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

the income tax reduced, before any other tax was repealed.
The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department held the same opinion; and he thought,
under such circumstances, they should vote for the amend-
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
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
4200,000 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 the
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,ooonnd £4,000,
and before it got into the hands of the public it would be in-
creased by the per tentage upon the capital employed to
nearly £7,000. Now, he would ask, was that an economical
mode of raising the small sum of £1,20,000 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.
Mr. MAGUIRE, after having listened attentively to the
speeches of the hon. baronet, mad 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 painter, 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 were 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 was not amongst those who were ashamed of the penny
papers—,—
Lord R. CECIL—One of them is difficult to be read.

Mr. MAIMIRE—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 question 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 balance of taxation—whether
hon. members wore 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. Ile know 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 be 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 out of the exchequer of this country and
put into the exchequer of other countries. (Hear, hear.)

rafted. 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 the proposed re-
mission of taxation ? What appeared extraordinary to him
(Lad 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 house that he had paid
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one year £3,000 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 delw-
sion. 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 beneit 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 means 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„ 111 d. 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 the question before them; and had 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 the 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 bo 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 which was that it was inexpedient at that time to abolisk
a
the paper duty. The right hon. gentleman having read the
resolution, asked how appeared that it was inexpedient to
abolish
to the
pppalpyerthdeumtye.an(lslNevarhi.c)hTthhee
Government had
hanadin
mightits
attempt
hands to reduce the sugar tax or any other indirect tax that
pressed upon the community, but after the vote th ey bad come
to on the budget, he 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
that the paper duty ought not to be continued as ono of the per-
manent indirect taxes of the country, and that it ought to
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 ten years
ago, which stated that such financial arrangement ought to
be made by the Government to enable Parliament to abolish
the paper duty. Well, the right hon, gentleman, the mem-