The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

extracts from the report of the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue, but did they speak of any such obstacles or diffi-
culties of collection ? Quite the reverse. They said, " So far,
indeed, have our regulations been modified to meet the
wishes of the paper-makers, that the duty as now charged
is collected without any appreciable restrictions on the trade,
and their complaints, which at one time were frequent, have
entirely ceased." (Cheers.) Mr. Philips, of the laboratory
department, confirmed this statement, and in stronger lan-
guage. In another report the commissioners said, "If the
objections that can truly be urged against the paper duty
were such as we are accustomed to hear most insisted upon
in the case of excise duties generally—their restriction and
oppression, incidences in th tax on paper—the advocates
for the abolition might find it not very difficult to make out
their case; but the fact is there is scarcely any trade in which
interference is so little felt, or in which we are continually
adapting our regulations to the we its and wishes of the
manufacturers." But what *lid the Income Tax Commis-

sioners as to the oppressive character of that inaptAt ? They
said, in 1858, " It would be almost impossible to convey to
any person unacquainted with the practical working of the
income tax a notion of the labour that it entails upon this
office, of the great variety and complexity of the questions
brought before us, and the painful appeals constantly made
to our compassion and forbearance. For persons are sot
aware of the numerous and troublesome inquiries necessary
in each case of application for remission or repayment. And
inark this—the fact that upwards of 250,000 such claims are
annually disposed of, these will convey a formidable impres-
sion of the difficulty experienced by the commissioners."
(Hear, hear.) Talk of oppressive taxes—of taxes that in-
terfere with the skill, and enterprise, and hard industry of
the people—where had they anything so alarming as this I'
Again, was the pressure in this case greatest upon the
rich ? If hon. gentlemen would refer to the returns
they would find specified the number of persons of the diffe-
rent classes who contributed to the tax. He would take

schedule D. By the last return it appeared that the num-
ber assessed under that schedule was 258,000, and of that
number upwards of 200,000 were assessed upon incomes of
under £3OO a-year. These were the people upon whom the
tax was weighing heavily. It was not your great landed
proprietor, your rich manufacturer, or your potential and
powerful merchants, but your hard-worn tradesman and
needy professional man. (Hear.) And yet he was to be
told that this was a tax to be retained in preference to the
paper duty. (Cheers.) The third point taken by the right
hon. gentleman was, that the paper duty was becoming
more and more untenable. Well, what was the best of its
untenability ? That it was falling off. (Cheers.) He would
make another comparison upon this point. The amount of
paper manufactured had increased from 66,000,0001 b. in
1842, to 187,0000,0001 b. in 1858 ; and the amount of duty
paid had risen from £634,000 to £1,281,000. Now, take the
income-tax. In 1343 the total amount levied was £5,356,000
—in 1853 the total amount levied was £5,598,000, the in-
crease during 10 years of prcsperity being only about
£200,000. The amount upon which the tax was assessed in
1843 was under schedule D, £52,279,000, and ix 1853 it had
fallen off. but ho had not the precise figures. In 1857 it
was £69,110,000, and in 1858 it had risen to £73,106,000, but
this included the augmentation consequent upon bringing
in all incomes down to COO a-year, the total of which
charged in that year being £11,880,000. In 1858 the
amount chargeable for incomes under £l5O was £12,843,000.
If the Chancellor would take the amount now charged, de-
ducting these incomes, he wouldfind that there was actually
a falling off in 1858 as compared with 1843, of nearly
£2,000,000, But what, during the same time, were our ex•
ports and imports ? Our exports had increased threefold ;
manufacturing prosperity had gone on progressing; but
the incomes chargeable to the tax had not risen. It would
well become the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether
he had not better take off a portion of that tax instead of the
paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman re•
ferred to the inequality and pressure of the paper duty—be-
tween the rich and the poor—but the inequality of the
income-tax was 10 times, aye 20 times, greater as regardei
incomes of £lOO and £l5O. (Hear, hear.) That alone
would strongly induce him to vote for the motion of his
hon. friend ; but if he wanted another reason, he would
put it in the fact stated by the hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Stamford, that by forfeiting the ordinary source
of revenue arising from the paper duty the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would have as great if not a greater
deficiency in the next year and that he was only postponing
his obligations for another 12 months, leaving either to
himself or successor the difficult task of determining whe-
ther any, and if any, how much, of the property and income
tax should continue a permanent part of our system of taxa-
tion. If in another year they were to deal with the defi-
ciency which yawned before them, they must do so either
by reducing expenditure or by imposing the income tax at •
still higher rate. A. reduction of expenditure it would be
difficult to accomplish. Though he hoped much would be
done in that direction he did not wish our armaments to be
less efficient than they were now ; but he was convinced
that we did not get our money's worth for what we ex-
pended. (Hear, hear.) Only gamblers would meet the defi-
ciency by reduction of expenditure, because to do so would
only increase their embarrassment in the future. If, then,
they were not able to reduce the expenditure to any great
amount, as sure as he then spoke the identically same ques-
tion would come before them next year unsettled. (Hear.)
They were taunted by members on the other side of the
house with making this a party question; but he denied
that they had done so, and he assured her Majesty's Go-
vernment that he had no intention, in voting for the mo•
tion, to disturb them in their seats. (Hear, hear.) They
were now placed in circumstances of far too grave a chaise.,
ter to have Administrations changed year by year by mean,
of party votes, and if the Government were just and mod*•
rate, and by listening attentively to the unreasonable ob•
jections urged on either side of the house, endeavoured to
establish our financial arrangements on a better footing than
they were at present, they need not fear any party opposi..
tion. (Hear, hear.) Party had nothing to do with the qu!)s•
tion—at least so far as the great bulk of those around them
were concerned. (Hear, hear.) They were living in times
when the hands of the Executive required to be strengthened
rather than weakened, and he for one was thoroughly con-
vinced that it was for the good of the country that any Aci•
ministration sitting opposite should, as long as it did not
provoke hostility, be fairly and firmly supported in conduct•
ing the Government of this great kingdom. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Having
listened with attention, like the rest of the house, to the
speech of my right hon. friend, I am free to confess that I
find it perfectly easy to understand his premises apart from
his conclusion, not less easy to understand his conclusion.-ee
that is, the vote he means to give—apart from his premissee•
But what the process is by which ray right hon. friend has
combined such premisses with such a conclusion, I must
say would have been received by me as a riddle more hope'
less than that of the Sphinx, if it had been proposed to tee
before the debate to-night. (Laughter.) My right hon.
friend is favourable to the main features of the budget in
their substance. He is favourable to the treaty with
France, and wishes to see it well carried through. He le
favourable to the Government—a most insignificant consi•
deration in comparison with that I named before, but still •
statement which, coming from him, I and every man tie*
ceive with the most implicit credit. He is favourable to the
maintenance of the Government ; and, being favourable tO
the treaty, to the main features of the financial scheme and
to the Government, he is about to vote for the motion of the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Du Cane). (Cheers, and counter•
cheers.) That is a process which may be perfectly interns,
gible to some hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) But
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) will, I take it, have
a share in this debate ; he, I have no doubt, means to slip•
port the motion ; yet I will venture to lay what are termed
very long odds that he does not found his support of the
motion upon the propositions of my right hon. friend, but
upon propositions which are in direct contradiction to them.
(Cheers and laughter.) I won't attempt to follow my right
hon. friend through the details of his speech. He Bare
that we are subject—and I admit the charge—to great ddf•
ficulty, in consequence of the number of questions we have
to discuss. The best way of coping with that difficulty, I
think, is to separate them one from the other, and discuss
them in their order ; and, as we shall have separate end
distinct opportunities of examining the treaty with Prancer
of discussing the paper duty, and of considering, the in-
come-tax, I cannot enter into the smallest detail on any
one of those three questions. (Some laughter.) I am
obliged to say one word, however, on what has fallen from
my right hon. friend with regard to the relation of the
'Japer duties sad the income-tax, Ho positively in one part
of his speech used language which would lead us to under•
stand that the alternative before the Government when they
came to their conclusion was whether they should retain
the paper duty and dispense with the income-tax. (Nov
no.) I beg pardon. I distinctly assert, in opposition to the
gentleman who says " No"—and, at any rate, I may be al.,
lowed to state my recollection—that in one part of hie
speech my right hon. friend seemed to imply that the al•
ternative with us was, whether we should keep the paper
duties and get rid of the income-tax or whether we should
keep the income- tax and part with the paper duties. (Net
no.) My right hon. friend was very eloquent upon the diet•
culties which attend the collection of the paper duty, and
made light of those difficulties. On another occasion I will
endeavour to show what those difficulties are, that my right
hon. friend has not at all taken them into his view, and
that the report of inland revenue quoted by him, which
refers to a prior date, and does not express the present state
of the question or the present views of the Board of Inland
Revenue, is perfectly compatible with the proposition that
those difficulties are of the most serious kind. (Hear.) He
sets forth also the great difficulties which attend the levy.'
ing of the income-tax ; but when we see before us this con-
clusion, that the difficulties of the paper duties are great,
and that the difficulties of the income-tax are great, I say
that it is wiser, if we can, to get one of the two as we pre-
pose, than
_to keep both, as my right hon. friend proposes.
(No, no.) It is, then, no question between the paper duty
and the income-tax that we shall have to discuss. It is at
the outside only a question between the paper duty and
one tenth portion of the income-tax. (Hear.) But I pesos
from that subject, because I think we have an issue before U,
in a far broader form, and I shall endeavour to come as soon
as I can to that issue. I will not, therefore, follow the right
hon. and learned gentleman who spoke on a former night
into the discussion on the alcoholic test on wines, or the
hon. member for Buckingham into the question of contract
notes and dock warrants. The contract note stamp is ld.,
and that moves his indignation, because it is so small, and
he says, " Will you obstruct trade by this paltry tax
But the dock warrant is 3d., and that moves his indignation
because it is so great, and he says, " Will you overwhelm
trade by this great duty ?" (Hear, and laughter.) The
hon. member has the direst views for the future in conse-
quence of these painful measures, and when I see a man of
the ability of my hon. friend the member for Huntingdon
in a state of feverish apprehension, and fore-telling the
direst results from the measures proposed, I naturally seek
for consolation under circumstances so discouraging, and if
I find that those gentlemen viewed on former occasions with
the same and even more painful anxiety public measures
which afterwards were adopted, approved, and vindicated
to the satisfaction of the whole country, then I confess that
I live in hopes that that which has happened before may
happen again, and that, their gloomy views of the future
turning out incorrect, I may count on their admitting
hereafter the merits:of the measures they now denounces
(Cheers.) The hon. member for Buckingham has certainly
not had the same opportunities as the hon. member for Hun-
tingdon has had, but on great occasions we have found the
en, member for Huntingdon among tlw most resolute and