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

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 iscrifseg Se their de-
cision on the subject were euainly 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 1853. 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 hale
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 would be the effect of
carrying it ? There must be a new set of rules altogether
for enforcing this duty, which has bean condemned two
years ago by the unanimous vote of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) The care 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 T am 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 ix 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 ho 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-
, titularly for rural labour, is the best and most legitimate
object to which we can direct our efforts in any commercial
legislation (Hear, hear.) lam 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 are 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 the
are 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—where 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 te be repealed. (Hear.) I may
say with truth, that that was understood by the house and
the country to be the principal announcement contained in
the financial plan of the year. (Heat.) 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 by
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 'se remitted ? (Hear,
and " No. That is our belief, and that is the belief on
which we aro going to ad. If my hon. friend succeeds in his
motion, our first duty would be, therefore, to remind the
house of those other cleims which 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:thefpaper duty on the one hand and an escape
from the tenpenny income tax on the other. I do not see
how you can escape 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 P 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 eve should be asked to give the
paper duties, in accordance with the expressed resolu-
tion of the house and the opinicns- of the commissioners
of inland revenue. That, 1 appramil, would not be *
profitable or safe muse 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 hen.
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 chess
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 qw:stion 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 me ask my hon. 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 seine 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.) .1 have heard it said that I have given a full
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, idoes make the property of the country
subservient to the uses of the state within limits which are
vs ee sr
nwh
ne ht
thenar e
w with respect beneficial.
(C (Cheers.) r s
the.) The
ppaper
the Government
duties is this : We think it part of our public duty, part of
solafoeseitai
pledgeonnd f
of for rtwhpe
gave to the country which has given such a
general and warm support to our financial measures, that
we should redeem the pledge which we gave a month ago—
viz., that under the existing circumstances of the present
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 dutynow 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 oa eters of
coal and iron; and to the rich it gave the boon of taking a
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 was 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
toknow 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 tho 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 let 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 10,r_
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 f°,.
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 0i
£150,000 a year. He knew nothing whatever of the M:
mour which the right hon. gentleman had mentioned about
the million and a half.
The house then divided—
For the second reading.
Against it
53
Majority for the Government ,se
The other orders were then disposed and the hoa
adjourned at two o'clock.

- - - - - -
LONDON : Printod and Published by MURDO YOUNGni
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 111
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oottats °

TueNdUs Much 13, 186-0.