The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

(Continued from our first page.)
had no doubt, be able to state whether the return on the
whole of the paper made did not amount to about £6,000,000
per annum. But be that as it might, it was only fair to

argue that in proportion to the extent of the interest with
which the house was called upon to deal did it behove them

seriously to consider the results which might flow from the
mode in which they were asked to legislate. Was it not
most unjust that taxation on a certain commodity should
be reduced, the-reduction of which materially interfered
with the manufacture of the article, and rendered necessary
the imposition of an. additional penny in the pound in the
shape of income-tax on the poor clerk, who could ill afford
to pay it ? (Hear, hear.) But there was also another ob-
jection to the contemplated repeal of the paper duty. He
had been told by persona conversant with the subject that
that repeal would tend to do material injury not only to the
manufacturers themselves, but to those whom they em-
ployed. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentleman had
not, however, informed the house to what extent he thought
the operation of the bill would be to diminish the number
of those who earned their livelihood in that way. He might
add that the material from which paper was made was 40
or 50 per cent. cheaper on the Continent than it was in this
country, and that it was only the extra penny on each
pound paid by the foreigner in the shape of Customs'
duty that enabled the English manufacturer to hold his
ground against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
however, called on honourable members to yield up the
advantage which the latter at present possessed, and
that, too, without the slightest equivalent. (Hear.) For
his own part he could see no justice in such a proceeding,
and he should remind the right hou. gentlemen that if he
desired to see that treaty, which it was argued was destined
to unite two great countries more closely together in the
bonds of friendship, permanent, the best mode of effecting
that object would be to render it more equal in regard to
the advantages which it conferred. (Hear.)
Mr. PULLER said the Excise duty and the Customs'
duty on paper were quite distinct. The question as to the
Excise duty was already settled ; the house had condemned
it two years ago. The real point opened by the hon. member
for Stamford was, whether since the settlement any fresh
circumstances had occurred sufficient to induce the house
to reconsider its decision and preserve the duty. (Hear,
hear.) That was really a question of confidence in the'Go-
vernment--(ohl)—and whether it could be trusted to draw
up the estimates. (Hear, hear.) It was an error of the hon.
member for Cambridgeshire to bring into the discussion his
own peculiar views of the Customs' duty on paper. It
would be impossible, by the terms of the treaty, to keep on
the Excise duty and the- protection duty of a penny also,
which he hoped would be maintained till the Government
secured a free exportation of rags. (Hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR was surprised at the course the Go-
vernment had taken on the present occasion, when he found
what were the opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen oppo-
site in the discussion on the hon. member for Ashton's (Mr.
M. Gibson's) resolution in 1858. In that debate the hon.
member for Birmingham said :
"He believed the object of his right hon. friend in bring •
ing forward this resolution was merely to put on the records
of the house the opinions of hon. members on both sides, so
that, whenever the condition of the Treasury should be such
as to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to
the abolition of this tax, the right hon: gentleman would
select it as the very first for remission, and so get rid of it."
What said the right hon. member for Backs on the same
wagon ? This—
" He objected to the motion as first proposed by the hon.
gentleman. He agreed with him that the 'maintenance .of
the excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would
be impolitic, but could not agree with him that such finan-
cial arrangements ought to be made as to enable Parliament
to disp nse with the tax."
The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary said :
"He had certainly given the hon. gentleman no encou-
ragement, for he had said that, when they knew that they
had a surplus revenue and the means of diminishing the
taxation of the country, then was the proper time to consi-
der what under existing circumstances were the taxes
which had the first claim to reduction."
These declarations formed one of the grounds of the sur-
prise of the country at the determination of the same. right
hon. gentleman to seize the present occasion to repeal this
tax. He would only quote one more authority, the noble lord
the member for the City of London—he said distinctly :
" The house would recollect that last year the then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income-tax should
be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and instead of is. 3d. the
duty on tea would be ls. 5d., and that there should be a pro-
' portionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year they had
allowed the income-tax to fall from 7d to sd. in the pound,
but they had kept up the duty on tea at Is. 5d., and also
retained the proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. It
was therefore almost a matter of good faith whennext there
was a reduction in taxation, that the duties on tea and
sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties,
and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa-
tion than in those articles of consumption which entered so
largely into the comforts of the people."
As theincorne-tax had been imposed, should any part of
the pe per duty be retained, ho could only congratulate the
right hon. gentleman on having that amount to meet any
difficulties that might arise. The right hon. gentleman ex-
pressed his surprise that they should object to the bill on
the third reading, Surely he had been long enough in the
house to know that they had a right to dispute eirneasure at
every stage, on the second reading in committee, and on
the third reading. Since the period when the Budget and
the Commercial Treaty were brought forward the feeling
of the country had materially changed. (Cheers.) The
people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to
exist, on the part of a neighbouring country to meet the
free trade proposals of the Government. (Hear.) Under
these circumstances it might fairly be argued that the house
ought not to press the passing of the bill. The right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire had been taunted, he thought
unfairly, in relation to the question of fire insurance, having
stated lastyear as a Minister of the Crown the course which
ho felt it his duty to adopt with regard to it. He himself
was in favour of a reduction of that duty, but he had not
-voted on the question either last year or daring the present
session, as he did not wish his motives to be misinter-
preted. (Hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the hen.
member for Stamford had brought forward the question,
and he hoped the house would declare its opinion that it
was unwise to sacrifice revenue amounting to £1,300,000
when a great deficiency existed in the present year, and it
had been shown that the deficit for next could not be less
than £12,000,000. (Loud cheers.)
Lord H. VANE thought the discussion had somewhat
wandered from the point raised by the hon. baronet, which
he understood to rest on purely financial grounds, the hon.
member admitting that by the decision of the house the
tax itself ought not to form a permanent revenue. The
point raised by the hon. baronet, and upon which he trusted
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford some infor-
mation, was, that inasmuch as the house would probably be
called on to adopt larger estimates than were at first con-
templated, and as the last of these had not yet been pre-
sented, it was desirable, before so large an amount of
revenue was parted with, that the house should be in a
position to arrive at a just conclusion. In this view he
entirely concurred—(hear, hear)—and though it might be
:maid that the increased eminent of the estimates would not
-absorb the entire of the available surplus, there were other
questions looming—(hear, hear)—as to which they ought
to have some information. It was stated, for instance, that
the Government intended to propose certain plans of forti-
fication; and it would be well that the house should be in
possession of the fact before coming to any definite resolu •
lion involving such an extensive sacrifice of revenue as
they were now asked to make. (Cheers.) He differed from
those who thought that an income-tax ought not now to be
imposed with a view of removing other kinds of taxation,
for the principle had been already adopted. The sole ques-
tion was whether sufficient provision had been made for the
additional expenses to be incurred. He did not find fault
with the Government for not having produced these addi-
tional estimates, for in the position itt which they found
themselves at the opening of the session they had no choice
as to the manner in which they should introduce the finan-
cial details, and he believed it was customary for Chan-
cellors of the Exchequer to bring in towards the close of
the session a supplementary estimate, embracing all
additional and miscellaneous charges. He differed from
the hon. member for Hertfordshire, who thought that
the Excise and Customs duties were not intimately con-
nected ; on the contrary, they were so intimately related
that he could not conceive how any member could vote with
respect to the one without anticipating that he would be
called on to vote in similar sense on the other. (Cheers.)
And, therefore, he thought himself justified in assuming
that the decision that night would virtually decide the ques-
tion on Monday, as all who now supported the Government
would vote against him ona fature occasion. (Hear, hear.)
'He was not surprised that the hon. member for Ashton-
under-Lyne should take credit to himself for having brought
'the question to an issue, for it was he who, by an argument
of great ability, induced the house two-years ago to agree
to the resolution whioh had placed the paper duty in its
present anomalous position. But that position had existed
over since, and he did not see that any great injury would
result from the postponement of its finer decision till next
year—(hear, hear)—the house, in so doing, would be act-
ing in strict accordance with the principle which had guided
them since that resolution was passed. The capital of
£10,000,000, alleged to be vested in the manufacture of
paper, would remain, in exactly the same position it had oc-
cupied during that interval. (Hear.) He could see a clear
distinction between the reduction of Customs' duties and the
present case. In the former, the house proceeded by way
of resolution, and pledged itself to take off or reduce certain
charges, but with respect to duty imposed in accordance
with an Act of Parliament. its repeal was not accomplished
until all the successive stages had been gone through, and
nobody had a right to complain if in any of these the bill
for effecting that object was defeated. (Hear, hear.) He by
no means contemplated the permanent retention of the
paper duty, against which many reasons could be assigned,
especially it. harsh operation in the case of literary men
and of certain commercial interests, but he believed the in-
jury which it entailed was very much exaggerated. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) There was no tax which was absolutely free
from objection, and in every instance it was a question of
comparison as to the least objectionable mode by which the
Exchequer could be supplied. In support of the paper duty
it might be urged that it was of long standing, having ex-
isted ever since the time of Queen Anne, and that interests
had grown up under it and become accustomed to it, while
duties more recently imposed had interfered with existing
interests and ran more directly counter to the ideas and
habits of the people, (Hoar) Unless, therefore, eorae 1411er