The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-02 00:00:00

THE PAPER DUTY.

Lord FERIfOY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he intended, in consequnce of the Bill kr the
Abolition of the Duties on Paper having been re-
jected by the House of Lords, to remit some other
tax equivalent to the amount of the paper duties?
Mr. A. STEUART asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, having declared in me of • similar contingency
with regard to the bill for the repeal of the paper outy to
what had now occurred, that he should take the earliest
opportunity, probably within • few days, of inviting the
house to repeal the war tea and sugar duty, he still adhered
to that intention ; or what contingencies, then unforeseen
prevented such a course ; also whether he was still
opinion, from the quantities of wine entered since
the lowering of the duty, that consumption would
increase to the extent of 35 per cent., and entail on the
revenue a loss compared with last year of only 515,000 f.
Mr. CAVE thanked the hon. member for Cnmhridge far
bringing forward this question of the tea and sugar duties.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I do
not wish to complain of the criticism+ of the noble lord the
member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy), upon the conduct
of the government in reference to ties appointment of the
committee, nor of those of the bon. member opposite in
regard to the financial proceedings of the government or
their supposed intentions ; but I hope I may be permitted
without any disrespect to be very brief, and I am afraid
also negative, in my reply. In respect to what they have
said I am afraid that in general I must be understood to
make no admission, and likewise to offer no reply to either
of the questions which have been put to me. (laughter.)
I believe that this is the general and invariable rule in
respect to the intentions of the government on matters of
taxation, and certainly the reasons which inculcated that
rule have a double force in a peculiar juncture when
it so happens that important questions of taxation are
at any rate for the moment inextricably mixed up
with other questions possibly still more important than
taxation itself, namely, in relation to the rghte of the
two houses of parliament and the constitutional usages
under which legislation is conducted. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord asks me what my feelings are, and BOOM. d to be
curious to ascertain their exact state, with regard to the
late vote of the Home of Lords. Now, the Chance for of
the Exchequer is not usually 'opposed to have any feelings
whatever. (Laughter.) But if I have any feelings ou this
particular occasion I do not think that the time has yet
come for declaring them. (Laughter and cheats.) I en-
tirely differ from the noble lord in the criticisms lie has
made, and I must say I think that the opinious of the house,
without committing myself ita to whet may be right at any
ulterior stage of the matter—l think it is the °pawn of the
house that the government have not taken an unbecoming
or injudiciocs course in committing the question to a tri-
bunal chosen by the house itself, whose duty
it is to make • careful collection of facto

bearing upon the case, in order thatthe house may have the
fullest opportunity of information before making up its
mind on the subject. With that apology, which I hope
will not be deemed dim-me... Huh I am afraid it is not pram
ticable for me to give any promise as to remitting or not
remitting any tax whatever on this occasion. Tim hen.
member for Cambridge is quite right in raying that upon the
second reading of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, I did state
that it was the intention of the government if that propo.
sal were not accepted by the House of Commons to submit
to the judgment of the House a proposal for the repeal of
the tea or sumer duties, but I beg to observe that the con.
tingency which I then contemplated has not happened.
Consequently, the position in which we now stand being
totally different, the time at which the question might his
fairly pressed on me has not arrived. As regares that
great subject to which the principal portion of the
observations of the noble lord were mainly addressed.'
I shall reserve to myself the right of entering
• into a discussion upon it at the proper time' being entent
to leave it at the point where it was placed the day before
the reuse by my noble friend at the head of the govern-
ment, and by the still more detailed explanation of my
noble friend the member for the City of London (Lord J.
Russell). With respect to the second question of my hon.
friend the member for Cambridge, who wishes to know
whether I still adhere to the opinion, " that from the
quantities of wine entered since the lowering of the duty
the consumption will income to the extent of 311 per cent.,
and entail on the revenue a less compared with lad year of
only 515,000 f.," I have only to say it has always been my
opinion, and I have always expressed it in this house, that
it would be impossible to form any trustworthy judgment
of the effect of the reduction of the wine duties until the
Wine Licenses Bill had prised and was in operation ft
will be not less than two or three months be-
-1 fore that bill oomes into practical operation, and
I should not therefore feel myself justified at the
present moment in giving any more confident opinion as to
the issue of that great experiment than that which I ven-
tured to give when I submitted my financial statement to
the house. Bat this I may say, that so far as our present
experience goes the result' are quite satisfactory, and I have
no reasonjtndemate from that estimate, which was nearearily
conjectural, but suck as it war I ventured to submit it to
the house. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—I listened with great pleasure to the ob-
servations of the two hon. gentlemen opposite, inasmuch as
they exhibited a great affection for the workuog classes,
particularly in reference to the reduction of the duties on
tea and sugar. In all they said in regard to the reduction
of those duties I am inclined to agree, but I discover from
their observations that either they have not read the
debate that took place in 'the other house of parliament, or
they entirely differ from their friends who
part in that debate. Of course, I am
aware that Lord Derby did not know that
the hon. measlier for Somersetsbire (Sir W. Miles) had
ever discussed the paper duty in connexion with the income
tax in this house, and if he was so much in ignorance of
what his hon. friend wee doing it is only fair to assume that
hie friends in this house do not know what he Las done in
the other house. (Laughter.) But if hon. gentlemen op.
polite had observed the proceedings in the other house they
would have discovered thet it was not a question whether
the paper duty war good or bad, or whether it was better or
worse than those upon tea or sugar • but they would have
learned that the whole ground Of the case was this—
whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the
House of Commons, had not provided adequately for the
waVA and means n for the service of the year.
Th.at is the argument used in the other house of
parliament, and upon that argument the policy
of rejecting the bill was almost entirely based. Well, if
that ho so. it is clearly not reasonable to ask the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to introduce some other bill to provide
for the remission of some equal amount of duty, which bill,
I pregame, according to the new theory, could not become
law without the consent of the other house. And if the
argunidt for the rejection of the paper duty bill by the
other hoMe were valid, nsmely, that the House of Commons
have •" cieutly provided for the ways and means,
ncit4tMod
clearly, ' b 'the same argument, that house would not
only be jug ' but compelled to reject the new bilL I
presume thst.jmder such cimumstances the house would not
expect the Cboymellor of the Exchequer to place himself in
such a pontioplp and
) I am only sureriged that any
honourable mem should have imagined each a
course possible.a have now got new mutters
Uldhavtaue totieonson, consider mush
more circumstances into his
more
eh
cemretErtii:dly.toth,:ltEithhetachiqueesu4t,iinw
view then heretofore wheu he considers what taus hs le to