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

THE PAPER DUTIES.

Lord FERMOY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he intended, in consequence of the Bill for 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.
He said that there were two questions involved in the pre-
sent state of this matter, one constitutional, the other finan-
cial. With regard to the former, he was quite prepared,
when the proper time arrived, to vindicate the dignity of the
house. He trusted also that the Government would be
prepared to take a proper course in respect to the privileges
of the house. He thought the Government should imme-
diately introduce another bill to do away with the paper
duties, to which they should append resolu-
tions to the effect that the house would maintain
its rights and privileges. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the
financial part of the question, it would be seen that
the house was placed in a false position ; for the
people of England, in consequence of the rejec-
tion of the repeal of the duty, were called on to
pay £1,500,000 for a tax which their representatives
had condemned. He believed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was sincere in his desire to repeal this
duty, but a different opinion prevailed in cer-
tain parts of the country, and therefore he had
done some service in affording him an opportunity of ex-
planation. The noble lord strongly condemned the course
pursued by Government in appointing a committee to in-
quire into precedents, instead of adopting some more ener-
getic and prompt course of proceedings.
THE TEA DUTY.
Mr. A. STEUART asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, whether, having declared in case of a similar con-
tingency with regard to the bill for the repeal of the Paper
Duty to what now has occurred, that he would
take the earliest opportunity, probably within a
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 of 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 L 515,000 ?
Mr. CAVE strongly advocated the repeal of the duty
on tea.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have
no objection to offer to the criticism of the noble lord the
member for Marylebone on the conduct of the Government
with respect to the appointment of a committee of this
house, nor to the observations of the hon. gentlemen oppo-
site with respect to the financial proceedings of the Govern-
ment or their supposed intentions, but I hope I may bo
permitted, without any disrespect, to be very brief ; and in
what I may say in regard to their observations I must be
understood, in a general sense, to make no admissions, and,
in fact, to offer no reply to their questions. (Laughter.)
That is the general and invariable rule with respect to the
intentions of the Government in matters of taxation, and
certainly the reasons which support and vindicate that rule
have 'a double force at this peculiar juncture, when it so
happens that important questions of taxation are, at any
rate for the moment, inextricably mixed u with other
questions if possible more important than those of taxation,
naively, thelrelation of the rights of the two Houses of Par-
liament, and the, constitutional usages under which legis-
lationis carried on in matters of taxation. The noble lord
seems to be curious about my feelings with respect to the
vote of the 'louse of Lords. A Chancellor of the Exche-
quer is not usually supposed to have any feelings—(laugh-
ter)—but, however, if I had any on this particular case, I
don't think the time has yet come for declaring them.
(Hear.) I entirely differ from the noble lord's criticism—
(hear)---and I think it is the opinion of the house, without
at all committing themselves as to what may be the merits
of the question, that the Government have taken a becom-
ing and ktdiefous course in remitting it too a tribunal chosen
by the house itself to make a careful collection of the facts
bearing upon the case, in order that the house may have the
fullest information before making up its mind on the subject.
(Hear.) With that apology, which I hope will not be taken
to be disrespectful, I must say that I am afraid it is net
practicable for me to give any promise either as to the re-
mission or non-remission of any particular tax whatever on
the present occasion. The hon. gentleman opposite is quite
right in saying that on the second reading of the bill I did
state that it was the intention of the Government, if that
„proposal were not accepted, to submit to the judgment of
• the house a proposal for the repeal either of the tea or sugar
duties ; but I beg to observe that the contingency I then
contemplated hasnothappened—(hear)—and, consequently,
the situation being totally different, the case in which that
questisn might fairly be pressed upon me has not arrived.
As regards that great subject to which the noble lord
chiefly adverted, reserving to myself the right to enter into
_ a discussion of it, if necessary, at the proper time, I am
quite content_ to leave the'question where it was left the day
before the recess by the declarations of my noble friend at
the head of the Government, and the more detailed declara-
tions et my noble friend the member for London. The hon.
gentleman opposite wishes to know whether I still adhere
to the opinion I expressed, that the consumption of wine
would increase to the amount of 35 per cent., and that the
loss to the revenue would not be greater than £515,000 in
the first year of the change. It has always been my opinion
—and I belieye,l have expressed it in this house—that It
would be impossible to form any trustworthy jUdgment on
the effect of the reduction of the wine duties until the Wine
Licences Bill had passed and had come into operation. It
will be net less than two or three months before that bill
comes into practical operation, and I should not feel justi-
a
b ,
out t therefore, in giving now.any more confident opinions
he ultimate issue of that great experiment than I
gave when I submitted my financial statement to the house.
So far as our present experience goes the results are quite
satisfactory, and I have no reason to deviate from the esti-
mate, naturally conjectural, which I then made.
Mr. BRIGHT—
I listened with great pleasure to the oh-
nervations of the two hon. gentlemen opposite. They have
exhibited great affection for the
working '
classes, par
• ticularly with reference to the reduction
of the duties
on tea and sugar. In all they have desira-
bilitysaidaspsot,oedthetoa. of reducing those duties I am di
with thud, but I disdiiver from their observations, gthreaet
either they have not read the debate took place i
the otherliousie, or they entirely 4iffer from their friends
there whg took part in that debate. (A laugh.) Of course
_ . lam aware that Lord Derby did not know at all that the
hon. member for Sonfqsetshire had 'ever discussed the
paper duty in connexion with the income-tax in this house,
and, if he was so entirely ignorant of what his friends were
doing in this house, it is not unfair to assume that his
friends here do not knowwhat he isdoing there. (A laugh.)
If the hon. gentlemen had ohserved.the debate they would'