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

Sir S.-NORTHCOTE—I don't think I was in the coun-
try at the time. T certainly was neither in the house nor
a member of the Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GIB SON--Well, it's not material to the arguinent.
At allevents, he has not correctly represented what reused;
A. resolution was moved. to the effect that the paper duty
ought not to be part of the permanent revenue of the coun-
try, and a second resolution to th< effect that measures
ought to be taken to enable Parliament to dispense with it.
The right hon. gentleman then Chancellor of the Exchequer
objecsed to the second resolution, but agreed to the first,
condemning the tax as a permanent source of revenue, and
the house unanimously supported him in the view which he
took. The right hon. gent lemaneetid then, not what the hon.
baronet has related, but this—" Although he was not pre-
pared to say that the tax should be immediaeely repealed, ho
thought it ought to be taken into early consideration." Two
years have elapsed since that period. It was repeatedly stated
that in the present year opportunity ought to be taken of the
falling in of the annuities to reduce the war duties en tea
and sugar, or something of that kind. (Opposition cheers.)
Why had not that been done ? (Cheers.) The hon. baronet
came forward on behalf of the revenue ; but I understand
those cheers as being raised in favour of a proposition for
substituting a reduction c f the tea and sugar duties for a
repeal of the paper duty. (Hear.) The third reading of
the bill is certainly not the time when a proposition of
this eget should be submitted to the house. The bill was
read a second time after full discussion and a division ; it
passed through committee with no material opposition ; the
drawbacks tole allowed have all been` settled, and now the
hon. baronet comes down with a motion of this kind, and
the cheers of his friends announce to the house that they
now want the repeal of the paper duty abandoned, and a
reduction of duties on tea and sugar substituted. (No, no.)
My hon. friend is very anxious about the army estimates ;
he does not understand the votes for clothing and provi-
sions. Well, I can't explain them to him. (A laugh.) lam
not bound to explain them. If the War Department send in
estimates to Government which they think necessary, I am
bound to believe them. It is not for me to dispute with the
War Department as to the exact sum.necessary for these
services. Nor is it for me to go into the question of the ex-
penses of collecting the revenue—a vote which, lam told,
is never taken till the end of July—a period, of Terse, at
which it would be idle to propose to deal with a financial
measure of this kind. (Hear.) The hon. baronet says he did
not expect that this bill would be proceeded with, or he
would have given longer notice of his motion; but I don't
see how that can be. This is an adjourned debate, the third
reading was moved 10 days ago, and the objection to pro-
ceeding with it then was one merely of time ; it was said
to be too late at night to go on with it. I ask the house
whether it is fair to deal with questions of this magnitude
in the spirit of the hon. baronet's proposal. (Hear, hear.)
Is no consideration due to the important interests affected
by this tax? (Hear, hear.) Can you say it is nothing to
keep an industry in which £10,000,000 of capital is em-
ployed in a perpetual state of suspense as to whether you
are going to repeal the tax or not ? (Hear; hear.) Many
contracts, I believe, have already been entered into on the
faith that the House of Commons would not retrace its
isteps. After the bill had been read a second time and
passed through committee there was a complete conviction
throughout the country that this measure would be passed
into law. But if we wait until the hon. baronet has settled
the principles of direct taxation, and has made himself
thoroughly acquainted with a variety of minute details in
the estimates which he does not understand at present, we
shall be acting with great injustice to the paper trade, and
we shall be striking at the root of that confidence which
has always been reposed in the first preliminary and decided
step of the House of Commons in matters affecting taxation .
We have heard a great deal of anxiety about the public re-
venue. It is nothing but a desire to take care that we do
not part with too much of our income that has actuated the
hon. member for Stafford in proposing his motion. I want
to know whether that desire is shared in by the right hon.
member for Droitwich, who voted the other night for re-
pealing, or at least materially reducing the duty on fire in-
surance. (Hear,. hear.) And where was the right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire on the same occasion P He
may indeed have paired. But, if there be this excessive
apprehension about creating a deficit for future years, it is
remarkable that lie was not in bis place to protest against a
motion so dangerous to the revenue of 1861. Let me recall
to the recollection of the house the position in which we
stand with respect to thi-4 bill. On the second reading the
whole queMlon Wag. taisenT is connection vith the income
tax. The hon. member fur Sumersetshiro then moved a
resolution in these words:—" That, as it appears the repeal
of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of ld. in
the pound to the property and income tax, it is the opinion
of this house that such repeal is, under such circumstances,
at the present moment inexpedient." The hon. member
for Stamford voted for that resolution; he voted against
the repeal of the piper duty because it would necessitate
an addition to the income tax. (Hear, hear, from the Op-
position.) But the house, by a decisive majority, over-
ruled that proposition, and- the ld. is now added to the
income tax. (An Hon. Member—" For one year.") Yet,
contrary to the spirit -of that resolution, you now turn
round and say you won't give us the repeal of the paper
duty, but that the country shall bear the increased
income tax and the paper clUty into the bargain. (Hear,
hear.) The speech of the hon. member for Stilltaford was an
attack on the whole principle of the the Budget. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) He would take the finance of
the country out of the hands of the Government, and lay
down a totally new scheme utterly at variance with that of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Renewed cheers from
the Opposition.) One of the leading features of my right
hou. friend's Budget was that there should be in the pre-
sent year a remission of indirect taxes for the benefit of the
trade of the country, together with a certain augmentation
of direct taxation. That leading feature the lion, member
for Stamford now seeks to get rid of. Bat, supposing he
succeeded in maintaining the paper duty, what is the hon.
member going to do with the law on the subject ? Is the
deliberate report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
declaring this tax no longer tenable in its present state—
(no, no)—to go for nothing ? The commissioners, of their
own free will, have reported that if tree tax is to be retained
as a source of revenue, it is absolutely necessary to change
the mode of levying it. Are hon. gentlemen, then, prepared
to legislate so that the paper duty may be applied with jus-
tice towards the different interests affected ? I protest em-
phatically against leaving the law in a condition of uncer-
tainty an unfairness. If you mean to maintain this duty,
say so boldly, and extend it impartially to all the compet-
ing branches of industry which ought equally to be subject
to it. But don't by your halting course leave the trade of
the country exposed to a system which for its anomalies, its
vexation, and injustice is wholly without precedent in the
history of your legislation. I deny altogether that the ques-
tion of the repeal of this duty stands on mere financial
grounds. Tho right hon. member for Buckinghamshire
himself told us emphatically that he advocated its repeal
for moral, literary, and educational considerations. Its
financial bearings are of insignificant importance com-
pared with its bearing on the diffusion of knowledge
among the people. No measure could be more accordant
with the policy of our age than ,one for untaxing the
press. You vote large sums yearly for public instruc-
tion. You are beset with all kinds of religiouselifficulties
in endeavouring to promote national education. I say, then,
do what in you lies to allow the people to educate them-
selves, by removing those fiscal burdens which tend to dete-
riorate the quality and to check the dissemination of Tour
cheap literature. In your Reform debates you have com-
plained of the ignorance of the masses, and of their inability
to exercise the franchise from their unacquaintance wifh poli-
tical affairs. I say that you can take no more logical or nor©
direct course towards the spread of that information which
you say the people need thanby repealing a tax whichpresses
so heavily on the books and periodicals which circulate
memberusto retrfa,cr Sta
mford
has Sotursftoerpds
onrokienagseclfaosrsceasiliTngheuhpeonn.
hal:s°mngadtehoeuwt
and to upset the financial proposals of the Government. He
asks us to admit that in the measures we have introduced we
have made a grave and grievous error. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.) Yes, but we cannot admit that. (A laugh.)
Neither, after the divisions that have recently taken place,
do I believe the House of Commons will admit it. Nothing
has transpired since those measures were brought forward
to induce us to adopt a total change in our policy. I en-
treat hon. gentlemen, then, on all sides to support this bill.
' For myself I take an interest ineit far beyond any ordinary
party question, and although I should regret to see any one
of the excellent financial measures of the Government in-
terfered with, I should doubly deplore the rejection of this
particular bill, because I believe it contains within itself the
germs of great moral benefit to the great mass of the com-
munity. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. BALL, having made extensive inquiries into this
subject, had not met with a single individual connected with
the manufaCture of paper who had not declared that if the
proposal of the Government were carried out it would almost
ruin all engaged in that trade. The right hon, gentleman
had made a statement as to £lo,ooo,oooosterling being em-
ployed in the manufacture of paper.
Mr. GIBSON—What I said was, that it was very pro
liable £10,000,000 of capital were engaged in the manufa
tare of paper and the subsidiary trades in this country.
Mr. BALL continuod.—He should beg the right',
gentleman to excuse him if he contradicted him and main-
tained that it was not probable—(hear)—and that a person
occupying the positioE of the right hon. gentleman ought
not to be contented with simply speculating on the matter
(Heat, hear.) But, although the right hon. gentleman
seemed to be somewhat uninformed on the subject, there
was another right hon. gentleman near him who would, he
(Contißed iA 911 ' vtutz Paget)