The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-22 00:00:00

c, 'enb-ridge, and Dublin, with the consent of the autho-
i ride. `°,. should be exempt from the paper duties. They
thougetht that with the obscurity of the learned languages
and eeA Itctaciatthioonseopf
uthbelichaetaiodnisso.f hßouutseec,outhld ineyanmyitghhtg b
give
rao
onstrous than that they should tax the village
ferceherodeOlulook! 30 per cent., and exempt these books of
the uni vereity ? (Hear, hear.) And what were the
"North,ern languages ? " He fancied the English, or,
at all eve tote, the Scotch—(a lauga)—and if that were
so, Ereglids books did now enjoy an exemption from the
paper duty. The society to which be belonged, con-
nected with the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, placed
this littl e fact in a very terse way. The writer said—
" I can see no reasen why the History of the Calmucks'
in the original Russian should be entitled to exempeion
from paper du'y, while it applied to the Primer of the
artizan's cbild." If they meant to maintain this ob-
noxious tax, they ought to have the decency to apply it
to ail classes alike. An hon. gentleman opposite wanted
the books of the University of Dublin to be exempt, and
he did not wonder at it. The symptoms of a dying
tax were constant claims for exemptions and a yielding
to those claims. He was against all exemptions. The
taxes should be placed equally and impartially—(hear)
—and if they could not, maintain any tax without a
constant recurrence of draebacks, they should repeal the
tax, and seek for other sources of revenue. (Hear.) He
dared say it had passed through hon. gentlemen's minds
that he thought to suggest a substitute for this tax, but
he declined any such office. It was not his duty, and it
would he irregular for him to find new taxes ; and he
did not, moreover, believe that they would want any
new tax if they repealed this tax. It f firmed one-sixty-
fourth part of the revenue of this country. Could any-
b'dy say that this great country was reduced to such
straits that if taxes to the extent of one-sixty-fourth of
the revenue were repealed it would produce great finan-
cial difficulty ? No one was so absurd. We were capable
of dealing with our financ,al system, and still maintain-
ing the revenue and credit of the country. He was as
ready as any one to admit the extreme caution with
which they ought to deal with the public revenue, but
they ought not to be afraid to condemn this tax because
they might suppose that it was not possible to say what
substitute could be found. He believed that the other
sixty-three parts of the public revenue would swell out
so that they would he very shortly equal to what the
whole now was. He believed it might be shown in
figures that in the very first year there was an almost
certain chance of a very large portion of this duty being
replaced. But there were economists in that house, and
he was sure that they would not see any difficulty in
dealing with so small a revenue. (Rear.) He did not
think tho right hon. member for the University of Ox.
ford and those who thought with him would find any
difficulty, agreeing as they did with Sir R. Peel and the
policy which he carried out with such success. He would
take some other instances to show the effect of this tax
on small newspapers ; but first he would mention that
the Times, some time ago, s .id that they paid 16,0001.
to 17,0001. a-year piper duty, and he believed that now
they mast pay a great deal more. He would refer to the
Manchester Examiner and Times, and he had a letter
from the editor of that journal, who said that during the
last year he had paid to the State a revenue of 5,0001. in
the shape of paper duty for the privilege of giving his
cheap newspaper to the public, and that if that 5,0001.
were net taken from him, he should still sell his
paper at a penny, and apply the money now paid for the
tax on improvements. He had also a letter from another
editor, who paid 3,5001. a year. These weee very large
steins to be deducted from the proprietary body of small
journals of this description, and he did not think it pos-
sible that cheap papers could flourish and be good and
successful unless they were relieved fewn this most mis-
chievous burden. A correspondence hed recently taken
place between a gentleman engaged extensive'y in the
manufacture of paper and the Board of Inland Revenue.
This gentleman was very auxin! to promoe education
in his immediate neighbourhood. A voluntary subscrip-
tion had been raised for a school, and he made the fol-
lowing application to the Board of Inland Revenue :
The letter was dated in June, 1858, and was from Mr.
Rawlings, of Wrexham Mills, and it said that being about
to open a day school in connexion with their mills, they
bad to ask wnether they might be psrin'eted to use the
cuttings of their paper free of duty fur stationery pur
poses exclusively for the use of the schools ; or, if that
were not all iwed, whether they might receive a draw-
back on paper rendered unfit for sale by use in the
school? And what was the answer? "The commissioners ;
have had before them your application, and I am directed
to state that you cannot be allowed to use the cuttings of
your paper free of duty, nor to receive a drawback on
paper rendered unfic for sale by use in your school "
The small boon, it did appear to him, might have been
granted without any lose to the revenue, but it was the
unfortunate sy-tem of excise regulations that any-
thing new was sure to be rejected. They were guided
by old regulations, and every new proposal seemed
to them to contain something in disguise dangerous
to the revenue. The repeal of the duty would cost
about a million a year, but it would do more for the
spread of education than if two miliioes were added to
the education vote. There was another branch of the
question, namely, the excise regulations, upon which he
must say a few words. What could be so monstrous in
a country where the great mass of the people lived by
their indus'ry, as that they should be obliged to carry
on the manufacture of paper under an act of Parlia-
ment passed in the reign of Queen Anne, and containing
no less than 69 olau.eo, every one moat probably open
to more than one interpretation. Was it not also mon-
strous that throughout the whole of this long act—an
act of pains and penalties—there was no definition of
isbat paper was, there being at this moment a litigation
geiog on on that subject. (Hear.) In the same way every
improvement in the manufacture was a matter of diffi-
culty, in consequence of the fiscal obstructions. Mr.
Rawlinson, a manufacturer, asked permission to use a
new weighing machine of great accuracy, which would
save three-fourths of the time in many operations, but
the Board of Inland Revenue of course refused, and Mr.
Rawlinson was obliged to go on with the old beam and
scales. The same difficulties prevented any cheapening
of production, and now when a very small matter turned
the foreign trade against us, matters of this kind came
to be of great importance. Mr. Rawlinson further in-
formed him that in the United States, where the manu-
facture of paper was free from surveillance, it progressed
most rapidly, while in this country our restrictions were
gradually throwing the trade into the hands of foreigners.
The gentleman who manufactures the greater portion of
the paper for the Times told him that formerly be used to
ship largely to Buenos Ayres and Monte Video, but that
now the trade had all gone to the French and Belgian
manufactures. So much did this gentleman deprecate the
presen state of things, that he expressed his fear that
even with a remission of the duty it would be many years
before we could resume a successful competition with
foreign countries. Neither could it be said that the regu•
lations were preventive of fraud. The Board of Inland
Revenue boasted that nothing could beat them but
eribery, but that boast itself was an admission of their
huperfectiou. The amount of the paper duty was little
more than a million, and from that sum a deduction must
he wade for all the paper used by the state. That house
which paid duty on all its paper, had lately issued a return
a hich required 34 tons, the duty on which was 5001., an
arraugemeot which did not appear to him to be the perfec-
tion of human wisdom. He thought, under all the circum-
stances, they were in a condition to lay dean the prin-
ciple involved in his resolution, which he begged re-
spectfully to submit to the consideration of the house.

Mr. INGRANI, in seconding the motion, said—Sir,
I shall, with permission of the house, make a few ob-
servations on the resolutions proposed for adoption by
the right bon, the member for Aditon. I consider the
country is greatly indebted to him for persevering in
bringing to the notice of the house the injurious effect
of the paper duty to our manufactures, and in its opera-
tion as a tax upon know lege and education. The paper
duty is a tax leveed of lid. per lb., with an a fditional
5 per cent. on all paper manufactured in the empire.
There is a cu,toin-house duty of 31. per lb. on all paper
imported into the United Kingdom, which may be said
to be protective duty ; and this fact, we suppose, may
account for the circumstance that so few manufacturers
of paper join in the agitation fur its repeal. I believe,
however, that thilie gentlemen aro somewhat short-
sighted in their views ; but after all they have only fol-
lowed the t xample set years ago by all the tuanufac-
turere of silk and printed cotton goods, who considered
custom-house duties as protecting their trade, and there-
' fore of advantage to them. It may be remarked that
manufacturers were Protectionists long before the agri-
culturists ; and we have now a rag of Protection left
with the paper manufacturers under which t'sey imagine
they find security. (Hear, hear.) Printing paper only
pays 11d. per lb., which cannot be considered as any pie -
tee ion to the printer. As I stand In the double po,i-
non of manufacturer of paper as well as a consumer, I
think I shall be able to show the injurious effects of the
paper duty on the public generally, and that the only
possible defence for its continuance is the revenue
derived therefrom. But, in my opinion, the net revenue
is Hi) small as to make it wholly unimportant to the Ex-
chequer, when weighed with the many evils that the
impost hece:sariiy entails upon society. (Hear.) On
this point it is, iu ray opinion, the duty of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to find a better tax as a substitute, if
a substitute he necessary ; and if called upon, I think I
could propose a much better tax. (Hear, hear) In the
condemnation of this tax we are supported by the opin-
ions expressed by tine present Chancellor of the Exche-
Tier, the noble lord the President of the Board of Con-
trol, the right hon. baronet the bead of the Colonies, the
right hon. the member for the University of Oxford, the
noble lord the member for London, and many other din-
t.n;uished statesmen and sound polit oil economies
Tais objectionable tax, therefore, cannot long continue;
it has no defenders of its pr nciple, and is inevitably
doomed. It has varied in amount per lb. since it was first
proposed, and up to 18.32 was 31. per lb. on printed paper.
linuiediately on the reduction from 31. to 10. the lb.
the consumption of the article doubled, and it• price was
ceeselerably !educed. Paper with a du•y of 31. per lb.
was charged 1 . to the pubic; the same quality, with a
dq:y of lil., may Low be bought for RI per lb. (Hear.)
This decrease of duty has had a marvelous t freet on the
pu lications issued from the press, and has been the
We may theerfere fair thelpyrocdounecelupdre.pthoartti,,n
means of diffu•mgconsiderable it,foirmatien to the people.
yirc
vuhl
laentire
emaboii
rtion ficial
1 ofe the
hdauvtey hwe rocu.,id6 r, a publication ong
t lneacr
the working people amounting
llion
per week, paying a duty of 30 per cent. on its cost of pro-
duction. if this publication paid no duty it would be
considerably improved in its character of usefulness, and
produce greed,' increa,ed benefit to the population. The
duty paid on a t'iree-volume novel is not 1 per cent.
Having quo ed letters from publishers of various cheap
journals, deprecating the continuance of the paper duty,
thethe ehxocni.semienmvoblevre pranoceexetdraedextpoensay :
se
of The ( regulations
least egultin
2,0001.
ao spec!
annum, besides decreasing the quality of the publication,
rteos
pae higherctg t
the
upt haop yd—u
duty.
e CHJerar
am
ii
sE sai obnleurea
olf oE
wx
ce tonne
u
book lately placed in the hands of All the members of the