss and suffering would be the consequence of your having disappointed the just expectations that you had raised. But these considerations are apart from the important merits of the general question that has almost posthumously been raised by my right hon. Friend, and from the merits of the other important question whether the Government judged wisely or not wisely in proposing the repeal of the paper duty. What I submit is that it is above all things necessary in matters relating to taxation that the people of this country should know when the voice of Parliament has been uttered. The practice of forty years has exhibited a system of uniform conduct in this respect, under which you have given a promise to the country that I do think it would be neither wise nor just to recall; and I do not hesitate to express my individual opinion, that if we were about to be, I will not say involved in war, but to be placed in circumstances that would demand of us additional charges, it would be better that the Government, having arrived at this point, should propose some other appliances, and ask the House to find the means in some other way, rather than counsel the House to do that which would be regarded as nothing more nor less than the breach of a legislative promise. I feel confident that the majority of the House retains the opinion which it expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. I also feel confident that even some of those who doubted the merits of the measure when it was introduced will not doubt now, when the question is whether the House will or will not fulfil a solemn pledge that it has given to the country.

MR. T. BARING

—I trust the House will allow me to state that I for one do not concur in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the operation of this measure on the trade in paper or subscribe to the principle he has laid down that every removal or every reduction of a duty proposed by the Government is to be considered almost by consent as imperative. In 1852 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire proposed, on the part of the first Government of the Earl of Derby, a reduction of the duty on tea, but the House rejected that Budget entirely. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that because the Government proposes a reduction of duty, such is the prestige and importance attached to the proposal that all transactions of trade in the particular commodity affected by it are brought to an end, and that a rejection of the proposal by this House cannot be carried into effect without inflicting serious and fatal injury on that trade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he sure that in consequence of his proposal for the removal of the Excise duty on paper there has been such an extension of projects for the manufacture of that commodity as he seems to suppose? Does he mean to say that the paper manufacturers are in favour of his measure if that measure be coupled with a reduction of the duty on foreign paper, without any compensating reduction of duty on the import of the raw material? So far as I can gather the opinion of the paper manufacturers, they would rather have the duty on paper remain if its repeal is to be accompanied by a reduction of the duty on foreign paper without any corresponding reduction on the import of rags. The right hon. Gentleman says it will be a breach of faith not to carry out this proposal. But I think it is but too probable that if it be carried out English capital will be carried away to be embarked in paper manufacture abroad, when proof will be given of the right hon. Gentleman's mistake in thinking that the rejection of this Bill on the third reading would inflict injury on the trade. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that when a Resolution is carried in this House with reference to an import duty on a foreign product commerce relies on that Resolution being formally passed, because it affects the duty on the import of the commodity; but when a Resolution of the Mouse affects the manufacturing industry of this country it is a very different thing. I agree with the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), that it is better to remove Excise duties if we can, but that of all Excise duties that on paper is the least injurious to the production of manufactures, the least hurtful, the least preventive to inventions and the introduction of new materials. But we are not now considering whether Excise duties are or are not hurtful, nor whether the removal of the paper duty might or might not benefit the manufacturers and extend the trade of the country. We are not now even considering whether it is better to repeal this duty or those that press more heavily on the labouring classes; but we are considering whether, looking to the future, and, looking to the uncertainties of expense, and to what may happen next year with, perhaps, another Parliament—at any rate, with a great deficiency, we should now remove a source of revenue which now exists without great pressure on the productive powers of this country and without great injury to the manufacturing classes or detriment to the consuming classes, and which may be wanted, and, I believe, is now wanted, but which, at all events, this House would be unwise to part with. For a Government to refuse this proposition on the part of an Opposition was most extraordinaiy. We have heard in old times of "Her Majesty's Opposition," but this appears to be "the Government Opposition," which grants the Government £1,200,000, and places right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the happy situation of perhaps avoiding a deficiency, or at least secures to this country its power to meet future contingencies, and to maintain public faith.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I should be quite content that this Debate should close with the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), had it not been for references repeatedly made to me, not only to-night, but on a former occasion by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the conduct I pursued in reference to this tax two years ago; and I do not think it becoming to myself or to the House to remain silent, when the right hon. Gentleman has spoken under an entire misapprehension of what took place on that occasion. With respect to the question generally, as moved by way of Amendment, it appears to me that a very simple issue is raised; and when we strip it of all the envelopment which has been thrown around it by the rhetorical dexterity of the right hon. Gentleman, we have before us only one point to consider, and of all points in the world one the most entitled to the grave and earnest consideration of the House of Commons. Sir, the Government, from one peculiar circumstance on which we need not now dwell, had this year to make their financial statement at an unusually early period, when we were not and when we could not be in possession of the results of the financial year; and the propositions of the Government were of a very extensive and singularly complicated character. Well, the consequences of these circumstances was a result, which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, that there were necessarily in the statements made what the right hon. Gentleman has happily and fairly described as elements of uncertainty; and it is because we are now in the middle of the Parliamentary Session, and because those elements of uncertainty have to a certain degree been developed, and because there is a prospect of a still further development of them, ending in an issue not in harmony with the calculations and estimates of the right hon. Gentleman, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford takes this opportunity, when the House is called upon to sanction a further remission of revenue, to advise you to re-consider your position and see whether you are justified in taking the step which the Government counsels you to pursue. I listened with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman to see how he would answer the objections urged both with moderation and modesty by my hon. Friend. In the first place my hon. Friend says that we are not yet in possession of all the Estimates of the Government, but that, nevertheless, we have already had one estimate which exceeds the calculation made at the beginning of the year by a sum considerably above £200,000; and as the Government calculated only on a surplus for the whole year of £400,000; therefore, more than half this surplus has already disappeared. I have not heard any denial of the accuracy of that statement. My hon. Friend as well as the right hon. Member for Coventry, with all the authority the latter Gentleman so justly possesses in this House, called our attention to the Vote of credit for China. Was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman on that point satisfactory? So far as I could follow the ambiguous though adroit phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he is in possession of evidence at this moment to the effect that the estimate this year has been exceeded. Then what has be- come of that surplus revenue calculated on at the beginning of the year? The right hon. Member for Coventry, following up with more detail the intimation made by my hon. Friend, appears to have excited great indignation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that right hon. Member succeeded in showing that some of the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer counted on, and which were framed, if not with the intention, at all events with the effect, of greatly vexing and embarrassing the trade of the country, would probably fail in producing the anticipated amount of revenue, and might not even receive the sanction of the House. What was the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The House cannot have forgotten the dignified reproof the Chancellor of the Exchequer administered to the right hon. Member for Coventry. Undismayed by the experience of half a century, which we all acknowledge and which he shows in our Debates when ever he rises, the Chancellor of the Exchequer positively gave him a lecture, for not being aware that all these measures had already received the sanction of the House. Is that so? I have watched the progress of these measures, not with the authority of a Gentleman who has sat here for fifty years, but with a sense of the responsibility attaching to my position in this House, and I have observed that the charges on the various operations in warehousing, such as "tapping, reguaging, bottling," &c., which were announced in the Budget, and which stood on the Motion paper of the House for a considerable time, have disappeared from that paper. I have made, not a public inquiry, but an inquiry, I believe, at an authentic quarter in this House, and I shall be greatly misled, if those measures will ever reappear. They are dropped. There was an estimate, when the financial statement was made, that these particular measures would produce £130,000. To that add the sum of £230,000 in excess, occasioned by the collection of the revenue, and the unknown but certain excess on the China Vote, and we shall soon be arriving at the amount of this very tax, the remission of which is under our consideration. For I must remind the House that, though this tax produces a revenue of more than £1,200,000 a year, and is increasing in amount, yet, so far as the financial year is concerned, the amount which it will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only be £1,000,000; and the items to which I have already alluded approach to an amount something exceeding two-thirds of that sum. But a very important element is still to be noticed, and that is the subject of fortifications. My hon. Friend, the Member for Stamford, very properly called the attention of the House to that matter, which is no longer a rumour, but an understanding sanctioned by an announcement from Ministers to the effect that the question of the fortification of this country on a great and costly scale, has been under the consideration of a Committee; and the Report of that Committee has, I understand, been made to the Government. At any rate, there is a general impression that the Report, when made, will be acted upon. No denial has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that head. The right hon. Gentleman evaded the question, by merely saying that the Report is not yet submitted to the Cabinet; but he offered no defence against the grave and sensible objection made on the possible resulting expense. He said there was an item for fortification in the Army Estimates of £640,000, without the usual specification in detail; and then he conveyed to the House the impression—indeed, he more than conveyed an impression—I might say he made the statement, that if the great expenditure on account of fortification to the amount of £10,000,000 were decided on, it would be minus, at all events, the sum already included in the Army Estimates. But the House will, I am sure, recollect—the words are yet ringing in our ears—that the Secretary for War answered my specific inquiry in the most frank and unambiguous manner, that that latter Vote was in no way connected with any future plan for the general fortification of the country, but only for that portion still in hand. Therefore, on those points connected with the finances of the country, the right hon. Gentleman has totally evaded the objections that have been urged, or has practically admitted their justice. One word upon this particular tax under discussion. The President of the Board of Trade has appealed to me to support this Bill, upon the grounds which I expressed some years ago, and more than once expressed in favour of the Repeal of the Paper Duty. He says that the financial views of my hon. Friend, the Member for Stamford, are not to be entertained; that my views are of a higher character, and that I take the moral, literary, and educational view of this matter. To consider the matter in this view, is, in his opinion, to take the high view of it; to consider it in a financial point of view, and with reference to the national revenue, is a low view. Now, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because moral, literary, and educational progress, is entirely dependent upon the state of the country; and if the finances of a country are in disorder, if its general prosperity ceases, then, depend upon it, that intellectual progress, to which he refers, must cease also; and the efforts which multitudes make to educate themselves, must vanish as a dream. And when the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Heard of Trade, who ought to understand what important considerations are involved in the state of the finances of a country, decries that view of policy as low, which only aspires to keep the revenues of a country in a healthy and satisfactory condition, I say that a sound state of the public revenue and expenditure is the only foundation upon which you can build up those plans for the amelioration of the people, to which I should be most happy if it were in my power to contribute. The President of the Board of Trade, says my hon. Friend, is unreasonable, because we have got the income tax; and now my hon. Friend wants to have the paper duty, too. The right hon. Gentleman says we are bound by the tenth penny of the income tax to remit the paper duty. But does the right hon. Gentleman mean to maintain that we ought to remit the paper duty, whether we can afford it or not? Because that is the question. "But then," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "remember the Resolution you sanctioned two years ago with reference to this tax. Your mouth is closed by that Resolution." Now, Sir, if that Resolution were more precise and explicit than it is, I should still consider my liability to support it at the present moment with reference only to the present financial condition of the country. But what was this Resolution so frequently referred to and misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman? I am not surprised if hon. Gentlemen do not remember it, especially considering the fallacious manner in which it has been adverted to. The stream of public affairs is too rapid to permit these matters to be remembered, and only those who are responsible for them can recall particular acts and the motives by which they are actuated. That Motion which declared that the paper duty ought not to be a permanent branch of revenue really meant nothing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk said at the time. What were the circumstances under which that Resolution was brought forward? It was brought forward after the financial statement of the year had been made. In that financial statement I proposed, on behalf of my Colleagues, a policy which the House entirely and unanimously approved and sanctioned, and no one more cordially than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that it was the bounden duty of this House, although at great sacrifices, to fulfil the compact that had been made in 1853 by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the entire abolition, if possible, in the year 1860 of the income tax. I expressed on the part of my Colleagues, with the entire; concurrence of both sides of the House, our desire to remit the war duties on tea and sugar. We gave reasons, however, which were unanimously approved of by the House why we could not do so, and we showed that the first thing a Finance Minister had to do was so to guide the revenue and expenditure as to get rid of the income tax in 1860, and thus to complete and consummate the financial policy of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that was the policy of the then Government, approved of; by their political opponents, how could it be supposed that when two or three weeks afterwards we came to consider the paper duty, that policy could be supposed to be upset by a Resolution of that kind? Such a Resolution only meant that when the war duties on tea and sugar were removed and the other obligations of Parliament were fulfilled, then, if the opportunity were afforded and the state of the revenue permitted, this Excise duty should be remitted. I admit that I should have been most happy to remit it when the state of the revenue permitted. I had always been in favour of repealing Excise duties, on the ground that they interfered with the national industry, and I should have been delighted to repeal this particular Excise duty, the remission of which, was recommended to me by considerations of moral influence that I highly esteemed. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. What, then, is the slate of affairs now? Has the income tax terminated in this year, 1860? Have the war duties on tea and sugar been abolished? The right hon. Gentleman is now responsible for the finances of this country. He has doubled the income tax; he has retained the war duties on tea and sugar; and then he turns round upon me, and says I called for the abolition of the duty on paper! Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent, any plea more futile or fallacious, was never put forward. But I am told that we are not justified in pursuing the course proposed by my hon. Friend. Of late years I have doubted whether we have not been dealing with the forms of this House too lightly, and whether we paid them that veneration and attention which our predecessors thought it wise to give. But I did not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown rise and make a speech which, if it had any meaning, would imply that the forms of the House are entirely abolished on all questions of finance, and on all proposals to levy taxes—the subjects which most interest the country, and which are the main and principal reason for our sitting here as their representatives. Why, Sir, suppose a war should occur during some fantastical financial proposition, in which a tax of this kind is included? Well, there is a war. There is a Chinese war, the cost of which is estimated at £500,000, but which may be nearer £5,000,000. Here is a war. And then the right hon. Gentleman, with all the mysterious dogmatism he knows so well how to assume when it suits him—contradicting himself as he constantly does with rapid incoherence, but covering his contradictions with that robe of glittering phraseology which prevents one from immediately detecting the weakness of his argument—laid down the principle that when once this House has consented to the remission of a tax it is impossible to offer any further resistance to its repeal. The House seemed astonished, and the right hon. Gentleman, becoming more audacious, advanced another principle, that when a Minister once proposed that a tax should be repealed the House had no right to interfere. I gave, unfortunately, an indiscreet cheer, which reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had better reconnoitre his position. Having, therefore, treated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry to another admonition, the right hon. Gentleman turned round and said that there was no instance in which the House of Commons, having once voted the repeal of a tax, had afterwards refused to carry out its vote. I do not know what the half-century of experience and observation and wisdom which has been referred to to-night in so admonitory a tone can supply to the right hon. Member for Coventry. My experience is much more limited; but I remember some remarkable instances in which this House having come to a determination upon most important taxes—taxes of far more importance than the paper duty—reconsidered and changed its opinion. The House came once in my time to the determination to repeal the malt-tax. The malt trade is one of some importance, and I suppose that decision of the House put all the maltsters of England in a flutter; but the malt-tax was not repealed, which shows that there is nothing so essentially anomalous or unconstitutional as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in this House reconsidering a Resolution to which it may have prievously come. I remember, too, the House once coming to the determination to repeal the sugar duties. The sugar trade is one in which there is immense speculation, and, I dare say, a great effect was produced in Mincing Lane when that vote was arrived at; but did the House pursue the policy which it had sanctioned with its approval? On the contrary, circumstances occurred which made the House deem it prudent to reconsider its decision, and the sugar duties were not abolished. What more do we propose tonight? We think the House on the subject of the paper duty has arrived at an imprudent, premature, and precipitate decision. In the former cases referred to we were not so much surprised as we have been in this instance. They were isolated questions placed fairly before the House, and the House had every opportunity of arriving in either instance at a sound decision, without being perplexed by extraneous circumstances. What has been the condition of the House in the present case? It had an immense scheme with respect to the commerce and the finances of the country placed before it the moment it assembled. It had not a decent opportunity to consider that scheme. If any hon. Gentleman asked for those fair opportunities which the bare forms of the House and Parliamentary precedents secure to us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose like a dictator and a despot in this House, and under a species of terrorism the House arrived at a precipitate decision, which has been ruinous to our trade and has made us ridiculous in the eyes of Europe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satisfied with that, came forward and demanded of the House to rescind all the financial policy which for years he had been professing and upholding, and which so nearly concerned the interests of the whole people. He asked the House in the year when he had pledged himself, so far as a statesman can pledge himself, to abolish the income tax, to double that impost; and when his propositions were not received with all the enthusiasm which he seemed to count upon—for inconsistency is always sanguine—he vindicated his policy, as he has vindicated it to-night, by a statement which upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He told us that he had been disappointed in the policy which he had established in 1855; that the Russian war had occurred and had baffled all his plans. He quite forgot that in 1857, when he was not in office, and when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary, wanted to induce the House to consent to retain the war income tax, on the ground of the great expense of the Russian war, which had added to the national debt an annual charge of £1,200,000, he rose and scoffed at the right hon. Gentleman, and treated him with intense and unutterable derision. And upon what ground? Upon the ground of his ridiculous assertion that the Russian war had made any considerable addition to the annual charge of the country or had diminished its permanent revenue. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an indignant tone whether he could pretend for a moment that the charge occasioned by the Russian war ought to induce the House to abandon those solemn pledges which it made to the nation in 1853—pledges which induced the people of Ireland to consent to the income tax being extended to that country; pledges which induced the adoption of the succession tax, by which alone the Government had been able to settle some of the most difficult and delicate questions ever submitted to Parliament. Such was his language in 1857. What is the moral? What confidence can we have in following the counsels of the right hon. Gentleman? I showed you on a previous occasion, when you were in the delirium of the French Treaty, which every man on both sides looks back to now with shame, how the right hon. Gentleman had failed in every one of the great propositions of his famous Budget of 1853. Having traded upon that false celebrity for seven years, you now meet him again in 1860. Three months of the Session have not yet passed, and you already deplore the course which, following his counsels, you have pursued. Now, while there is still an opportunity of at least mitigating our previous folly by some prudential movement, will you—can you reconcile it to yourselves to sacrifice, in the present financial condition of the country, a large branch of revenue which the trade interested—and that is an important consideration—does not want you to part with, and which the evidence before you proves is not a declining but an increasing revenue? Above all, I ask, will you do this at a moment when Europe is in a condition which must make the boldest man quake and the wisest man tremble?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I request the indulgence of the House for a moment while I make an explanation upon two points on which the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented me. One of them touches my personal honour, and the other is of vital importance in the present discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says that in 1857 I urged that the financial consequences of the Russian war had not made it impossible to fulfil the plans of 1853, and that in 1860 I stated that they had. I wish to meet that statement of the right hon. Gentleman with the most direct contradiction which the forms of the House will allow. My words are upon record, and they were distinctly and emphatically the reverse of that which the light hon. Gentleman has stated to the House. The other point is one upon which I am content to rest the issue of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman says I alleged there was no instance in which the House, having voted the remission of a tax, had thought proper afterwards to change its mind, to that statement likewise I am obliged to give a direct contradiction. What I said was, not that there was no instance in which the House, having given a vote for the repeal of a tax, had afterwards altered its mind and reversed the vote, but that there was no instance in which the House, having voted the repeal of a tax upon the proposition of the Executive Government, I had afterwards reversed that vote, which I stated to be equivalent to a pledge to the country.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

I cannot allow to pass, as if I acquiesced in it, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, that in moving the Estimates of my Department I had frankly stated that the lump sum for fortifications included nothing more than would be moved under ordinary circumstances. What I said, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Norfolk whether any new works were contemplated, was, that no now work or no work not sanctioned by Parliament should be commenced under the Vote given on account. As I could not tell either what works the Commission would recommend or what the Government might decide upon, still less what this House would sanction, I took the Vote as a sum in a lump, instead of in detail, the details being then unknown. In the Estimates I purposely inserted a large sum without detail, in order that, whatever might be the decision of the Government or of this House upon the question, I might have the means of providing what, in the responsibility of my office, I might deem necessary for the defences of the country.

Question put:—The House divided:—The Tellers reported the numbers, Ayes 219; Noes 209.

Notice taken that Mr. Ingram, one of the Members for Boston, had been in the Division Lobby with the Noes, and having passed the Division Clerks had avoided being counted by the Tellers:—Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the Honourable Member for Boston to come to the Table; and Mr. INGRAM, being come to the Table, stated that he had gone into the Lobby with the Noes by mistake.

Mr. SPEAKER accordingly directed his Vote to be added to the Noes, and declared the numbers to be, Ayes 219; Noes 210: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.
Acton, Sir J. D.	Blake, J.
Adam, W. P.	Blencowe, J. G.
Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F.	Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.
Alcock, T.	Bouverie, hon. P. P.
Andover, Visct.	Briscoe, J. I.
Angerstein, W.	Browne, Lord J. T.
Antrobus, E.	Buchanan, W.
Atherton, Sir W.	Buller, J. W.
Ayrton, A. S.	Buller, Sir A. W.
Bagwell, J.	Buxton, C.
Baines, E.	Byng, hon. G.
Baring, T. G.	Caird, J.
Baxter, W. E.	Calcutt, F.
Bazley, T.	Calthorpe, hn. F. H. W. G.
Beale, S.	Cardwell, rt. hon. E.
Beamish, F. B.	Carnegie, hon. C.
Berkeley, Col. F. W. F.	Castlerosse, Visct.
Bethell, Sir R.	Cavendish, hon. W.
Black, A.	Childers, H. C. E.

Clay, J.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Clifford, Col.	Kinglake, J. A.
Clinton, Lord R.	Kingscote, Col.
Clive, G.	Laing, S.
Cogan, W. H. F.	Langton, W. H. G.
Collier, R. P.	Lawson, W.
Coningham, W.	Leatham, E. A.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Crook, J.	Lindsay, Wm. S.
Cross, R. A.	Locke, Joseph
Crossley, F.	Locke, John
Dalglish, R.	Lockhart, A. E.
Davey, R.	Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Lysley, W. J.
Deasy, rt. hon. R.	M'Cann, J.
Denman, hon. G.	M'Cormick, W.
Dent, J. D.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Dillwyn, L. L.	M'Mahon, P.
Douglas, Sir C.	Maguire, J. F.
Duff, M. E. G.	Mainwaring, T.
Duff, Major L. D. G.	Marjoribanks, D. C.
Duke, Sir J.	Marshall, W.
Dunne, M.	Martin, P. W.
Ennis, J.	Martin, J.
Esmonde, J.	Massey, W. N.
Evans, T. W.	Merry, J.
Ewart, W.	Miller, W.
Ewart, J. C.	Mitchell, T. A.
Ewing, H. E. C.	Moncrieff, rt. hon. J.
Fenwick, H.	Monson, hon. W. J.
Ferguson, Col.	Morris, D.
Fermoy, Lord	Noble, J. W.
Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.	North, F.
Foley, J. H.	O'Brien, P.
Foley, H. W.	O'Connell, Capt. D.
Forster, C.	O'Conor Don, The
Fortescue, hon. F. D.	Ogilvy, Sir J.
Fortescue, C. S.	Padmore, R.
Freeland, H. W.	Paget, C.
Garnett, W. J.	Paget, Lord A.
Gavin, Major	Paget, Lord C.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Palmerston, Viscount
Gifford, Earl of	Paxton, Sir J.
Gilpin, C.	Pease, H.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.	Peel, rt. hon. F.
Glyn, G. G.	Pilkington, J.
Goldsmid, Sir F. H.	Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Gordon, C. W.	Ponsonby, hon. A.
Gower, hon. F. L.	Pryse, E. L.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Pritchard, J.
Greenall, G.	Proby, Lord
Greene, J.	Puller, C. W. G.
Greenwood, J.	Raynham, Visct.
Gregson, S.	Redmond, J. E.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Ricardo, O.
Gurney, S.	Richardson, J.
Hadfield, G.	Ridley, G.
Hankey, T.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Harcourt, G. G.	Robertson, D.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Rothschild, Baron L. de
Hartington, Marquess of	Rothschild, Baron M. de
Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W. G.	Roupell, W.
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.	Russell, Lord J.
Henley, Lord	Russell, H.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.	Russell, A.
Hervey, Lord A.	Russell, F. W.
Hodgson, K. D.	Russell, Sir W.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	St. Aubyn, J.
Ingham, R.	Salomons, Mr. Ald.
Jervoise, Sir J. C.	Salt, Titus
Johnstone, Sir J.	Scholefield, W.
Kershaw, J.	Scott, Sir W.

Seymour, Sir M.	Waldron, L.
Seymour, H. D.	Walter, J.
Seymour, W. D.	Warner, E.
Shelley, Sir J. V.	Watkins, Col. L.
Sheridan, R. B.	Wemyss, J. H. E.
Sheridan, H. B.	Westhead, J. P. B.
Smith, J. B.	Whalley, G. H.
Smith, Augustus	Whitbread, S.
Smollett, P. B.	Wickham, H. W.
Stacpoole, W.	Williams, W.
Stafford, Marquess of	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Staniland, M.	Woods, H.
Stansfeld, J.	Worsley, Lord
Stuart, Col.	Wrightson, W. B.
Sykes, Col. W. H.	Wyvill, M.
Thompson, H. S.
Tollemache, hon. F. J.	TELLERS.
Turner, J. A.	Brand, hon. H. B. W.
Verney, Sir H.	Dunbar, Sir W.
Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.	Du Pre, C. G.
Adeane, H. J.	East, Sir J. B.
Annesley, hon. Capt. H.	Edwards, Major
Archdall, Capt. M.	Egerton, Sir P. G.
Astell, J. H.	Egerton, hon. A. F.
Baillie, H. J.	Egerton, E. C.
Ball, E.	Egerton, hon. W.
Baring, A. H.	Elcho, Lord
Baring, H. B.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Baring, T.	Ellice, E. (St. Andrews)
Beach, W. W. B.	Elphinstone, Sir J. D.
Bective, Earl of	Emlyn, Viscount
Beecroft, G. S.	Estcourt, rt. hon. T. H. S.
Bentinck, G. W. P.
Bentinck, G. C.	Farquhar, Sir M.
Benyon, R.	Farrer, J.
Beresford, rt. hon. W.	Fellowes, E.
Bernard, T. T.	Fergusson, Sir J.
Blackburn, P.	FitzGerald, W. R. S.
Bond, J. W. M'G.	Foljambe, F. J. S.
Booth, Sir R. G.	Forde, Col.
Bovill, W.	Forester, rt. hon. Col.
Bramston, T. W.	Forster, Sir G.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Brocklehurst, T.	Galway, Viscount
Brooks, R.	Gard, R. S.
Bruen, H.	George, J.
Bulkeley, Sir R.	Gilpin, Col.
Burghley, Lord	Gladstone, Capt.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C.	Goddard, A. L.
Cartwright, Col.	Greaves, E.
Cecil, Lord R.	Gregory, W. H.
Cobbett, J. M.	Grey de Wilton, Visct.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Griffith, C. D.
Codrington, Sir W.	Grogan, Sir E.
Coke, hon. Col.	Gurdon, B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Haliburton, T. C.
Collins, T.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Conolly, T.	Hanbury, hon. Capt.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Hardy, G.
Cubitt, G.	Hartopp, E. B.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hassard, M.
Damer, S. D.	Heathcote, hon. G. H.
Deedes, W.	Hennessy, J. P.
Dickson, Col.	Herbert, rt. hon. H. H.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Herbert, Col. P.
Du Cane, C.	Heygate, Sir F. W.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Holford, R. S.
Duncombe, hon. W. E.	Hood, Sir A. A.
Dunne, Col.	Hope, G. W.

Hopwood, J. T.	Paull, H.
Horsfall, T. B.	Peacocke, G. M. W.
Horsman, rt. hon. E.	Peel, rt. hon. Gen.
Hotham, Lord	Pennant, hon. Col.
Howes, E.	Philipps, J. H.
Hubbard, J. G.	Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Hume, W. W. F.	Powys, P. L.
Hunt, G. W.	Quinn, P.
Ingestre, Visct.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Ingram, H.	Repton, G. W. J.
Jermyn, Earl	Rogers, J. J.
Johnstone, hon. H. B.	Salt, Thomas
Johnstone, J. J. H.	Sclater-Booth, G.
Kekewich, S. T.	Selwyn, C. J.
Kelly, Sir F.	Seymer, H. K.
Kendall, N.	Sibthorp, Major
Kennard, R. W.	Smith, Montague
Kerrison, Sir E. C.	Smith, S. G.
King, J. K.	Smyth, Col.
Knatchbull, W. F.	Somerset, Col.
Knightley, R.	Spooner, R.
Knox, Col.	Stanhope, J. B.
Lacon, Sir E.	Steuart, A.
Lefroy, A.	Stuart, Major W.
Legh, Major C.	Sturt, H. G.
Liddell, hon. H. G.	Sturt, N.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Stracey, Sir H.
Long, R. P.	Sullivan, M.
Lopes, Sir M.	Talbot, hon. W. C.
Lovaine, Lord	Thynne, Lord E.
Lyall, G.	Thynne, Lord H.
Lygon, hon. F.	Tollemache, J.
Malins, R.	Torrens, R.
Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.	Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
March, Earl of	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Maxwell, hon. Col.	Upton, hon. Gen.
Miller, T. J.	Valletort, Viscount
Milnes, R. M.	Vance, J.
Mitford, W. T.	Vandeleur, Col.
Montagu, Lord R.	Vane, Lord H.
Mordaunt, Sir C.	Vansittart, W.
Morgan, O.	Walcott, Admiral
Morgan, hon. Major	Walker, J. R.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Mundy, W.	Watlington, J. W. P.
Naas, Lord	Way, A. E.
Napier, Sir C.	Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Newport, Viscount	Whitmore, H.
Noel, hon. G. J.	Williams, Col.
North, Col.	Woodd, B. T.
Northcote, Sir S. H.	Wyndham, Sir H.
Packe, G. H.	Wynn, Col.
Pakenham, Col.	Yorke, Hon. E. T.
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Palk, L.	TELLERS.
Palmer, R. W.	Taylor, Col.
Papillon, P. O.	Jolliffe, Sir W.
Parker, Major W.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3° and passed.

House adjourned at a quarter-before Two o'clock.