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

THE Su N, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCII 13, 1860.

the income tax reduced, before any other tax was repealed.
The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Ho;ne Department held the same opinion; and he thought,

ber for Buckinghamshire, addressed the house on that
occasion, and said, upon every ground it was desirable that
the duty on paper should bo abolished, and the right hon.
. _

under such circumstances, they should vote for the amend-

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

ment of his hon. friend. It was monstrous to raise an in-

come tax on the general body of the people of the country,
in order to enable the proprietors of cheap newspapers to

out the purl ose 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 dxpressed this opinion—that the paper tax was

carry on their business. He had no wish whatever to oppose
the present Conservative Government, but he thought the
motion of his hon. friend a sound and just one; that the
time had not arrived for repealing the duty, and sacrificing
£1,200,000 for absolutely nothing, and for that reason he
should certainly support it.
Mr. ADAM BLACK would vote against the motion of
the hon. baronet. From his own experience he could say
that the duty was a very serious burden, not only to th 9
publisher but to the public. A ream of paper 241 b. in
weight had to bear a tax of 3s. One of the works he had
published would cost in duty between £3,000 and £4,000,
and before it got into the hands of the public it would be in-
creased by the per centage upon the capital employed to
nearly £7,000. Now, ho would ask, was that an economical
mode of raising the small sum of £1,200,000 for the Ex-
chequer ? He thought it would be better for a short time to
bear an extra ld. income tax, though he by no means ad.
mired that tax, on the contrary, he hated it—(a laugh)—
and he hoped to see it done away with altogether.

bal 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

,%o 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would be repealed.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-
-1 ament 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
bow the Government, being desirous of relieving the
trade and industry of the country, could do otherwise
than select it as that which ought tg be abolished. (Hear.)
The hon. baronet (Sir W. Miles), at the opening of his
speech, said that he 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 did not 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 stillbe
called paper. Now, the Court of Exchequer said that
paper might be made from fibres for writing purposes, 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 ono of parmanent 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 ho
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,in consequence of the greater
facility of making paper inAmeriea,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 ho 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 com-
pensate themselves for any reduction that might take place
in the price of wheat. (Hear.) Many other articles of farm-
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 benefitted. It had been truly said, that the tax upon
paper was a fair on the diffusion of knowledge, although
some lied 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 11d. they would still be
told by its opponents that is. was nothing on a book cast-
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 belongetl not to resist the repeal of this duty,
which stood in the way of the refinement and improve-
ment of the priapic. (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 1/d. ; so that for every pound's
worth of that paper ss. was paid in the shape of paper duty
to Government, and this 55., 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 thin penny daily Conservative paper 78.
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 25,000 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 periodicals. 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 publies'ime, 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 made 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 Ifome—(hear, hear)—
and the paperd uty on those two publications 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. (Heals) It was no clap-trap, therefore, tecall 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 all.
(Hear.) By a skilful process of Parliamentary manipulation
it was E 0 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 one of the most important
financial changes ever submitted 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.
(Ilear.) 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 Id. 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, (I cAr, 44r.) r 9 tiAQ 1.941i4r1i9A4 tuc te4 Paci pgar
•

Mr. MAGUIRE, after having listened attentively to the
speeches of the hon. baronet, and those who had supported
his motion, had heard no reason whatever to shake his de-
termination to support the measure of the Government. If
there was any force in the argument of the hon. baronet at
all, it was that trades should be monopolised only by those
who possessed large capitals. But he said, why should not
enterprise and industry be opened to men with small capi-
tals and small means ? With respect to the incidence of the
duty on large and expensive books as compared with cheap
papers and periodicals, the hon. gentleman read a commu
nication from Mr. Potter, a practical printer, in answer to
the statements made by Mr. Bohn on that subject. Mr.
Potter, in fact, said that the duty acted with most destruc-
tive effect on the publications which were most in demand.
On the Cornhill Magazine a saving of a halfpenny a copy
would be equal to £l,BOO a-year, which would no doubt be
spent in improving its literature and engravings. The hon.
baronet who had moved the amendment had talked of let-
ting in the light and air to the cottages of the poor ; but there
was light of another kind, the light of knowledge required,
and by sweeping away this tax it would be more wisely
and universally diffused among all classes of the people.
He contended that the growing of flax would be con-
siderably promoted by the proposal of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to take. the duty off paper, and the agricul-
tural interest would be proportionately benefited. instead
of flax being grown for its seed, it would be cultivated to
secure the straw and refuse, which would be used in the
manufacture of paper. The duty had been condemned by
the House of Commons and the Commissioners of Excise,
and its continuance ought to be no longer sanctioned. The
trade and the country expected the abolition of the tax. The
penny newspapers wero morally and honourably conducted,
faithful to t heir friends, but fair to their opponents, and not
characterised by that abominable license which diSgraced
many of the newspapers at the other side of the Channel.
He wa- not amongst those who were ashamed of the penny
papers—
Lord R. CECIL—One of them is difficult to be read.
Mr. MAGUIRE—An hon. gentleman-below him whis-
pered that one of the cheap newspapers was rather unread-
able at the present moment. Take the duty off, was his
answer, and the publisher could afford better paper. Be-
lieving that the abolition of the paper duty would tend to
the spread of education amongst the people, and give a new
impulse to a great trade, he felt bound to vote against the
amendment of the hon. baronet, and to support the propo-
sition of the Government, even though that proposition
might entail another year's income tax.
Lord R. CECIL said that in the abstract no one wished
for the continuance of a tax—a tax was in inself an abomi-
nable thing. Therefore, the questions really was, not
whether they should or „should not repeal the duty.
Those who argued the matter in that way, did not put
the case as it should be stated. What the house had to
decide was, a question of the balirce of taxation—whether
hon. members were for their constituents to pay the
paper duty or to pay another penny income tax. Both
taxes produced about £1,200,000, and he was justified in say-
ing that they counterbalanced each other. The paper was
in his opinion, a tax which took a low place in the order of
those taxes which ought to be abolished. He knew that
in saying this he was speaking in opposition to a resolution
which the house had unfortunately adopted. We depended
for our raw material to a very great extent on foreign na-
tions, some of which were barbarous and unenlightened on
questions of protection and free trade. We depended on
Spain, Portugal, and Italy. If in France and Hungary the
prohibition on the export of the raw material were removed,
still the increase of consumption would bo sure to increase
the price of the article, so that things would remain un-
changed. The only difference would be that the £1,200,000
would be taken cut of the exchequer of this country and
put into the exchequer of other countries. (Hear, hear.)
Again the supply of the raw material was excessively li-
mited. Numerous pamphlets had poured in upon hon.
members from all quarters for the purpose of demonstrating
that fact. If nothing could be substituted for rags and the
supply of that.article remained limited, then what relief
could the consumer of paper obtain from tho pronowsi re-
mission of taxation ? What appeared extraordinary to him
(Lord R. Cecil) was, that no two members of the paper
trade could agree on the subject. An hon. member con-
nected with the trade had told the llou-le that he had paid
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one year £3,003 duty
on paper; but the duty paid by the public on the same
quantity of paper was no less than £7,000. That showed,
at all events, how the trade could tax the people. As to
the phrase " tax upon knowledge," that was a grand, high-
sounding, sentimental cry. (Hear, hear.) It was a delu-
sien. Out of the £1,200,000 paid as a paper duty, only
two-fifths of that sum were paid for paper on which news-
papers were printed. He.did not think any reduction of
the duty on paper would benefit the consumer. It had
been said that it was an anomaly for the Government
to pay large sums for the education of the people,
and again tax the means of education. Was that so?
Why, the so-called tax upon knowledge was limited
to very cheap books and very cheap newspapers. Now,
with respect to the latter, what were the people at
large likely to learn from penny papers ? They might
know something of what hon. members said in that house.
and scraps of foreign intelligence, but of what great use
was that as a moans of education to the lower classes ?
(Hear.) As to books, it was well known that no one liked
to pay odd sums for what they had purchased. You could
not charge for a novel now selling at ls„ nil You could
not reduce the price of printed matter in the ratio of the
exact fraction which the tradesman might derive from the
remission of the duty, and consequently, while the public
at large would derive no advantage whatever from the re-
mission, the revenue would be diminished £1,250,000.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the hon. gentleman had wan-
dered from theiguestion before them; and bad introduced a
variety of subjects which were not within the limited scope
of the question before the house. The house was to recol-
lect that they had now agreed to the Commercial Treaty
between England and France, by which, amongst other
things, they had agreed to admit foreign paper into Eng-
land upon the duty imposed upon the home manufacture,
and he had also to remind them that they had, by the vote
given on the motion of the hon. member for Essex, given
their assent to 'the general policy of the Government. And
what was that ? Why, that after providing for tho expen-
diture of the country they agreedto a reduction of the indi-
rect taxation, with the view of relieving the trade and in-
dustry of the country. His right hon. friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer proposed, when laying the budget before
the house, to apply the £2,200,000 which fell in from the
Long Annuities to relieving the indirect taxation of the
country. Well,the French treaty had swallowed £1,190,000
of this £2,200,000. Well, supplemental reductions had
also been made in that direction, but these had been met
by other changes. There was, therefore, £1,000,000 of the
£2,200,000 to be applied to the reduction of the
indirect taxation of the country in accordance with
the vote of that house given upon the motion of the
hon. member for Essex. It was not a question between
the paper duty and the income tax, but whether they would
lessen the indirect taxation-of the country. This being so,
the next question to be considered was this—had the Go-
vernment, in selecting the paper tax as the proper one to be
abolished, exercised a sound judgment ? (Hear, hear.) He
might here mention that the hon. baronet who brought this
subject before the house had at first placed a notice on the
paper that he would, on the question that the bill for the
abolition of*the paper duty be read a second time, move an
amendment that it be read a second time that day six
months. The hon. baronet had, however, that evening
changed his amendment by moving a resolution, the effect
of
the paper
which was that it was inexpedient at that time to abolish
utayk.edThhoewriigthatpphooanr.edgetnhtaletmitanwahs ainvoinxpgerediaedatthtoe
resolution,
abolish the paper duty. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman might
attempt to apply the means which the Government had in its
hands to reduce the sugar tax or any other indirect tax that
pressed upon the community, but after the vote they had come
to on the budget, ha was afraid that the hon. baronet could
not get rid of the additional penny income tax. Now, why
did the Government select the paper tax rather than any
other indirect tax as that one which they should abolish ?
The Government, in reviewing the various indirect taxes
which pressed upon the trade and industry of the country,
looked to those which had the greatest claims upon their
consideration with the view of promoting the end in ques-
tion. Well, then, what did they find ? Why, they found
that for the last 25 years those who were entitled to have the
greatest weight with Parliament had given it as their opinion
nh
oant
et
nh
te p
ina pd
rreclo du t
tyaoxue ought ho tf
tnothet
country,
ncontinued
tahs
aotn e of h
it
otuge phte
tr..
0
be„abolished at the most convenient opportunity. They
commenced with the commission that sat in 1835, to con-
sider the whole question of the Excise duties, and they
found that that commission had reported against the paper
duty being considered as a permanent tax. Well, he (Mr.
Milner Gibson) moved a resolution on the subject ton years
ago, which stated that such financial arrangdment ought to
be made by the Government to enable Parliament to abolish
th 9 PaVIC4II4I W9ll, tic IWO gealgoth *Wm-

duties, both on fiscal and on moral grounds, the Chancellor reply to that part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman
of the Exchequer, more than any other public man, stood which refers to me. (Hear, hear.) Until to-night I was
pledged; and how did he get over the difficulty? It was really not aware that I had by any unhappy or casual. ex-
by coining a new principle of political economy, which in pression given him any occasion for that terrific onslaught
order to be believed would require faith enough to remove a which we have heard. I was not aware that any expression
whole chain of mountains. (Hear, and laughter.) It was had fallen from me on Friday night which could have
a mistake to say that you would benefit the labouring classes wounded the feelings of the right hon. gentleman, and I can
by remitting the duties on commodities through which only say, apart from what has occurred this evening, that I
they obtained employment. (Hear, hear.) This was the am extremely sorry for it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
prineiple of his right hon. friend, which was certainly as gentleman is not quite right, I think, in supposing that he
bold as it was novel, and as false as it was novel and bold. has always been remarkable for the particularity of his
(Hear, hear.) Supposing a man had gone down to the language. (Hear, hear.) It is fresh on my mind that on
Liverpool Financial Reform Association, and said that the Friday night last the right hon. gentleman said with a
working classes would be benefited by repealing the blandness of manner for which he is well known that Sir R.
duties on articles consumed by employers. (Hear, hear.) Peel had conducted his finances in the spirit of a statesman,
In those days of refinement such a person would be pro- while the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had cora-
bably laughed out of the room, but there were days inenced as a spendthrift and finished as a footpad. (Loud
when :he would have been removed from the cheers.) In the contrast which the right hon. gentleman
place by a speedier and less ceremonious process. has drawn to-night between the policy of Sir It. Peel and
Would not a reduction of taxation on articles of prime ne- the present Government Ido not think he has succeeded in
cessity stimulate and increase labour and employment ? producing a sharper antithesis than on that occasion. (Hear.)
(Hear.) The questions were, they had a million of taxes to
• remit, and would they remit them from articles largely con- I pass from those considerations to the question which the
sumed by tho working classes, or from paper? The Chan- house has to decide, and here I quite agree with the right
cellor of the Exchequer says, " I'll remit it from paper, hon. gentleman that he has not minced the matter, for he
because to do so will increase employment ;" but he (Mr. has shown such a picture which it would be perfectly won-
Hoi smart ) contended that remitting the duty on tea and
derful to have from any other source than his own,. (Hear.)
sugar would enable the people to lay out that million in
another and more productive way, which would yield the The right hon. gentleman has imagined a letter which the
right hon. gentleman a surplus. The people did not want Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the hon. member for
to lay out the million on tea and. sugar, but they wanted to Birmingham, but it must have been observed how much
lay the money out in something else, and that would yield more the hon. gentleman dwelt upon what he imagined
more emp_loyment than the right hon. gentleman antic`- than upon the facts. (Hear, hear.) It is necessary for me
pated from the remission of the paper duty. In the one
case, they gave up a million in favour of the manufacturers to ask why the right hon. gentleman has imagined that a
of paper, and of the consumers of paper, who were mainly series of errors must follow the alterations in this year?—
composed of the rich classes and those who paid the income and he panned his remarks in deference to the increasing
tax, and they retained the million upon the hard-working cheers of a very small but intrepid band on the opposite side
consumers of tea and sugar. (Hear, hear.) There was one
tax which affected the consumption of the poor, but which the house, which led the right hon. gentleman to a climax
was not a war tax, and that they allowed to remain un- when he deliberately asserted that the budget of the pre-
touched. But it had been said by the Chancellor of the sent year would be in accordance with a general system of
Exchequer, " You are about to admit the operative classes confiscation. (Loud cheers.) There may be here and there
to a much larger share of power than they previously en-
in this house a few hon. members who partake of -that
joyed ;" and to that the working classes reply, but " you
i . but I own I think it will be a waste of time to
have broken your, promises to us." You led us to hope that opnion,
you were going to remit two millions of taxes on tea and reply to such observations, and I prefer leaving them to
sugar, and this year you put on a war tax which came up the sentiments of persons out of doors, and to let
to one shilling. But how long would it remain there ? De- them stand refuted by what I will venture to call their
putations would come up to the Chancellor of the Exche-
own absurdity. (Loud cheers.) I will venture to ask how
quer and tell him that those two millions on tea and sugar
were a tax on temperance. Now, the Chancellor himself the right hon. gentleman intends to vote to-night
was a temperate man, yet he told them that the deficit of because the motion of the hon. member for Somerset is'
nine millions was to bo made up partly by retaining those not merely a declaration that it is inexpedient to
two millions on tea and sugar. Well, then, the voice thus abolish the paper duty, but it is a declaration, so far as I
raised would reach the large towni, and would say, " You
must lay the tax upon property ;" and remember he can understand it, that this house will not vote the income
(Mr. Horsman) told them they must lay it on property. tax as proposed by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.)
(Hear, hear.) Now it was here that he challenged the right The right hon. gentleman has most ingeniously made a
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and told speech in which -he has raised a contrast as between the
him that the question of direct or indirect taxation was the
claims of the paper duty on the one hand and the sugar and
problem of the day, and that they must eventually lay the paper
tax directly on property. (Hear.) No one felt that more tea duties on the other. (Hear.) Though the right hon
than Sir It. Peel. Be (Mr. Horsman) must say that a man gentleman has pointed out errors in the present course, he
of the great ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not proposed the repeal of any other indirect tax. He
ought to review the whole question, and to justly shift the has only raid that the Government have made a hiad selec-
burden, and not apply to the working classes to pay the tar .
hon. What is the view of the right hon. gentleman ? Does
—(hear, hear) —and he should have done that honestly in
the broad daylight, and placed the pressure of taxation ho agree that this million or so ought to bo bestowed upon
where it ought to be placed. (Hear, hear.) He should some other indirect tax ? If he does not, then what are all
not have shifted the burden from ono class to another in these appeals to the house respecting the tea and sugar
the manner he had done, and he should not leave the masses duties, if he does not mean that they should be repealed.
at the mercy of the tax collectors. The Chaucellor of the
(Hear, hear) If the right hon. gentleman has no inten-
Exchequer could not believe thattbe poor had any burdens,
and if a tax was required he should lay it on the broad back %ion to give any relief at all to the consumers of tea and
of the working man—he is able to bear it ; and the pro- sugar, but if he has been merely playing off the repeal of
posed tax wail, bye sudden wind of taxation, shifted accord- these duties against the repeal of the paper duty, then I say
ingly to the shoulders of the working classes. (Hear, hear.)
he has only intended to bewilder the house and the people.
It became arbitrary, and ultimately ended in confiscation.
If he thinks it right that we should
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Now, let them not mince grant these remissions
the matter. (Laughter.) Let them give "honour to whom to trade and industry, and-that we have only made a mis-
honour was duo." This was not the budget of the Govern- take in the mode, then this is but a secondary matter. But
ment—(hear, and cheers from the Opposition)—it was the we carefully examined into the cases of tea and sugar on
budget of his hon. friend the member for Birmingham.
the one side and of paper on the other, and we came to the
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) His hon. friend had, in the
autumn, made a most able financial statement at Birming- conclusion that the repeal of the paper duty would be by far
ham, and he (Mr. Horsman) could imagine the Chancellor the most beneficial to the community at large. And this is
of the Exchequer saying—" I have read with great interest a principle which"' think my right hon. friend had not in
your speech at Birmingham. You have made a convert of
his view : we did not deny the expediency of a repeal of the
me. (Laughter.) I beg you'll come up by the early train to
Downing-street, And help me to frame my budget." (Laugh-
paper duties, but we deny that any decrease of duties to the
ter.) And when they had ,the twin stars closeted together, same amount would produce the same increase of trade.
his hon. friend might say to the right hon. gentleman —7 The grounds which induced us to propose the repeal of the
"Don't go too fast; you are too impulsive; converts always paper duties were founded on careful examination. It is
are so. (Laughter.) You be led by me' those two millions on true that by reducing the war tax on tea and sugar you
tea and sugar do not touch at all. There is the paper duty,
take that off, and lay it on in another way—it will only be a would cheapen articles of general consumption, and give a
penny ; get rid of this tax on industry, and the rest will general impetus to trade ; but when we looked at the paper
follow, and you can hereafter mislead, by your embellished duty, we found it recommended itself on most peculiar con-
and disguised rhetoric, end we will produce a prime article sideratiOns. There is no commodity so much in use, and it is
of the last new and best Oxford mixture"—(cheers and loud
a great error to call it a commodity consumed mainly by the
laughter)—the last and newest sample of the Oxford mix-
ture. (Great laughter.) Well, they had had two samples. 'rich. It is consumed by the rich, but it is also enormously
They had had the treaty, which the hon. member for Bir consumed by the poor, who can hardly get any commodity
mingham had told them was the dearest object of his affec which is not required to be wrapped in paper, which of
tions, and it was also the child of the Chancellor of the Ex-
course enhances the price. The paper of the rich may be
chequer. Both however, like all pregenies, must have two
enhanced four or five per cent. by the duty, but the paper
parents. (Renewed laughter.) They might assume that
of the poor is enhanced forty or fifty per cent. Does my
while the hon. member for Birmingham enjoyed the pride
right hon. friend foreot that another great use of paper is
of paternity, it was upon the Chaneellor of the Exchequer
this, that it is a most important raw material in this sense,
that devolved the pains of labour. (Tremendous laughter.)
that as a wrapper it is an indispensable accessory to nearly
The first-born was Master Treaty. In the fulness of time
all our exports and manufactures f Of the whole £1,200,000
appears Miss Budget, with every prospect of a numerous
levied, a very large proportion is paid for wrappers on manu-'
progeny. (Cries of " Oh," and laughter.) And then already
factured goods. But that is not the whole case. lam sure
had timely notice of a-third approaching birth. He held in the right hon.gentleman has taken no pains to examine
his head a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a into this truth. What he says may be perfectly true as re-
ofegyman in Wales, who had written to him complaining
d the qualities upon which the duties are usually levied,
the income-tax, and of the grievances of the rating to the
poor. Mb Chancellor of the Exchequer replies ; and he garde
we e besides
have to deal with the enormous mass of raw
material applicable for so many purposes, but which is ar-
beo'ins by knocking down this unfortunate clergyman, 'as
rested in its progress to manufacture by the operation of the
he knocks down everybody. (Laughter.) He has then the
excise duties. That is perhaps a view of the case which the
courage to write and publish the following :—" I must re right hon. gentleman never had before him; but that was the
mind you that the cause of the income-tax is not the will of
ground upon which the Government came to its conclusion.
the Minister, but the will of the nation—(a laugh)—which
w e felt that in abolishing the duty we should be relieving
a few years ago was content to expend on the military ser-
a vast number of trades, which but for its imposition would
vice"—so many millions. be most probably in a flourishing condition. Permit me to
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Be so give one example. Here is a material as hard as corrugated
iron'
good as to read the passage. (Hear, hear.) (The right hon. gentleman here held up a sample of
Mr. HORSMAN (reading the extract with the aid of his
the material.) It is one-fourth in weight to the same bulk,
eye-glass, and apparently with great difficulty)—" On the and costs a very small friction of the cost of the iron; it is
" supply servi
hear .c"es]—X2l.
000,000, [The Chancellor of the Exchequer—
to entirely uninflamm urea
by and not in any degree acted
by temperature. It is made impervious to water by pitch,
Heir, , t fit
expend on the same services X 21,000,000." and is corrugated-fit for roofing. Let me tell my right hon.
An HoN. MEMBER—£3I,OOO,OOO. friend that had we been in possession of this material in
1854, when shelter was wanted for the army in the Crimea,
Mr. HORBMAN—I think the right hon. gentleman says
the increase is principally on the military expenditure of and when the best expedient we could think of was to send
the country, but I can't read it. (Cries of " Bead, read 1") out thousands of wooden huts, which on account of their
I can't read it clearly. weight could not bo taken up from Balaclava to the camp,
Several HON. MEMBERS—Let the clerk read it. you might saved not only a vast amount of treasure,
have
Mr. HOR.SMAN (throwing down the document which but also a vast amount of human life. (Hear hear. ) Here is
he had boon
endeaYouring to decipher)—l can't read it. If
t ie account given of this material by the manufacturer.
I have touched on a point which I can't make oat—and I
"Near four years ago I took out a patent for corrugated
confess I can't-1 must apologise to the house, and so I
leave this unfortunate clergyman. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps, sheets of papier -mache for many purposes, principally house 4
however, the right hon. gentleman might meet him that
building. With it you May live in a paper house, as by
night as he did on Friday, by saying that on that question corrugating, it can be made invulnerable. It is a non-con
her Majesty's Ministers had not been so fortunate as to find ductor of heat, and from its various qualities it is admirably
favour with him. Perhaps, too, the right hon. gentleman adapted for military huts. Yet simply in consequence of the
might again go so far as to say that he thought his (Mr. excise regulation, we are unable to manufacture it. If those
Horsman's) sense of duty had better remain inscrutable, regulations were removed hundreds of thousand of tons of
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He (Mr. Horsman) must, at " This is
raw material could be used in the manufacture: .
..
any rate, confess that there had been three great questions a material which appears to possess all the qualities neces
before the house during the session, the part taken by the sary to render it capable of answering the most important
Government as to which he had felt it his duty to con- uses, and of which there are unbounded masses
of the raw
demn. Two of them were involved in the bill before the material which it is impossible to apply to. the creation of
house; and if he asked him what his third objection was, this trade on account of the excise regulation. I will not
he would say—asking the house to excuse the vulgarity of enter into many questions connected withfor
these-not the mere relief
(Cheers, and laughter.) When the Reform Bill was intro- of existing manufactures, but for the rem?val of what amounts
duced, and put off for a fortnight, he conjectured it was a to a positive prohibition, which you might as well prohibit
sham, and he stated that the relation of the right hon .gen- by law as by our excise regulations. And now I hope the
will see hat
tleman to it was the greatest sham of all—(cheers, and oh) house 1 we acted `viselyin proposing the reduction
—for he had already supported the bill brought in by the of the paper. duty,- instead of the duty on tea and sugar, be-
right hon. gentleman opposite, with a gentle protest that it '
cause by doing so you may call into existence two or three
went too far. He thoughts then, that the expression of the times as much trade as you would by
hon.
uld by the reduction of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was not called for by which he sugar duties. (Hear.) The rightgenemit tl n say s the
_
obtained a cheer from the hon. gentlemen sitting behind grand principle of Sir It. Peel was to reduce duties, but not
the Treasury bench, when he said that his sense of duty had to repeal, them. Well, I should have supposed that when
better remain inscrutable. (Cheers and laughter.) Let that right hon. gentleman undertakes to instruct us
in the
him, however, give a word of advice to the right hon. gen- d with .hi ' asures. Who repealed
policy and principle.s of Sir R. P l he would at least have
tleman. (Cries of " Oh," and laughter.) It was this. He made himself acquamte w ime a
said the right hon. gentleman was the last man in thatpapersoap,
duty as a ques-
house who should diverge from political questions to invite a the duties on the export of
twee? , otfhseo p and of glass ? I
do not hesitate to say that, taking ngas
ten years ago, but as it
tion not in the state in which i
war of personalities; because, in the four corners of the
British empire, there lived not a politician so vulnerable asor any other duty
is now there is a far stronercawsaer for its repeal than there
ever was for the repeal of glass
he. No man had owed so much as he did to the forbear-
ance of the House of Commons—(oh, and laughter)—no
rf tly true that this is an increasing duty,
man was ever so largelyindebted to its generous indulgence. hear.)V haslbteien repealedee for the last twenty years. (Hear,
(Cheers and counter cheers.) No cue ever insulted him byrepealed, but it was a duty of
asking the question whether the epithet " inscrutable ' thegreatest claim. to be
and admit that the duty is not one of those which has
lt•d which the right hon. gentleman said upon,
was applicable to any political eccentricities of his, but '
another occasion thaottherm ought to be repealed. And now
should any one venture to describe those eccentricities, hehad £2,000,000 and more of indirect taxes
expenditure,_ is not that an op-
(Mr, Horsman) would treat him with more generosity. falling in and
wilil 7 when £1,400,000 of casual receipts are going
(Hear, and laughter.) No one knew better than the right
hon. gentleman that when, in their hot war of party and
t ity, if ever there is to be an opportunity, for the re-
? (Cheers.) The other policy is simply
political strife, any man in that house chose to separate to be applied to our yearly
himself from the manoeuvres of faction, he was quite ter- this— that you take whatever you can, and throw it into
Ppe°arl of this duty
tain to be assailed with petty personalities and expressions,
the gulf of expenditure. (Hear.)
.The hon. baronet (Sir
which, coming from ordinary quarters, no man of sense W. Miles) brought forward his motion in a manner to con-
ad character would trouble himself about, but which as-
nect the question of the income tax as far as he could with
sumed a very different character when they proceeded from
the paper duty, and he brought it forward without any
a Minister of the Crown. The character of the house and
notice, which I must regret, though I don't mean to charge
the independence of its members were compromised by pro -
him with wishing to stifle discussion. All I regret is, that
ceedings like those, which were altogether unworthy of
his motion, as it stands, is not true; that it states as an un-
those who resorted to them. He wished now to draw the doubted truth that which, in my opinion, is exactly the
attention of the house to the position in which it stood. reverse of truth, and mixes up questions which we ought to
(Oh, and divide.) They saw at that moment the necessity keep separate. Why is the paper duty an increasing duty ?
For this reason, that it is in niost cases accessory, and is sub-
of the bill before them, which was nevertheless fraught
with the most dangerous principles. The right hon. gene ject to the causes which are in themselves accessory—such,
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed the confi- for instance, as when we repealed duties on advertisements
deuce of the -country by saying that he was following in and newspaper stamps. That measure resulted in a greatly
the footsteps of Sir Robert Peel. Now he (Mr. Horsrnaonn)
that the paper duty was a good duty. You cannot expert
increased demand for newspapers, though it was no proof
could show that, so far from that being true, the right hon, that
greatanPewer manufactured goods without paper to pack them ; how, then, gentleman had abandoned in every respect thae
mples of that statesman, and attached himself was it possible that the duty sh.ould not be an increasing
and bolder school. (Cheers.) With duty? (Hear.) Suppose you laid a heavy very tax upon
stance, his whole measure was a flagrant abandonmen o
an exceptional in-
mustard,
you would not materially diminish the demand for
he professed to keep in
the principles of that policy
which - Peel consisted roast beef (a laugh), and yet mustard is an accessory to
view. The great principles of Sir
Robertfuture deficit ;yet, roast beef. He might observe Ihe singular state of things
in making the country secure againstwning the burdens generated under the influence of the paper duty, especially
the right hon. gentleman began.by
and by anticipating the in the book trade. The effect of the duty has been the crea-
of the country with a heavy deficit,
ney
e arising from which tion of one chain of monopolies, and on the whole way from
revenue of future years, the deficid
taxation. Sir Robert the maker to the reader it became a succession of monopolies.
he knew must be met by increase
th The publisher cannot deal •
national finance as to facilitate ewith the paper maker;'he
Peel so operated on the
tax. Instead of following his dealwith
the wholesale stationer, and the wholesale stationer
discontinuance of the income
threw obstacles in the stands between the paper maker and the public. (Hear.)
example, the right hon. g . entleman
• eleatin Sir •
•Robert Peel's principle Next to these comes the publishers, and for the higher class
way of its reduction. e 2
the increased consumption of of books thiscountry continues to be the dearest country in ,
was to reduce taxes, and by
t
they were reduced ,t o rest ore the world. There is France publishing books value for
the commodities upon which
rmer state. The policy of the right value, for little more than one-third the price of ours, and if
the Exchequer to its former d
that principle by destroyin we compare our railway library with that of France, it is
ample on I g a ,
hon. gentleman tramp a
tax • atm at the moment of its being a disgrace to a country which prides itself upon its menu-
branch of the indirect substituting a war tax in its place. factures. (Hear, hear.) But besides the stationers and pnb-
most flourishingl and_leobert Peel denounced class legislation, Ushers, there is the printers' combination—one of tho most
(Hear, hear.) Sir .
his budgets confer boons on th formidable kind—which proceeds upon this proposition,
and aimed at making
working classes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the that no woman must be employed in the trade, although we
the manufacturers and the middle all know that woen areculiarly adapted from their small
contrary, enriched .
withheld from the operatives their finge
just to the delicatepan line of type (Hear, hear.) Some
hers c •
classes,, while he
Robert Peel, with all the power he could hon. gentlemen may be inclined to smile at my holding that
demands. Sir to 1 the •
Parliament steep income tax as a proposition ; but I believe it is an undoubted truth that
command, exhortedet any unexpected emergency,so that by women are admirably suited for that particular trade, not-
great reserve to
moot
know what a great with t d'n they are absolutely and entirely excluded from
making foreign nations .
.e, resource we had, san i g
at once as mighty an engine for war as it would it by the combination of the printers. Such ie the result of
it might be
guarantee for The these laws, which end in produch?g a cluster of monopolies
peace. measure of the
be a powerful
the Exchequer, however, made it a great re- in the trade. My hon. friend the member for Somersetshire
Chancellor of
hclass interests were tocontend. referred to a report which has recently been presented to the
lief fund, for veleic
assail him. Next house from the Board of Inland Revenue ; and I only wish
year the clamour
the paper-inalreaa'
would•emissioof the that those hen. members who followed him would have fel-
would be for the is
ell n
lowed the tone in which he alluded to it. (Hear.) The hon. ba-
while the licensed vide, crs would coerce him the third.
Thus our great resource wa .
-mid have broken do • dproperly criticised
rand most the proceedings of the Govern-
Thus ' an 'and also my proceedings in introducing that report,
when the hour of trial came, ~, c'gravated by commercial ment,•
but he cast no aspersions on the able,
t• 'amid be awake to the -
pressure, bad harvests, or a war, we b... , honourable men, who conducted the Board of Inland Re-
magnitude of our folly and the reality cf• .he disorganise-
venue—that vast department, with its vast public interests,
tion which history warned us was too often tie: precursor
and which is generally marked as a credit to the ceuntry.
of national convulsions. (Cheers.) , (Hear, hear.) _ But the noble lord (Lord It. Cecil) says that
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, ete ''' is a report made to order. He has no right to say that
any hour of the evening, especially at the late hour we have ea ,_ a-, abuse of the privilege of a member of Parliament
It le - lan t) rclo wale v . -
4911P.84914°3 1 *9144 "IcletlTAtz t 9 P 9 yew 01.19 rt • my to Wie PA . Pali '@
g ill A 494448. 411"ja
PA
.