select committee on Official Salaries. He proposed
that the inquiry should embrace the pay and emoluments
of offices held during the pleasure of the Crown by
Members of either House of Parliament; of judicial
officers in the Superior Courts of Law and Equity;
the retiring pensions of the Judges; and also the expense
of Diplomatic Establishments. Lord John supported
his motion by an appeal to precedents, and to the
reductions effected at the recommendation of former
committees of inquiry, of which there was one in 1798, in
civil establishments; others in 1818, 1828, and 1830,
on the salaries of office-holders in Parliament; and a
fifth, on military establishments, in 1848. It was, said
his lordship, quite impossible to make sudden and
sweeping reductions, or to form fixed tariffs of salaries.—
The motion was opposed by an amendment from Mr.
D'ISRAELI: he did not see why that should be done by
parliamentary committees, which it was the duty of
government to do. Why did not ministers introduce a
bill on the subject at once? Lord John Russell's experience
and studies would enable him to settle in a single
morning the scale of Parliamentary salaries; the Home
Secretary might do the same for the Judicial salaries;
Lord Palmerston for the Foreign salaries—no one
more capable. But committees, meant procrastination.
If this one be granted, it must go into the
whole subject, as if no information existed; and nothing
will satisfy it but thorough investigation. Its evidence
will be published; and at the beginning of the session
of 1851—observed the honourable member, amid much
laughter—"leave will be asked to sit again." Much has
been said about the exhibition of works of art in 1851—
much respecting the competition of foreigners; but there
is one production which no foreign nation can touch, and
that is the blue book which the committee will produce!
Mr. D'Israeli then moved "That this House is in
possession of all information requisite to revise and
regulate public salaries; that Parliamentary Committees
of inquiry would only lead to delay; and that it is the
duty of the Government, on their own responsibility, to
introduce the measures that may be necessary for effecting
every reduction in the National Establishments consistent
with the efficient discharge of the public service."—
The debate then exhibited some splitting of parties,
especially among the financial reformers.—Mr. HUME would
not oppose the amendment because it emanated from the
opposite side of the house: he should like to see how many
of those who profess a desire for public economy could
vote against it. Perhaps it pressed Government, but
Governments ought to be pressed. If the Committee's
recommendations agreed with the wishes of Government,
Government would carry them out; if not, they would
abstain. A committee was next to useless.—Mr. HENLEY
complained that Lord John gave no indication that he
intended reductions. As to the Committee—would the
child unborn see the issue of its inquiries? Mr. Henley
would vote for the amendment.—Sir Benjamin HALL
could not trust Ministers with the reduction of their own
salaries.—Mr. BRIGHT was gratified to observe both
parties vying with each other in carrying out Mr.
Cobden's economic views. If the Committee were to be
such as Lord John had appointed on former occasions,
there would be delay and shirking. In the hope,
however, of an independent Committee excluding
Government influence, officials, and all salaried or pensioned
Members of the House, Mr. Bright would give his
vote for the Government.—Finally, Mr. DISRAELI'S
amendment was negatived by 250 to 159.—Mr. HORSMAN
then moved another amendment, adding to the original
motion these words—"And incomes and emoluments of
Ecclesiastical Dignitaries." This was negatived, by 208
to 95; and Lord John's motion was carried.

The Stamp Duties Bill was considered in Committee
on Monday 15. On the Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposing a further diminution of the rates of duty
on bonds and mortgages—from 5s. marked in the
schedule for every £50 of loan, down to 2s. 6d.; and half-
a-crown upon every £50 of increase—Sir Henry
WILLOUGHBY moved that the duty be 1s. on £50, instead
of 2s. 6d., as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed.
Sir Charles WOOD objected—and after some discursive
conversation, the House affirmed Sir Henry Willoughby's
amendment, by 164 to 135; whereupon there arose
great cheering. Sir Charles WOOD immediately stated,
that in consequence of this decision, the Government
would proceed with the bill no further that night, and
would take time to consider what to do next.

On 16th Mr. Milner GIBSON brought forward four
resolutions for the abolition of Taxes on Knowledge:
1st, To repeal the excise duty only on paper; 2nd, To
abolish the stamp, and 3rd, the advertisement duty on
newspapers; 4th, To do away with the customs duty on
foreign books. The sacrifice, said Mr. Gibson, of the
small excise duty on paper yearly, would lead to the
employment of 40,000 people in London alone. We are totally
driven out of our own colonies in British America by
the paper of the United States, France, Germany, and
Italy. The suppression of Chambers' Miscellany, and
the prevented reissue of Mr. Charles Knight's Penny
Cyclopædia, from the pressure of the duty, are gross
instances of the check those duties impose on the
diffusion of knowledge. Mr. Gibson did not propose to alter
the postal part of the newspaper stamp duties; all the
duty paid for postage—a very large proportion—would
therefore still be paid. He dwelt on the unjust Excise
caprices which permit this privilege to humorous and
scientific weekly periodicals, and even to the candlestick
and candelabrum circular of an advertising tradesman,
but deny it to the avowed "news" columns of the daily
press. He especially showed by extracts from a heap of
unstamped newspapers, that great evil is committed on
the poorest reading classes, by denying them that useful
fact and true exposition which would be the best
antidote to the pernicious principles now disseminated
among them by the cheap unstamped press. There is
no reason but this duty, which only gives £350,000 per
annum, why the poor man should not have his penny
and even his halfpenny newspaper, to give him the
leading facts and the important ideas of the passing time.
The tax on advertisements checks information, fines
poverty, mulets charity, depresses literature, and impedes
every species of mental activity, to realize £150,000
per annum. That mischievous tax on knowledge, the
duty on foreign books, is imposed for the sake of no more
than £8000 a year! Mr. Gibson concluded by expressing
his firm conviction, that unless these taxes were
removed, and the progress of knowledge by that and
every other possible means facilitated, evils most terrible
would arise in the future,—a not unfit retribution
for the gross impolicy of the Legislature.—Mr. Cowan
pointed out that the paper tax checked the progress
of manufacture. An attempt was made a few years
ago, in Gloucestershire, to manufacture paper from
straw; but while the cost of raw material was 2s. a
hundredweight, the duty was I4s. 9d. the hundredweight,
and, of course, the undertaking failed. He had
in his possession some paper made so long ago as the
year 1800 from straw; and but for the excise incubus,
that peculiar manufacture would, by this time, have been
brought to a high state of perfection.—Sir Charles
WOOD opposed the motion. Everybody was nibbling
at the surplus, although it had been already disposed of
in other reductions. This course persisted in, he
seriously apprehended that a surplus would be more
disastrous to a Chancellor of the Exchequer than a
deficiency.—Mr. ROEBUCK, in supporting Mr. Gibson, assured
the House that it was centuries behind the time; whereat
the House laughed. The education which the House
refused, the French Socialists will give. The masses
are learning from them the power of "combination."
The learned member then proceeded to exclaim with
vehemence—"They will put you down to a certainty;
but they won't know how to direct their power for the
good of mankind. For God's sake, therefore, allow us
to give the instruction which these vast multitudes need,
who are destined to exercise power in this country!"—
Lord John RUSSELL owned that it is "very desirable
that the people in general should have political
intelligence. It is very fit that all the political concerns of
the country should be known;" but much of the matter
contained in the newspapers is hardly to be dignified by
the name of knowledge. He opposed the motion,
chiefly on account of the financial difficulties it
presented.—After a speech from Mr. D'lsraeli, partly in
favour and partly against them, the resolutions were
negatived.