The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-21 00:00:00

THE SUN ,VIONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1860.

virtue. He thought tbis instrument should either be revised
or discontinued altogether.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT said he protested against the alter-
native proposed by the hon. gentleman, that this proclama-
tion should be either revised or discontinued. To its revi-
sion he was very friendly; to its discontinuance he was en-
tirely opposed.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should feel somewhat embar-
rassed as to the vote which he should give on the occasion
of a motion for an address on this subject, not having had
the advantage of hearing a more general expression of opi-
nions which hon. members entertained upon it. He saw
some difficulty in the way of the revision of this proclama-
tion. If it were looked at with a critical eye he thought
there would not be found much in it which he should wish
to revise. He was sorry, therefore, to say that his counsel
was, if it was not to be retained in its present form, the bet-
ter course would be to discontinue it altogether. Irthe
general opinion of the house were in favour of that course,
he should be ready to acquiesce in any such expression of
feeling; but he could not consider the matter of such grave
importance as that the house should be imperatively called
upon to interfere. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. L. KING said that in order to meet the views of the
right hon. gentleman opposite, he would propose to omit all
the words from his motion aster the word "revise."

The m:ginal motion was then, by leave, withdrawn, and
the amended motion put from the chair.

After a few words from Mr. SLANEY, the motion as
amended was put, and the SPEAKER, declared that the
"Noes" had it. A division was called for, and the result
was—

For the motion
Against it
CONVEYANCE OF NEWSPAPERS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law
relating to the postage, or, it would be more correct to say,
to the conveyance of newspapers. The purpose of the bill
was to give effect to the objects which he had stated in the
financial statement at an early period of the session. He
would have the bill printed, and would take care that a
convenient time elapsed before the second reading. He
would also endeavour to make the house acquainted with
any subsidiary regulations that might be necessary, to make
due provision for the transmission of newspapers under all
circumstances. He would therefore merely place the motion
in the hands of the Speaker.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

CUSTOMS ACTS AND SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the order for the further consideration of the 13th resolution
on the Customs Acts, relating to the malt duty, and also
that the committee on the Savings Banks and Friendly So-
cieties Investments Bill, should be postponed till‘Thursday.
Agreed to.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL (LIMITATION OF AC-

the parties obtaining the drawback should comply with
such regulations as the Board of Inland Revenue might
male.

Mr. A,. BLACK seconded the amendment. If this had
been a publisher's question, he should have had great deli-
cac:r in advocating it, but he considered it a question
sim?ly affecting operative printers. Of course, if he had a
perbdical in hand, it must come out at the appointed time ;
but if he were going to publish a standard work, he should
not give it out to the printers in June, July, or the early
part of August, but should wait till after the duty bad
come off.

Tie CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said of all
the dasses affected by a change of duty, there never was
any who was so free from the apprehension of loss as the
publishers. It lay in the very nature ,of the trade that a ,
publisher could hardly be a loser by the excise duty on
paper. Take the statement of Mr. Bohn, that the duty on
paper made a difference of only one halfpenny on such a
book as " Colenso's Arithmetic," which sold for 2g., and
was it to be supposed that in July a publisher would be
selling " Colenso's Arithmetic" for 25., and in August for
ls. Md. ? In point of fact, this was the weakest of all the
claims for a drawback that could have been brought for-
ward. There was always a difficulty in reducing or abolish-
ing duties ; there was a difficulty in the customs and a diffi-
culty in the excise. The double loss of reducing the duty
and paying a large drawback was so great that there must
always be some amount of inconvenience attending the
operation. The principle was to give no drawback except
in cases where :he identity of the arale could be ascer-

tamed. The hon. and learned member referred to the case
of wine. The case of the wine duty was as different as pos-
sible from that which the hon. and learned gentleman sup-
posed. It was a luestion of compact, and the only doubt
that arose was as to the construction of that maps:A. Aid

there was this great difference, that when the reduction of
the s ine duty took effect, the holder of the stock was imme-
diately subject to competition with an article which bad
paid the lesser duty, and he believed that the price of wine
had fallen to the full extent of the reduction in the duty.
But in the matter before the house the public would get
no reduction in the price of the article. They were
asked to allow the drawback for the sake of the operative
printers. He was not prepared to say, however,
that Parliament should give a large sum of money to pub-
lishers, in order to induce them to employ their workmen.
Then again with regard to wine, there was a minute and
detailed series of regulations which the sine merchants had
had,to keep, and the excise were able to identify the wine
on which drawback was claimed. The hon. end learned
member said there was no fear of fraud in this case, and it
was very well for him who had not the responsibility of
raising the revenue to say that; but those who had the
responsibility were of a different opinion. And the hon.
and lem accl member himself proposed that there should be
regulations to prevent fraud. If they had effective regula-
tions, however, the excise world have to swarm in the
offices of the printer, and the warehouses of the publisher.
He was bound to say that of all the claims for drawback,
that of the publishers was the weakest, and on that ground
and also on financial grounds, he tr asted the house would
not allow it, as instead of its being a question of a few hun-
dred pounds, it was a question of a very large amount.
The amendment was then put, and negatived, and the
house went into committee.
On clause 1,

Mr. BLACKBURN moved the postponement of the
operation of the measure by leaving out in line 5, " 15th
day of August, 1860," and inserting "31st day of March,
1861." If they raised a million more money by postponing
the repeal of the paper duty, they would then be able to
pay off the debt on the Exchequer bonds.
The CHANCELROR of the EXCHEQUER said that
as matters stood, the only result of the committee adopting
the repeal of the paper duty and then postponing the day
when its repeal should take effect, would be that, finan-
cially, the' Government would lose about one-half the pro-
ceeds. If money must be had, he thought it would be
far better for the house to proceed to raise it by some other
and distinct proposal, than by retracing their steps and
postponing the repeal of this duty for twelve months. The
,whole nett proceeds which might be expected during that
period was only £25,000. He really trusted the hon. gen-
tleman would not press his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn:

Mr. AYRTON wished to call the attention of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer .to what he considered to be a
serious omission in the first clause of the bill. It did not
follow the usual course of bills for the repeal of an excise
duty, by including the duty on licenses for the exciseable
commodity. It had always been customary to repeal the
tax on the license of tie person manufacturing the goods.
There was no valid ground for maintaining a charge on the
person who made the paper, for he found that whenever
the duties of this nature had been repealed, the duty upon
the excise license had been repealed also. There was an
exception certainly in the case of the soap boilers, but it was,
perfectly unjustifiable even there, and ought to be repealed.
It must also be borne in mind that one of the main grounds
for repealing the duty on paper was to encourage its manu-
facture in this country. For these reasons the hon. gentle-
man moved the insertion of the words abolishing the li-
cense.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. said he was
unable to say that the hon. member's statement of precedent
was literally incorrect, but would mention an instance to
show that it was certainly not established as a principle of
recent legislation that when an excise duty was repealed
the persons who paid it should also be relieved from the
burden of annual licenses. The soap trade, to which the
hon. gentleman had himself referred, was one case where
the repeal of the license did not follow the repeal of the
duty, although the question was carefully considered by
Parliament, and there was as much anxiety to promote the
soap as the paper trade. But the case of auctioneers af-
forded a still stronger instatlee of the same kind. When
the excise duty on auctions was repealed, so far was Sir
Robert Peel and the Parliament of the day from thinking
that the licenses ought necessarily to be discontinued as
well, that the repeal of the duty was seized as an excellent
opportunity for raising a small sum in an unexceptionable
manner, either—for he forgot the exact course pursued—by
imposing a license duty on the trade, or greatly augment-
ing that which already existed. That measure was carried
without opposition either in the house or from the anc •
tioneers. He could not regard the payment of £4 4s. for a
license as a serious obstacle to the development of the paper
manufacture, which must be prosecuted on a scale certainly
far larger than could be affected by so trifling a charge.
It was urged that the amount. derived from this
license was very small—only some £1,500 or £1,600
a-year at present, and not likely to rise above £3,000 or
£4,000 for many years to come ; but the question was, not
how much this duty would yield, but whether it could be
raised in an unexceptionable manner. If there were no so•
rious oomplaint against it, and it involved no breach of
principle, the mere smallness of the amount was no reason
for abandoning it, especially in the case of a class on whom
the Legislature were about to confer a great boon at a heavy
cost to the Exchequer. The principle of these licenses on
trades was a good one ; and he would be ready enough to
answer the hon. member's question whether he was willing
to extend the practice if it depended on his own will alone.
(Hear.) The question of licenses on trades might at any
time become entitled to the serious consideration of Parlia-
ment, either on account of peculiar financial pressure, or as
a commutation for Other taxes and he was not prepared to
surrender those taxes of the kind which now existed. It
might be true that all taxes which existed should be in per-
fect harmony with each other; but although it might be
proper to keep that in mind, he did not think it of itself a
good reason for surrendering a duty which was raised with-
out difficulty, complaint, or cost to the Exchequer, and
which was paid by a class who were about to receive so
considerable a boon from Government. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. TROLLOPE remarked that when Sir R. Peel in-
creased the license duty charged on auctioneers, those
already in the trade were delighted, because it tended to
keep othera out of it. (Hear, hear.) There could be no
reason why paper manufacturers should be subject to
license duty more than cotton-spinners or carpet manufac-
turers. (Hear, hear.) If one species of manufacture was
to be licensed, there was a strong reason why all the rest
should belreated in the same way ; and he thought that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been making
great changes in the financial system of the country, and
was so much in favour of direct taxation, ought to extend
the system of licensing to all trades. By what the right
hon. gentleman was now doing he would create a practical'
monopoly in the paper trade. The paper manufacture was
already in comparatively few hands, and would become the
possession of still fewer in time.

Mr. BRIGHT thought the right hon. gentleman was not
quite so conclusive in his arguments on this occasion as he
had been on many other questions connected with the bud-
get. He agreed with the hon. member opposite that there
was no reason whatever why the men who made paper
should have to pay for a license more than those who made
calico. He believed it was better for the papermakers that
the license should be retained and the duty abolished than
that both should be retained ; but there was really no rea-
son why they should pay license duty while those who
manufactured other things were exempt. His principal
objection to the duty was that it was unjust to the various
classes of paper manufacturers. Those who carried on an
extensive trade—the Wrigleys, Dickensons, and Cowans—
paid no more than the £4 4s. which had to be paid also by
those who carried on business only on a small scale, and
derived from it but a scanty income. It wag not worth
while, perhaps, to say much about it on one side or the
other, but he thought the exceptions to which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had referred did not afford sufficient
grounds to continue the system, unless it were extended
generally among traders, and that he suspected no Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would attempt until other sources
of revenue had failed. He hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had not said what he had said to-night for the
purpose of extending licenses. He had no objection to
traders paying their full share of taxation, but he thought
the mode of licenses was unpalatable, and veil, unsatisfac-
tory. (Hear, hear.) He thought the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets was right in the view which he took of this
question. It did not seem to be a matter of much conse-
quence. No paper manufacturer objected to the license.
At the same time it was not just in principle, and it was
unfair to the small paper manufacturer. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYLD said that auctioneers were not exy.,sed to

foreign competition. With respect to the manufacturers of
glass, the duty on which was repealed a few years ago, they
paid no licenses. If free trade were to be accompanied with
the imposition of licenses generally the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would rouse a feeling of opposition which he did
not expect. '

Mr. BASS paid licenses thirteen or fourteen times over.
Not only WAS he taxed as a maltster and as a brewer, but he
had to take out a license for every one of the agents whom
he employed in the principal towns. Nevertheless, if the
Government would relieve him of the duty on the articles
which he used in his manufacture, and on account of which
he paid the Exchequer £130,000 or £140,000 a year, or if
it would only take off half of it, he would not quarrel about
the licenses. (Hear, and a laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
as the question of the inequality of licenses had been raised,
he felt bound to warn the committee against admitting pre-
cedents in small matter's, which might hereafter be attended
by a great loss of revenue. At present we had a most
irregular, anomalous, and exceptional licensing system ; but
do not let them meddle with it unless they were prepared
to do so on some intelligible plan. The hon. gentleman
who had just spOken afforded another answer to the argu-
ment of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets ; for
when the duty on beer was repealed the duty on the brewer
was still retained.

After a few words from Mr. AYRTON in reply,
The committee then divided. The numbers were:—
For the amendment .. 39
Against 147-108

The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the bill were then agreed to
with some verbal amendments, and the bill passed through
committee.

The house resumed.
PETITIONS OF RIGHT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agrczi to.
On clause 2,

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that ho thought the hon. and
learned gentleman who had charge of this bill (Mr. Bovill)
had earned the gratitude of the house for the introduction
of a measure which would have, the effect of simplifying
the procedure and reducing the expense in this class of
actions—(hear, hear)—but there was one point to which he
wished to take exception. He thought there was no reason
why the preliminary application should be made to a judge.
He therefore proposed that the second clause should be
omitted altogether ; and then, with some verbal amend-
ments in the third clause, the effect would be that the first
application would be made to the Crown.
Mr. BOVILL assented to the suggestion.
The clause was then struck out, and the remaining
clauses of the bill agreed to.
The house resumed.
The report on the committee of supply was brought up
and agreed to.