The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 13, 1860.

ber for Buckinghamshire, addressed, the house on that
occasion, arid said, upon every ground it was desirable that
the duty on paper should be abolished, and the right hon.
gentleman voted in favour of his resolution. This being so,
he claimed the vote of the right hon. gentleman in favour
of the measure before the house. (Hear, hear.) Carrying
out the purpose which he had in view in reference to the
abolition of the paper duty, he had interviews with Lord
Derby on the subject, and that noble lord at one of those
interviews expressed this
.opinion—that the paper. tax was
bad in principle and in practice, and that it ought to be re-
pealed as soon as possible; and in 1858 the noble earl inti-
mated that if the Conservative Government held office for
two years, he thought it was likely that the paper duty
would be repealed. (Hear, hear.) He now found by the last
report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that they
looked upon the paper tax as doomed, and they asked Par-
liament to legislate on the subject as soon as possible.
Well, the house having resolved that the paper duty was
not to be regarded as a permanent duty, he could not see
how the Government, being desirous of relieving the
trade and industry of the country, could do otherwise
than select it as that which ought to be abolished. (Hear.)
The hon. baronet (Sir W. Miles), at the opening of his
speech, said that ho did not mean to declare that he should
desire that the paper duty should be continued as one of
the indirect taxes of the country—although the latter part
of his speech was at variance with the first portion of it,
for he went on to show that the tax was a profitable one
to the country. The Government, however, he (Mr. M.
Gibson) thought, after the resolution that had been come
to by that house, would have been wanting in their duty if
they didnot propose to abolish the tax in question. The
noble lord had said that the report the commissioners had
made had been got up for the occasion. Now, that was a
monstrous charge to make, that they had got up a report to
serve the Government. The question raised was, as to the
collection of the tax; and he (Mr. M. Gibson) maintained
that if this tax was to be continued, they must bring in a bill
to define how the collection of this tax was to be made. But
they were told that the definition of paper was very clear,
and that it was to be found in the last decision of the Court
of Exchequer. All that the Act of Parliament said was,
that in whatever way paper might be made it should still be
called paper. Now, the Court of Exchequer said that
paper might be made from fibres for writing puiposes, to
which flexible sheets were applicable. Now paper came into
collision with felt, which could be sold at a cheaper rate,
and how were they to apply the duty to the article of felt.
The commissioners, therefore, said, if the paper duty should
be retained they must come to Parliament to define more
accurately what was to be deemed paper. (Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. M. Gibson) therefore said that Parliament must
make up its mind after what had passed that if this tax be
not thought to be one of permanent revenue it ought to be
abolished altogether. The right hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the third report of the Board of Inland Revenue of
the last year in Lord Derby's last Administration, which he
contended fully, bore him out in the view he was now taking
of the question, and he farther asserted, that, with reference
to such a tax, no men could be looked to for advice with so
much advantage as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
who,. he believed, had given their deliberate and honest
opinion. (Hear, hear.) In fact, if the duty had not been
levied in the most considerate manner,it would not have been
possible to have kept it on so long. (Hear, hear.) If the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue say there is no way to
relieve them from the difficulty in which they are placed
but by the repeal of the tax, he must say that he considered
the opinion of the commissioners was entitled to more re-
spect than the opinions of those hon. members who had
spoken in support of the tax. The argument that this tax
was one which stood in the way of the diffusion'of know-
ledge was not the only one which could be used against it.
Looking at the population of this country, the consumption
of paper here was not at all equal to what it was in other
countries. In the United States, with a smaller population,
the consumption of paper was three times as great as it was
in England, and America produced rags enough to make
much more paper than was made in this country. (Hear,
hear.) In this country, with a larger population, it ought
to be supposed that the consumption would be large. The
hon. gentleman here quoted the authority of Mr. Rawlins,
of Wrexham, to the effect that,ln consequence of the greater
facility of making paper inAmerica,they were enabled there
to sell it at a price below what was charged for duty in
England. Now, there was no doubt that the excise survey
and other annoyances crippled the manufacturer in this
country, and there were a variety of ways in which it could
be shown that the duty on paper operated very injuriously
in this country. Upon the coarser qualities of paper the
tax was an enormous per tentage. A manufacturer in Bir-
mingham had told him that out of the manufacture to the
amount of £33,000 he had to give so much as £12,800 to
the Government. (Hear, hear.) Now, there could be no
doubt that England possessed abundance of raw materials
for making paper. It was, however, said in 1836, when the
tax on paper was reduced, that this country had not a sup-
ply of the raw material. But what was the fact ? Why,
that after the reduction of the tax the quantity of paper
produced increased to 90,000 tons per annum, although pre-
viously to the reduction of the tax the produce was only
40,000 tons per annum. (Hear, hear.) Now, though they
had nearly trebled their produce, the raw material had
fallen in price 40 per cent, He was, therefore, convinced
that the repeal of the duty would lead to a largely
increased manufacture of paper, and that the raw material
would also be largely increased, for he held it to be a mis-
take to suppose otherwise, if they took the whole world and
did not limit themselves to two or three countries. (Hear.)
it was a fallacy to suppose that the manufacturer would
pocket the paper duty when foreign paper was to be ad-
mitted free of duty. They had been told that the paper duty
was not a farmer's question, but he contended that it was so
if the subject had fair consideration. It had been shown that
flax fibre and flax refuse could be converted into paper, and
the farmers would, therefore, be enabled by the sale of these
articles, and of straw, to the paper manufacturer, to corn-
pensate themselves for any reduction that
ing produce could be profitably disposed of in that way,
which were at present destroyed. If the farming interest,
therefore, would only give their support to Government in
this matter, they would find that in the end they would be
largely benefilted. It had been truly said, that the tax upon
paper was a tax on the diffusion of knowledge, although
some had stated that it was simply a clap trap to make such
an assertion. . The saying, however, was not his (Mr. M.
Gibson's). It had been used by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton) in a speech
which he made on the subject some years ago. In the reign
of Queen Anne they found that the duty was remitted upon
the paper used in printing books in the Latin, Greek, Orien-
tal, and Northern languages, and he did not see why, in the
reign of Queen Victoria, they ought not to remit the paper
duty altogether. (Hear.) It might even be argued that the
\English was a northern language. (Laughter.) The paper
duty was a tax upon knowledge, because it was a tax on the
principal means of spreading knowledge amongst the people.
If the paper duty were 6d. instead of lid. they would still be
told by its opponents that Is. was nothing on a book cost-
ing two guineas. But that was not the question. The ques-
tion was how this duty acted on publications of extensive
-circulation at a low price ; for these were the only publica-
tions by which they diffused useful information amongst
the great masses of the people. The hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Herts had once advised the great political party to
which he belonged not to resist the repeal of this duty,
which stood in the way of the refinement and improve-
ment of the people. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet told
his political friends that their own principles would be pro-
moted by the repeal of the duty, which would remove the
impediments to the promulgation of knowledge. They
wished at that time to have a penny Conservative daily
paper, which they now had, and it was selling wholesale
nine copies for 6d. Now, nine copies weighed 11b., and
therefore paid a duty of. lid. ; so that for every pound's
worth of that paper Ss, was paid in the shape of paper duty
to Government, and this.ss., after being originally advanced
by the papermaker, afterwards advanced by the wholesale
stationer, become increased to 7s. or Bs. So that for every
pound's worth of this penny daily Conservative paper 7s.
paper duty was paid to Government. (Oh, oh.) Such a
tax must, of course, be an immense impediment in the way
of the success of cheap periodicals ; for supposing the paper
in question to have a circulation of 2.5,000 a day, which he
had no doubt it was, then the paper duty to them amounted
to £2O a day. This was somewhere near the mark; but he
had not made any exact calculation. But the question was
not merely one affecting the penny newspapers, but all
cheap petiodicals. If they were to have cheap newspapers
and periodicals, they had a political interest in making
them as good as possible. An impoverished. Press instead
of being productive of good, would be productive of evil to
the country. Amongst cheap publications, perhaps the
" Religious Tract Society" held the first place. Many hon.
gentlemen no doubt subscribed to that excellent institution,
including probably the noble lord who had just addressed
the house. The Religious Tract Society was the most
Catholic and probably the largest of all these institutions.
He did not know how many tons of paper this admirable
society male use of in the course of the year. He be-
lieved that the secretary of the society had been applied to
for this information, but had net been able to supply it. But
there were two excellent publications issued by this society,
the Leisure Hour and the Sunday at Home—(hear, hear)—
and the paperdutyon those twopublieations alone amounted
to £3,000 per annum. It was surely an enormous sum to
pay the Government for permission to publish these two
publications. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Charles Knight, the
well-known publisher, had stated that during 20 years, he
had spent £BO,OOO in remunerating authors in connection
with various literary publications, and £50,000 in the paper
duties. (Hear.) It was no clap-trap, therefore, to call the
paper duty a tax upon knowledge. The paper duty was not
only a tax upon knowledge, but it was a great drawback on
the freedom of authors. Had the large sum of money
(£50,000) paid by the publisher alluded to in the shape of
paper duty been at his disposal for the remuneration of au-
thors, a higher style of literary talent would have been
secured by the money which, as it was, went into the Ex-
chequer. Seeing, therefore, that the present opportunity
had occurred, and that public expectation was excited on
the subject, he hoped the house would consent to the second
reading of the bill by a large majority. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said he had heard with interest' the
speech of his right hon. friend, who had been very lively
about the Tract Society, and very eloquent about rags, but
as to the principle of the bill, he had not touched it at alb,
(Hear.) By a skilful processof Parliamentary manipulation
it was so arranged that the treaty carried the budget, and
the budget carried the treaty.. (Cheers and laughter.) So
now, the budget and the treaty combined were to carry the
paper duty. Under the semblance of a small remission, the
house was called upon to agree to ono of the most important
financial changes ever sutmitted to Parliament by any Mi-
nister—important, not only because of the principle it in-
volved, but also because of the consequences to which it
must lead. He could not allow his right hon. friend to sepa-
rate the income tax from the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer made a calculation of the in-
come and expenditure of the year, and, on balancing his
account, placed the income-tax at 9d., with which he had
no fault to find. But then the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer performed another operation, making the remission of
the paper duty, by means of which he created a deficit of
upwards of a million—(hear, hear)—and how did he fill up
that deficit ? By an additional penny on the income-tax.
(Hear.) It was on this last point that he had to grapple
with his right hon. friend. To abolish the paper duty and
substitute an additional ld. income-tax was not a remission
of taxation at all. (Hear, hear.) It was a mere shifting
of the tax from paper to income. (Hear.) When they heard
of a remission of taxation they understood it in the sense of
a relief to the whole community, and not the relief of the
manufacturing class at the expense of the rest of the people.
(Hear, hear.) Such a "remission" as this was virtually no-
thing more than protection for that class, and, under pre-
tence of free trade, a perpetuation of favouritism and mono-
poly. (Hear, hear.) To the remission of the tea and sugar

duties, both on fiscal and on moral grounds, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, more than any other public man, stood
pledged ; and how did he get over the difficulty ? It was
by coining a new principle of political economy, which in
order to be believed would require faith enough to remove a
whole chain of mountains. (Hear, and laughter.) It was
a mistake to say that you would benefit the labouring classes
by remitting the duties on commodities through which
they obtained employment. (Hear, hear.) This was the
principle of his right hon. friend, which was certainly as
bold as it was novel, and as false as it was novel and bold.
(near, hear.) Supposing a man had gone down to the
Liverpool Financial Reform Association, and said that the
working classes would be benefited by repealing the
duties on articles consumed by employers. (Hear, hear.)
In those days of refinement such a person would be pro-
bably laughed out of the roem, but there were days
when :he would have been removed from the
place by a speedier and less ceremonious process.
Would not a reduction of taxation on articles of prime ne-
cessity stimulate and increase labour and employment?
(Hear.) The questions were, they had a million of taxes to
remit, and would they remit them from articles largely con-
sumed by the working classes, or from paper ? The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer says, " I'll remit it from paper,
because to do so will increase employment ;" but he (Mr.
Horsman) contended that remitting the duty on tea and
sugar would enable the people to lay out that million in
another and more productive way, which would yield the
right hon. gentleman a surplus. The people did not want
to lay out the million on tea and sugar, but they wanted to
lay the money out in something else, and that would yield
more employment than the right hon. gentleman antici-
pated from the remission of the paper duty. In the one
case, they gave up a million in favour of the manufacturers
of paper, and of the consumers of paper, who were mainly
composed of the rich classes and those who paid the income
tax, and they retained the million upon the hard-working
consumers of tea and sugar. (Hear, hear.) There was one
tax which affected the consumption of the poor, but which
was not a war tax, and that they allowed to remain un-
touched. But it had been said by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, "You are about to admit the operative classes
to a much larger share of power than they previously en-
joyed ;" and to that the working classes reply, but "you
have broken your promises to us." You led us to hope that
you were going to remit two millions of taxes on tea and
sugar, and this year you. put on a war tax which came up
to one shilling. But how long would it remain there ? De-
putations would come up to the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and tell him that those two millions on tea and sugar
were a tax on temperance. Now, the Chancellor himself
was a temperate man, yet he told them that the deficit of
nine millions was to be made up partly by retaining those
two millions on tea and sugar. Well, then, the voice thus
raised would reach the large towns, and would say, " You
must lay the tax upon property ;" and remember he
(Mr. Horsman) told them they must lay it on property.
(Hear, hear.) Now it was here that he challenged the right
-hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and told
him that the question of direct or indirect taxation was the
problem of the day, and that they must eventually lay the
tax directly on property. (Hear.) No one felt that more
than Sir R. Peel. He (Mr. Horsman) must say that a man
of the great ability of the Chancellor' of the Exchequer
ought to review the whole question, and to justly shift the
burden, and not apply to the working classes to pay the tax
—(hear, hear) —and he should have done that honestly in
the broad daylight, and placed the pressure of taxation
where it ought to be placed. (Hear, hear.) He should
not have shifted the burden from ono class to another in
the manner he had done, and he should not leave the masses
at the mercy of the tax collectors. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer could not believe that the poor had any burdens,
and if a tax was required he should lay it on the broad back
of the working man—he is able to bear it ; and the pro-
posed tax was, by a sudden wind of taxation, shifted accord-
ingly to the shoulders of the working classes. (Hear, hear.)
It became arbitrary, and ultimately ended in confiscatien.
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Now, let them not mince
the matter. (Laughter.) Let them give "honour to whom
honour was due." This was not the budget of the Govern-
ment—(hear, and cheers front the Opposition)—it was the
budget of his hon. friend the member for Birmingham.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) His hon. friend had, in the
autumn, made a most able financial statement at Birming-
ham, and he (Mr. Horsman) could imagine the Chancellor
of the Exchequer saying—" I have read with great interest
your speech at Birmingham. You have made a convert of
me. (Laughter.) I beg you'll come up by the early train to
Downing-street, and help me to frame my budget." (Laugh-
ter.) And when they had the twin stars closeted together,
his hon. friend might say to the right hon. gentleman—
" Don't go too fast ; you are too impulsive ; converts always
are so. (Laughter.) You be led by me ; thosetwo millions on
tea and sugar de not touch at all. There is the paper duty,
take that off, and lay it on in another way—it will only be a
penny; get rid of this tax on industry, and the rest will
follow, and you can hereafter mislead, by your embellished
and disguised rhetoric, and we will produce a prime article
of the last new and best Oxford mixture"—(cheers and loud
laughter)—the last and newest sample of the Oxford mix-
ture.-- (Great laughter.) Well, they had had two samples.
They had had the treaty, which the hon. member for Bir
mingham had told them was the dearest object of his affec
tions, and it was also the child of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. Both however, like all progenies, must have two
parents. (Renewed laughter.) They might assume that
while the hon. member for Birmingham enjoyed the pride
of paternity, it was upon the Chansellor of the Exchequer
that devolved the pains of labour. (Tremendous laughter.)
The first-born was Master Treaty. In'the fulness of time
appears Miss Budget, with every prospect of a numerous
progeny. (Cries of " Oh," and laughter.) And they already
had timely notice of a third approaching birth. He held in
his hand a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a
clergyman in Wales, who had written to him complaining
of the income-tax, and of the grievances of the rating to the
poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replies; and he
begins by knocking down this unfortunate clergyman, as
he knocks down everybody. (Laughter.) He has then the
uoulage to Irate luta publlall ate .11/111.m1us .—" I utet
ro-
mind you that the cause of the income-tax is not the will of
the Minister, but the will of the nation—(a laugh)—which
a few years ago war content to expend on the military ser-
vice"—so many millions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Be so
good as to read the passage. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN (reading the extract with the aid of his
eye-glass, and apparently with great difficulty)—" On the
supply services. LThe Chancellor of the Exchequer—
" Hear, hear."]—£2l,ooo,ooo, but which now thinks fit to
expend on the same services £21,000,000."
An Host. Meiesen—£3l,ooo,ooo.
Mr. HORSMAN—I think the right hon. gentleman says
the increase is principally on the military expenditure of
the country, but I can't read it. (Cries of " Read, read I")
I can't read it clearly.
Several Hose MEMBERS—Let the clerk read it.
Mr. HORSMAN (throwing down the document which
he had been endeavouring to decipher)—l can't read it. If
I have touched on a point which I can't make out—and I
confess I can't-1 must apologise to the house, and so I
leave this unfortunate clergyman. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps,
however, the right hon. gentleman might meet him that
night as he did on Friday, by saying that on that question
her Majesty's Ministers had not been so fortunate as to find
favour with him Perhaps, too, the right hon. gentleman
might again go so far as to say that he thought his (Mr.
Horsmau's) sense of duty had better remain inscrutable.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He (Mr. Horsman) must, at
any rate, confess that there had been three great questions
before the house during the session, the part taken by the
Government as to which he had felt it his duty to con-
demn. Two of them were involved in the bill before the
house; and if he asked him what his third objection was,
he would say—asking the house to excuse the vulgarity of
the expression—that he was a great enemy of shams.
(Cheers, and laughter.) When the Reform Bill was intro-
duced, and put off for a fortnight, he conjectured it was a
sham, end he stated that the relation of the right lion...gen-
tleman to it was the greatest sham of all—(cheers, and oh)
—for he had already supported the bill brought in by the
right hon. gentleman opposite, with a gentle protest that it
went too far. He thought, then, that the expression of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was not called for by which he
obtained a cheer from the hon. gentlemen sitting behind
the Treasury bench, when he said that his sense of duty had
better remain inscrutable. (Cheers and laughter.) Let
him, however, give a word of advisee to the right hon. gen-
tleman. (Cries of "Oh," and laughter.) It was this. He
said the right hon. gentleman was the • last man in that
house who should diverge from political questions to invite a
war of personalities; because, in the four corners of the
British empire, there lived not a politician so vulnerable as
he. No man had owed so much as he did to the forbear-
ance of the House of Commons--(oh, and laughter)—no
man was ever so largelyindebted to its generous indulgence.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) No one ever insulted him by
asking the question whether the epithet " inscrutable "
was applicable to any political eccentricities of his, but
should any one venture to describe those eccentricities, he
(Mr, Horsman) would treat him with more generosity.
(Hear, and laughter.) No one knew better than the right
hon. gentleman that when, in their hot war of party and
political strife, any man in that house chose to separate
himself from the mancoutres of faction, he was quite cer-
tain to be assailed with petty personalities and expressions,
which, coming from ordinary quarters, no man of sense
and character would trouble himself about, but which as-
sumed a very different character when they proceeded from
a Minister of the Crown. The character of the house and
the independence of its members were compromised by pro-
ceedings like those, which were altogether unworthy of
those who resorted to them. He wished now to draw the
attention of the house to the position in which it stood.
(Oh, and divide.) They saw at that moment the necessity
of the bill before them, which was nevertheless fraught
with the most dangerous principles. The right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed the confi-
dence of the country by saying that he was following in
the footsteps of Sir Robert Peel. Now he (Mr. Horsman)
could show that, so far from that being true, the right hon.
gentleman had abandoned in every respect the great prin-
ciplessaf that statesman, and attached himself to a newer
and bolder school. (Cheers.) With an exceptional in-
stance, his whole measure was a flagrant abandonment of
the principles of that policy which he professed to keep in
view. The great principles of Sir Robert Peel consisted
in making the country secure against future deficit ; yet,
the right hon. gentleman began by crowning- the burdens
of the country with a heavy deficit, and by anticipating the
revenue of future years, the deficiency arising
f;nirnillvolibeerht
he knew must be met by increased taxation.
Peel so operated on the national finance as to facilitate the
discontinuance of the income tax. Instead of following his
example the right hon. gentleman threw obstacles in the
way of i
ts reduction: Again, Sir Robert Peel's principle
was to reduce taxes, and by the increased consumption
the commodities upon which they were reduced,•
the Exchequer to its former state.
.The policy of the right
hon. gentleman trampled on that principle, by destroying a
branch of tho indirect taxation at the moment
of its being
most flourishing, and substituting a war tax in its place.
(Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel denounced class legislation,
and aimed at making his budgets confer boons on the
working classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the
contrary, enriched the manufacturers and the middle
classes, while he withheld from the operatives their just
demands. Sir Robert Peel, with all the power he could
command, exhorted Parliament to keep the income tax as a
great reserve to meet any unexpected emergency, so that by
making foreign nations know what a.great resource we had,
it might be at once as mighty an engine for war as it would
be a powerful guarantee for peace. The measure of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, made it a great re-
lief fund, for which class interests were to contend. To-day
the paper-makers would assail him. Next year the clamour
would be for the remission of the tea and sugar duties;
while the licensed victuallers would coerce him the third.
Thus our great resource would have broken down; and,
when the hour of trial came, aggravated by commercial
pressure, bad harvests, or a war, we should be awake to the
magnitude of our folly and the reality of the disorganisa-
tion which history warned us was too often the precursor
of national convulsions. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, at
any hour of the evening, especially at the late hour we have
nevi reached, I should endeavour to be yery short in DIY

reply to that part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman
which refers to me. (Hear, hear.) Until to-night I was
really not aware that I had by any unhappy or casual ex-
pression given him any occasion for that terrific onslaught
which we have heard. I was not aware that any expression
had fallen from me on Friday night which could have
wounded the feelings of tho right hon. gentleman, and I can
only say, apart from what has occurred this evening, that I
am extremely sorry for it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman is not quite right, I think, in supposing that he
has always been remarkable for the particularity of his
language. (Hear, hear.) It is fresh on my mind that on
Friday night last the right hon. gentleman said with a
blandness of manner for which he is well known that Sir R.
Peel had conducted his finances in the spirit of a statesman,
' while the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had com-
menced as a spendthrift and finished as a footpad. (Loud
cheers.) In the contrast which the right hon. gentleman
has drawn to-night between . the policy of Sir R. Peel and
the present Government I do not think he has succeeded in
producing a sharper antithesis than on that occasion. (Hear.)
I pass from those consideratiOns to the question which the
house has to decide, and here quite agree with the right
hon. gentleman that he has not minced the matter, for he
has shown such a picture which it would be perfectly won-
derful to have from any other source than his own. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman has imagined a letter which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the hon. member for
Birmingham, but it must have been observed how much
more the hon. gentleman dwelt upon what he imagined
than upon the facts. (Ilea; hear.) It is necessary for me
to ask why the right hon. gentleman has imagined that a
series of errors must follow the alterations in this year?—
and he pursued his remarks in deference to the increasing
cheers of a very small but intrepid band on the opposite side
the house, which led the right hon. gentleman to a climax
when he deliberately asserted that the budget of the pre-
sent year would be in accordance with a general system of
confiscation. (Loud cheers.) There may be here and there
in this house a few hon. members who partake of that
opinion, but I own I think it will be ,a waste of time to
reply to such observations, and I prefer leaving them to
the sentiments of persons out of doors, and to let
them stand refuted by what I will venture to call their
own absurdity. (Loud cheers.) I will venture to ask how
the right hon. gentleman intends to vote to-night
because the motion of the hon. member for Somerset is'
uul. lIICI ely a declaration that it is inexpedient to
abolish the paper duty, but it is a declaration, so far as I
can understand it, that this house will not vote the income
tax as proposed by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has most ingeniously made a
speech in which he has raised a contrast as between the
claims of the paper duty on the one hand and the sugar and
tea duties on the other. (Hear.) Though the right hon.
gentleman has pointed oat errors in the present course, he
has not proposed the repeal of any other indirect tax. He
has only said that the Government have made a bad selec-
tion. What is the view of the right hon. gentleman ? Does
he agree that this million or so ought to be bestowed upon
some other indirect tax ? If he does not, then what are all
these appeals to the house respecting the tea and sugar
duties, if he does not mean that they should be repealed.
(Hear, hear.) If the right hon. gentleman has no inten-
tion to give any relief at all to the consumers of tea and
sugar, but if he has been merely playing off the repeal of
these duties against the repeal of the paper duty, then I say
he has only intended to bewilder the house and the peoples
If he thinks it right that we should grant these remissions
to trade and industry, and that we have only made a mis-
take in the mode, then this is but a secondary matter. But
we carefully examined into the cases of tea and sugar on
the one side and of paper on the other, and we came to the
conclusion that the repeal of the paper duty would be by far
the most beneficial to the community at large. And this is
a principle which I think my right hon. friend had not in
his view : we did not deny the expediency of a repeal of the
paper duties, but we deny that any decrease of duties to the
same amount would produce the same increase of trade.
The grounds which induced us to propose the repeal of the
paper duties were founded on careful examination.' It is
true that by reducing the war tax on tea and sugar you
would cheapen articles of general consumption, and give a
general impetus to trade ; but when we looked at the paper
duty, we found it recommended itself on most peculiar con-
siderations. There is no commodity so much in use, and it is
a _great error to call it a commodity consumed mainly by the
rich.. It is consumed by the rich, but it is also enormously
consumed by the poor, who can hardly get any commodity
which is not required to be wrapped in paper, which of
course enhances the price. The paper of the rich may be
enhanced four or five per cent. by the duty, but the paper
of the poor is enhanced forty or fifty per cent. Does my
right hon. friend forgot that another great use of paper is
this, that it is a most important raw material in this sense,
that as a wrapper it is an indispensable accessory to nearly
all our exports and manufactures ? Of the whole £1,200,000
levied, a very large proportion is paid for wrappers on manu-
factured goods. But that is not the whole case. lam sure
the right hon. gentleman has taken no pains to examine
into this truth. What he says may be perfectly true as re-
gards the qualities upon which the duties are usually levied,
but we besides have to deal with the enormous mass of raw
material applicable for so many purposes, but which is ar-
rested in its progress to manufacture by the operation of the
excise duties. That is perhaps a View of the case which the
right hon. gentleman never had before him; but that was the
ground upon which the Government came to its conclusion.
We felt that in abolishing the duty we should be relieving
a vast number of trades, which but for its imposition would
be most probably in a flourishing condition. Permit me to
give one exaniple. Here is a material as hard as corrugated
iron. (The right hon. gentleman here held up a sample of
the material.) It is one-fourth in weight to the same bulk,
and costs a very small fraction of the cost of the iron ; it is
entirely uninflammable, and rot in any degree acted upon
by temperature. It is made impervious to water by pitch,
and is corrugated fit for roofing. Let me tell my right hon.
friend that had we been in possession of this material in
1854, when shelter was wanted for the army in the Crimea,
and when the best expedient we could think of was to send
out thousands of wooden huts, which on account of their
weight could not be taken up from Balaclava to the camp,
you might have saved not only a vast amount of treasure,
but also a vast amount of human life. (Hear, hear.) Here is
the account given of this material by the manufacturer :--
"Near four years ago I took out a patent for corrugated
sheets of papier-mache for many purposes, principally house
building. With it you may live in a paper house, as by
corrugating, it can be made invulnerable. It is a non-cone
ductor of heat, and from its various qualities it is admirably
adapted for military huts. Yet simply in consequence of the
excise regulation, we are unable to manufacture it. If those
regulations were removed hundreds of thousand of tons of
raw material could be used in the manufacture!' This is
a material which appears to possess all the qualities neces-
sary to render it capable of answering the most important
uses, and of which there are unbounded masses of the raw
material which it is impossible to apply to the creation of
this trade on account of the excise regulation. I will not
enter into many questions connected with these operations,
which extend in so many directions, not for the mere relief
of existing manufactures, but for the removal of what amounts
to a positive prohibition, which you might as well prohibit
by law as by your excise regulations. And now I hope the
house will see that we acted wisely in proposing the reduction
of the paper duty, instead of the duty on tea and sugar, be.
cause by doing so you may call into existence two or three
times as much trade as you would by the reduction of the,
sugar duties. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman says the
grand principle of Sir R. Peel was to reduce duties, but net
to repeal them. Well, I should have supposed that when
that right hon. gentleman undertakes to instruct us in the
policy and principles of Sir It. Peel, he would at least have
made himself acquainted with his measures. Who repealed
the duties on the export of wool, of soap, and of glass? I
do not hesitate to say that, taking the paper duty as a ques-
tion not in the state in which it was ten years ago, but as it
is now, there is a far stronger case for its repeal than there
ever was for the repeal of glass or soap, or any other duty
that has been repealed for the last twenty years. (1 e r,t
hear.) It is perfectly true that this is an increasing duty,a
and I admit that the duty is not one of those which has
the greatest claim to bo repealed, but it was a-duty of
that kind which the right hon. gentleman said upon
another occasion ought to be repealed. And now
when we had £2,000,000 and more of indirect taxes
falling in, and when £1,400,000 of casual receipts are going
to be applied to our yearly expenditure, is not that an op-
portunity, if ever there is to be an opportunity, for the re-
peal of this duty ? (Cheers.) The other policy is simply
this— that you take whatever you can, and throw it into
the gulf of expenditure. (Hear.) The hon. baronet (Sir
W. Miles) brought forward his motion in a manner to con-
nect the question of the income tax as far as he could with
the paper duty, and he brought it forward without any
notice, which I must regret, *hough I don't mean to charge
him with wishing to stifle discussion. All I regret is, that
his motion, as it stands, is not true ; that it states as an un-
doubted truth that which, in my opinion, is exactly the
reverse of truth, and mixes up questions which we ought to
keep separate. Why is the paper duty an increasing duty ?
For this reason, that it is in most cases accessory, and is sub-
ject to the causes which are in themselves accessory—such,
for instance, as when we repealed duties on advertisements
and newspaper stamps. That measure resulted in a greatly
increased demand for newspapers, though it was no proof
that the paper duty was a good duty. You cannot expert
manufactured goods without paper to pack them ; how, then,
was it possible that the duty should not be an increasing
duty ? (Hear.) Suppose you laid a very heavy tax upon
igrnoe natshetreabbteeoedof book a
ner trade.
rt laugh),reader
mustard, you would not materially diminish the demand for
and yet mustard is an accessory to
roast beef. He might observe tho singular state of things
hinefleuffeeigeofofththeedpaatypehradauhteennetshpeeceiraelaly.
thet i crea-
tion
makero f one
to
oht indeorniotphoeleiaeleaanadareetahsieonwohfomloownaoypofrlioema.
The publisher cannot deal with the paper maker ; he must
deal with the wholesale stationer, and the wholesale stationer
stands between the paper maker and the public. (Hear.)
Next to these comes the publishers, and for the higher class
of books this country continues to be the dearest country in
the world. There is France 'publishing books value for
value, for little more than one-third the price of ours, and if
we compare our railway library with that of France, it is
a disgrace to a country which prides itself upo a its manu-
factures. (Hear, hear.) But besides the stationers and pub-
lishers, there is the printers' combination—one of the most
formidable kind—which proceeds upon this proposition,
that no woman must be employed in the trade, although we
all know that women are peculiarly adapted from their small
fingers to the delicate handling of type. (Hear, hear.) Some
hon. gentlemen may be inclined to smile at my holding that
proposition; bat I believe it is an undoubted truth that
women are admirably suited for that particular trade, not-
withstanding they are absolUtely and entirely excluded from
it by the combination of the printers. Such le the result of
these laws, which end in producing a cluster of monopolies
in the trade. My hon. friend the member for Somersetshire
referred to a report which has recently been presented to the
house from the Board of Inland Revenue ; and I only wish
that those hon. members who followed him would have fol-
lowed the tone in which he alluded to it.:(Hear.) Melton. ba-

ronet most properly criticised the proceedings of the Govern..
ment, and also my proceedings in introducing that report,
but he cast no aspersions on the able, independent, and
honourable men, who conducted the Board of Inland Re-
venue—that vast department, with its vast public interests,
and which is generally marked as a credit to the c,mntry.
(Hear, hear.) But the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) says that
it is a report made to order. He has no right to say that
It is an abuse of the privilege of a member of Parliament
to use such language towards geutlemeu holding 41).

portant station in the public service, and whose feelings are
quite as acute as ours, and to let it go forth that they are
capable of sending us a report made to order. (Hear, hear.)
I can only say that I hope the noble lord is sorry for having
used such terms. This is no report made to order. The
hon. baronet said that he thought it was a pity we had
induced the board to make such a report, and he hoped
no such thing would be done again. But my hon. friend
was guilty of that error in reasoning which to use an agri-
cultural simile is putting the cart before the horse, because
he says the Chancellor of the Exchequer had formed an
opinion that the paper duties should be abolished and having
done that he directed the Board of Inland Revenue to make
a report. It was the Board of Inland Revenue that formed
an opinion first, and the Government in cesafigg to their de-
cision on the subject were mainly influenced by the opinion
of the board—(hear, hear)—and surely the hon. baronet
will not tell me that in that case the Government were
wrong in informing the house that those who were respon-
sible for the collection of the revenue had given them fair
notice that the final term for the collection of those duties
was rapidly approaching. It would have been a breach
of duty on their part if they had shrunk from
telling it (Hear, hear.) What does that report come
to ? This house thought fit to pass a vote promising
the repeal of the paper duty in 1858. In that year the
difficulties of levying the paper duty had not been
found insurmountable or very serious, and it is therefore
since the vote of the house that these proceedings have
taken place which have reduced, the board itself almost to
despair. What does the hon. baronet expect to do with
this motion ? Does he consider what weuld be the effect of
carrying it ?' There must be a new set of rules altogether
for enforcing this duty, which has been condemned two
years ago by the unanimous vote of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) The case of the paper and the sugar
duties was one which had to be decided by us on peculiar
considerations. lam sorry to see that my hon. friend
gives no weight to the argument that the repeal of the paper
duty bears as directly upon the rural labourer as on the dis-
posal of the rural commodity. If we take the disposal of
rural commodities Tam told there is an hon. member of this
house much given to the cause of protection, even now in its
decline, who has lately taken an active part in the formation
of a society to promote the growth of flax upon this ground,
that so long as you will depend only on linen manufactures
you cannot grow flax la the country, but if you
are permitted to apply any kind of fibre to the manufacture
of paper, flax will become a profit. (Hear.) If the paper
mills come into his immediate neighbourhood my hon.
friend will pay more dearly still for his labour. lam sure
that he will do so willingly for the good of his country—
(laughter)—but whether he does or not it is an object
which we are bound equally to promote. (Hear, hear.)
To increase the demand for labour in the country, but par-
ticularly for rural labour, is the best and most legitimate
object to which we can direct our efforts in any commercial
legislation (Hear, hear.) I am sure in saying that I
give no offence to the great employers of the congregated
masses in the country, but it is in other parts of the
country—it is in Ireland and other places where the wages
of labour aro lower, that we ought to quicken the demand
for labour. (Hear, hear.) We have now to deal with two
very different questions. My hon. friend wants us to deal
with the two at once. He wants us to vote that there shall
be no repeal of the paper duty, and that there shall be no
further remission of indirect taxation. These two• things
are combined in the mind of my hon. friend, but tkey
aro not combined in the mind of the Government, and
think they cannot be combined in the mind of the house.
We considered the position in which we stood—whore we
should stop in our remission of indirect taxation—and we
came to the conclusion that, under all the circumstances of
the time, viewing the state of the expenditure and of the re-
venue, the lapse of the annuities, the lapse of the war tea
and sugar duties—taking all these circumstances into con-
sideration, and adding to them the fact that we were going
to apply 1,500,000 of casual monies to the service of the
year, we came to the conclusion that at least £2,000,000 of
indirect taxation ought to be repealed. (Hear.) I may
say with truth, that that was understood by the house and
the eountry.to be the principal announcement contained in
the financial plan of the year. (Hear.) But it did not rest
there, because the member for Essex made a motion which
had for its object to condemn the remission of indirect taxa-
tion as not being opportune. That motion was rejected b
a majority of over 100, and that being the case I ask
gentlemen opposite whether they did not believe that
that decision of the house did not amount to an acceptance
of the doctrine that £2,000,000 should he remitted ? Hear,
and " No.") That is our belief, and that is the belief on
which we are going to act. If my hon. friend succeeds in his
motion, our first duty would be, therefore, to remind the
house of those other claims whichi were so eloquently put
forward by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) to—
night, the claim of the people with regard to tea and sugar
—(hear)—and the claim of the Exchequer Bonds to be paid
up. It is not therefore a question between. the acceptanceor -
the repeal of;theipaper duty on the one hand and an escape
from the tenpenny income tax on the other. Ide not see
hew you canescape from that tenpenny income tax, because
if you do not accept of the repeal of the paper duty we should -
take the earliest opportunity—within a few days probably—
of inviting the house to- repeal the war tea and sugar duties.
But as the tea duty is unfavourably circumstanced at pre-
sent in consequence of our relations with China, I should
probably invite them to repeal the sugar duty. And,
let me ask, what security will you have for your revenue
if you do that ? We should have given away the sugar
duty which at all events is a perfectly intelligible and tena-
ble duty, and one which the people are content to pay as
long as they are satisfied that it is required for the public
service. But if we give up the sugar duty, which we can
keep this year, the next year we should be asked to give the
paper duties, in accordance with the expressed resolu-
tion of the house and the opinions of the commissioners
of inland revenue. That, I. apprehend, would not be a
profitable or safe cone to adopt. (Cheers.) It is better,
in my opinion, to adopt the course we now propose—a
course which will stimulate the trade of the country
and obviate the inextricable difficulties of levying the
paper duty. The question, then, really is not whether
£1,000,000 of indirect taxation shall be repealed, but
simply in what manner it shell be supplied ? That is
the principle on which we shall act. I believe that the
house will adopt the proposal of the Government, and I
have the more assurance of that from the fact that I have
not been able to understand from the speakers on the other
side what duties they would propose to repeal. My hon.
friend the member for Somersetshire did not quite see the
inconvenience of introducing the treaty as he introduced it
in this debate. He founded his appeal on the lowest class
of payers of income tax ; but it is not a question as to them,
no one proposes to add a penny to their income tax—the
addition to it is a penny ; but let me remind the house that
the question as to what exemption from income tax shall
be allowed still remains to be dealt with. The hon. mem •
ber for Lancashire has given notice of a motion for the par-
tial exemption of all incomes up to £5OO. I don't think that
such a change will be adopted by the house, because it
would be beyond precedent; and not only inconvenient but
dangerous. But the question what amount of exemption
shall be given to persons of very small means is a question
entirely open, and with respect to which latitude may be
allowed to the house in perfect conformity with precedent
derived from the history of the income tax in former years ;
but let nie ask myhon. friend if it is a fair test of the income
tax to take only its incidence on the very lowest class who
pay it ? (Hear, hear.) The income tax is a grievous tax
in its incidence to that body of persons, and for my own
part I would neither be astonished nor complain if the
house was disposed to increase. the partial remission which
it makes on their behalf now or at some future time. It is
impossible to deny that it is a grievous tax as it affects per-
sons of small incomes, and especially of small fixed incomes.
(Hear, hear.) I have heard it said that I have given a fall
account of all the phases of the income tax. I have de-
scribed them, and my opinion remains now very much
what it was before upon that subject. (Hear, hear.) I
think the vices of the income tax are many, great, and
manifold ; but I said that why you retain it, in my opinion,
was because it was essential to assist in giving those great
benefits to the people which alone made it endurable,
.and
caused it to be endured. (Hear, hear.) It has many vices,
but it has one great virtue, which is this—that in the main,
without any injustice in its general scope, without any of
those idle dreams of plunder and confiscation, which we
have heard to-night, it does make the property of the country
subservient to the uses of the state within limits which are
safe and for purposes which are beneficial. (Cheers.) The
position of the Government then with respect to the paper
duties is this : We think it part of our public duty, part of
the pledge we gave to the country which has given such a
w general
should a n
rde
dweae rmm pppleodrtgetowoheirchfiwnane
gaveeial amemaso e
st
ago—
eh antt
viz., that under thtehSeuexisting circumstances of thurnethepsr
year, we should ask for such a repeal of indirect taxation as
should not exceed two millions of money. We desire the
house to exercise an impartial judgment on the question—
what is the best mode of applying that sum ? but for all the
reasons I have stated, we submit that the wisest and most
prudent choice we could make was to determine to repeal
the paper duty, and to give freedom to a great branch of
industry, which we have great reason to hope will de-
velop itself in a thousand directions, and add to the
demand for labour, and through the demand for labour
to the prosperity of the country, in a degree out of all
proportion to even the considerable amount of revenue
which the duty now represents. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON, who was listened to with much
impatience, and threatened to move the adjournment of the
house if he were not listened to, denied that there was any
understanding, as alleged in the speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer when introducing the budget, on the part of
the house to the effect that when the Long Annuities fell in
the amount should be applied to the repeal of indirect taxes.
On the contrary, it was generally understood that the
money would be applied to the reduction of the income tax.
(Hear, hear.) The budget was a great boon to the osi ners of
coal and iron; and to the rich it gave the boon of taking off
the duties on wine and silk, but what did it do for the work-
ing classes? It maintained the high duties on tea and sugar,
and upon those of small incomes it inflicted the grievous
hardship of doubling the income tax. He would ask the
Government, again, what wag the amount of the duty
they were going to abandon ? The gross amount last
year was nearly £1,300,000, but there was now a rumour
that in the current year, to end at the close of this month,
the paper duty would yield a million and a half. He wanted
to know whether this was true, or was there any difference
from the £1,300,000 of last year ? It was not a question of
whether the paper duty was or was not a good impost, but
whether the state of the revenue was not such that they
could not afford to part with it. He contended that it was
unwise and improvident to do so, and that the moment was
most inopportune.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
right hon. baronet had asked him to explain his reference
to the amount of revenue to be lost by the repeal of the
paper duty. He had not stated the details to-night, but on
the first night, when he made his financial statement, he
spoke of a million, because that was precisely the sum
which he found, by the estimates of the Board of Inland
Revenue, would be lost by the repeal of the duty during the
next financial year, supposing that repeal to take place on
the Ist of July; of course, if the repeal were postponed, it
would be somewhat less ; but the further amount which
would take place in the next financial year would be
£230,000 more, in addition to the £1,000,000, making for
the next financial year, according to the estimates with
which he had been furnished, £1,230,000. Against that,
there were three direct sets-off to be made—one being for
the savings in the Inland Revenue establishments, a second
for the savings on the whole of the paper used for Govern-
ment purposes and in the Government establishments, and
the third being the saving by the abolition of the impressed
stamp and by the changes in the regulations, the amount of
which would be altogether, he supposed, £lOO,OOO or
£150,000 a year. He knew nothing whatever of the ru-
mour which the right hon. gentleman had mentioned about
the million and a half.
The house then divided—

For the second reading -15
Against it
Majority for the Government -53
The other orders were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned at two o'clock.

LONDON : Printed_ and Published by MUEDO YOUNG ,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of
Tuesday, Maid, 13, 1860.

i

id the
weace
Df the
ut on
at, he