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

Cambridge, and Dublin, with the consent of the autho.
cities, should be exempt from the paper duties. They
thought that with the obscurity of the learned languages
and the caution of the heads of houses', they might give
freedom to those publications. But could anything be
more monstrous than that they should tax the village
school-books 30 per cent., and exempt these books of
the university ? (Hear, hear.) And what were the
"Northern languages ?" He fancied the English, or,
at all events, the Scotch—(a laugh)—and if that were
so, English books did now enjoy an exemption from the
paper duty. The society to which he belonged, con-
nected with the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, placed
this little 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 exemption
from paper duty, while it applied to the Primer of the
artizen's child." If they meant to maintain this ob-
noxious tax, they ought to have the decency to apply it
to all classes alike. An hop, 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 drawbacks, 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 be
did not, moreover, believe that they would want any
new tax if they repealed this tax. It firmed one-sixty-
fourth part of the revenue of this country. Could any-
body 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repealed it would produce great finan-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 financal 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 be 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. (Hear.) Ho did not
think the 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, said that they paid 16,0001.
to 17,000/. a-year paper duty, and be believed that now
they must 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 bad paid to the State a revenue cf 5,0001. in
the shape of paper duty for the privilege of giving his
cheap newspaper to the public, and that if that 5,000/
were not taken from him, ho 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 2,500/. a year. These were very large
sums to be deducted from the proprietary body of small
journals of this description, and he did not think it roes-
eible that cheap papers could flourish and be good and
successful unless they were relieved from this most mis-
chievous burden. A correspondence had recently taken
place between a gentleman engaged extensively in the
manufacture of paper and the Board of Inland Revenue.
This gentleman was very anxious to promote education
in his immediate neighbourhood. A voluntary subscrip-
tion had been raised for a school, and he made the fol.
lewing 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 whether they might be permitted to use the
cuttings of their paper free of duty for stationery pear
poses exclusively for the use of the schools ; or, if that
were not ale wed, whether they might receive a draw-
back cn paper rendered unfit fir 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 piper free of duty, nor to receive a drawback on
paper rendered unfit for sale by use in your school "
Tito small boon, it did appear to him, might have been
granted a ithout any lose to the revenue, bet it was the
unfortunate system 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 millions were added to
the education vote. There was another branch of the
question, namely, the excise regulations, upon which he
roust say a few words. What could be so monstrous in
a couritrtewhere the great mass of the people lived by
their industry, 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 leas than 69 clauses, every one most 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
what paper was, there being at this moment a litigation
going on on that subject. (Elear.) In the same tray every
improvement in the manufacture was a matter of diffi-
culty, in consequence of the fiscal obstructions, Mi.
Rasclinson, a manufacturer, asked parmi,wien to use a
now 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.
Rawlinscn was obliged to go on with the old beam and
seeks. The same difficulties prevented any cheapening
of production, and now when a very small matter turned
the foreign trade against hi, matters of this kind came
to be of great importance. Mr. Rawlinson further in-
formed him that in the United Slates, 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 biro that formerly he used to
ship largely to Buenos Ayres and Me me Video, but that
now the trade had all gone to the French and Belgian
manufactures. So much di,i this gentleman deprecate the
presen, stets of things, that he expressed his fear that
even with a rernis• ion cf the duty it would be many years
before we could resume a successful competition with
foreign countries. Neither could it be raid that the regu-
lations were preventive of fraud. The Board of Inland
fleet-time boasted that nothing could beat them but
oribery, but that boast itself was an admission of their
imperfectioe. The amount of the paper duty was lit le
more than a million, and from that sum a deduction must
be reale for all the paper used by the state. That house
which paid duty on all its paper, had lately issued a return
which required 34 tone, the duty on which was 500/., an
arrangement which did not appear to him to be the perlecs
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 cc-
spectfu!ly to subunit to the consideration of the house.
Mr. INGRA.II, in seconding the motion, said—Sir,
I shall, aWI permission of the louse, .make a few ob-
servatims on the retoltr ions proposed for ad,,ption by
the right hon. the member for A• bton. I consider the
country is greatly indebted to him for persevering in
btin;ing 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 knot%loge and education. The paper
duty is a trex levied of 10. per lb., with an a iditional
5 per cent. on all paper manufactured in the empire.
There is a custom-house duty of 33. 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 for its repeal. I believe,
however, that those gentlemen are somewhat short-
sighted in their views; but rifler all they have only fol-
lowed the example set years ago by all the manufac-
turers of silk and printed cotton goods, who considered
custom-house duties as protecting their trade, and there-
fere of advantage to them. It may be remarked that
maritifecturere were Protectionists long before the agri-
culturigs ; and we have now a rag of Protection ieft
with the paper manufacturers under which they imagine
they find security. (Float', hear.) Printing paper only
pays 11d. per lb., which cannot be considered as any pre-
tecion to the printer. As I stand in the double posi-
tion of manufacturer of paper as well as a consumer, I
think I shall be able to show the it jurious effects of the
paper duty on the public generally, and that the only
peesible defence fur its continuance is the revenue
derived therefrom. But, in my opinion, the net revenue
is so entail as to make it wholly unimportant to the Ex-
chequer, when weighed with the many evils that the
impost necessarily entails upon society. (Hear.) On
this point it is, in my op'nitte, the duty of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to find a better tax as a substitute, if
a substitute be 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 the present Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, the noble lord the President of the Board of Con-
trol, the right hon. baronet the head of the Colonies, the
right hon. the member for the University of Oxford, the
nettle lord the member for London, and many other dip-
thaguished etatestnen and sound political economists
This ohjectionable tax, therefere, cannot long continue;
it has no defenders of its prenciple, and is inevitably
doomed. It has varied in amount per lb. since it was first
proposed, and up to 13:32 war 3 1. per ib. on printed paper.
Immediately on the reduction from 31 to lad. the lb.
the consumption of the article doubled, and its price was
cdpro,ull,nttiyslii,dcii)acef retiibna,llys7e reduced, Paper with adu'y of 31. per ib.
was charged to the public; the sane quality, with a
itt,Psfaut.7l,„udntyofwrhoabmse hadbought
e n.),:veSs linOdi sehre
affisbs
been
vet att ee)
riteatts of diffusingeeneiderable Mot elation to the purple.
1 We may therdere fairly conclude that the entire abeei•
tree of the duty would produce proportiondli beneficial
rAul'. I have here, sir, a publication circulated among
the working people an ountirg to nearly half a million
per eve' k, paying a duty of 30 per cent. on its coot of pro-
duction. If this publication paid no duty it would be
considerably improved in its character el usefulness, and
produce greatly increased benefit to the population. The
duty paid on a three-volume eovel ds not 1 per cent.
Having quoted letters from publishers of various cheap
journal-', deprecating the continuance of the paper duty,
the ben. member proceeded to say : The regulations cf
the excise involve an extra expense of at least 2,000/, per
annum, beeilcs decreasing the quality of the publication.
I now come to a higher authority—the Ceentniesioners
of Excise—respecting the parer duty. Hero ia a blue
bock lately placed in the hands of all the mockers of tha

holm, in which the commissioners state the increase of
trade caused by their new regulations respecting draw-
backs on pieces of waste papercut from envelopes. (Hear.)
Here no doubt was a great increase of trade created by
the means alluded to; but they must recollect that it was
only after considerable agitation and speeches from my-
self and others that they consented to take such a step.
(Cheers.) If the commissioners think they give such
facilities to get the drawback, and do so much to increase
the trade, let us hear what the trade say upon the ques-
tion generally. The following letter is from Messrs.
Ward and Lock. (Here the hon. member read the let-
ter complaining of numerous delays incidental to any
application for drawback,) I will now trouble the
house with a letter from Messrs- Chambers, who have
done so much to give instruction to the people:—
" Edinburgh, May 15, 1856.
" Dsar Sir,—Along with this we band you a short
statement respecting the pressure of the paper duties on
our publications. You will observe that during 1855
we used 378,3501b5. of paper, cos ing 11,7801. lle. 3d.,
and that in this price was included an excise duty of
2,482/, 18s., such duty being about a fifth of the actual
cost of the paper. Nearly all our publications are of a
cheap class, designed for popular instruction and im-
provement ; and the price of paper if by far the heaviest
item in producing works of this kind. Although the
duty is 14 per pound weight, with 5 per cent. additional,
it is our belief that practically the price of paper is en-
hanced fully 23. per pound weight, by reason of the
duty and attendant excise regulations. This is upwards
of a fifth in the price of most printing papers. So heavy
an increase on the price of paper acts discouragingly on
all our operations. We are constantly prevented from
entering upon schemes for issuing cheap publications of
an improving tendency from no other cause than the
pressure of toe paper duties. Some years ago we issued
a series of instructive and entertaining tracts at a penny
and a halfpenny each. The sale was enormous, and we
should hope some good was done. After issuing as
many as 20 volumes of these tracts, we found that the
state had received 5,0001. of paper duty, while our pro-
fits were nothirg, and we accordingly were compelled to
drop the work, although the sales at the time were 80,000
weekly. It is chiefly from such facts that an adequate
idea can be obtained of the damage done to literature
throughthe pressure of the excise duty on paper. Of the
injury done to trade generally by this tax on produc-
tion it is not necessary for us to say anything.—We are,
sir, your obedient servants, "W. and R. CizeilißEES.
"Herbert Ingram, Esq., M.P."
I will here remark that the quantity of paper distributed
by these gentlemen and by the proprietors of the London
Journal is considerably greater than all the Bibles and
Prayer Books distributed by the clergy and the Bible and
other religious t o ieties put together, and, be it observed,
the amount of the latter publications is increasing.
(Hear.) Nearly six parts out of seven of all paper made
is printed paper, and the paper used for Bibles and
Prayers is not more than 14 per cent. of the printed
paper used—showing, I think, a great remissness some-
where in the church. (Hear, and Laughter.) No draw-
back is allowed on the A B C book for the poor child,
or the spelling-book ; without the duty those books
would be decreased in price one-half. (Hear.) I state
my full conviction that you would do more g ,od for the
education of the people by a repeal of the paper duty
than by granting the large amount placed on the esti-
mates, which will no doubt be voted this evening.
(Hear, hear.) Let us look at the question as a manu-
facturing question only. In doing this, let us take a
glance at other branches of industry formerly subjected
to excise duties. We will take, for instance, the printed
calico duty, repealed 30 years ago. At that time it was
objected that the tax was so small that a printed gown
was scercdy affec ed in its price by the extra duty for
printing. Now, what is the result Why, that a printed
gown sells for c nsiderably less money than the duty
formerly paid, (Hear, hear.) The manufacturers and
printers at the time defended the duty. What has been
the effect on our commerce in this repeal of the excise ?
Why, our trash; has iscreased by millions, and we have
so improved in our manufactures that we beat the whole
world in cur prints i goods. (Cheers ) Tee last raanufac•
Lure fret d from excise duty was the duty on glass. Now,
the repeal of this duty has exhibited in a marvellous way
the advantage of freeing our manufactures from the de-
pressing influence of the exc:sernan. The quantity manu-
factured increases enor.nou.ly every year, and our export
trade inc•reaees In proportion. Without the repeal of
this duty we should not have seen the Crystal Palace of
1851, and the great trade now done in this country in
every description of glees manefacture, and the employ-
ment of many thousands extra of the population. If this
house should agree to a repeal of the paper duty I have
no doubt many more manufactories will spring up, and it
is peculiarly an employmentsuited for the rural district,.
I also think that vegetable fibre produced from the land
will be extensively used in the manufacture of paper.
Lately a roil! for the manufacture of paper from twitch
was established in the county of Lincoln. I will take the
liberty of reading a letter from the manager oa the sub-
ject:
" We have toots collected about 1,200 tons of twitch,
and our doing so has tended to promote the interests
both of landowners and landholders : —l. By stimulat-
ing the farmer to clean his land, and asfor A 9 possible to
eradicate from it a weed of most extraordinary rapicrty
cf growth, and which, while it exhausts the land in a
corresponding degree, often chokes and kills the young
corn plant. 2. By enabling the farmer, with the money
p,id him for his twitch, to buy a really serviceable ma-
nure, as a substitute for the small and oftentimes very
questionable amount of benefit derived from the ashes of
burnt twitch—abundance of ashes (when required for
turnip sowing, St a.) being produceable from the burning
of other weeds, sedge, parings, and rubbish. By those
two operations (thus stimulated) of cleaning and ma-
nurieg, the land will be gradually and greatly improved
at small (if any) cost to the farmer at the same time that
the value of ails crops will increase. My time being very
fully occupied, I have very hastily and imperfectly re-
plied to your queries ; but I hops what I have written
is suffic'eat to answer the purpose you had in view when
you wrote.—l am, sir, yours obediently, SAMUEL SHARP.
—II. Ingrain, Eq., M.P."
Paper is an article used in almost all other manufactures,
in wrappieg up articles, and in boxes, it forms a serious
amount in the expense to which trade generally is sub-
ject. Many of our goods can scarcely compete with
French manufactures on account of the freedom from
paper duty in France. Tnis grievance is complained of
in all our manufacturing to weir, Now let us consider the
paper duty as a source of revenue. (Tee hon. member
read a tabular statement, shoring that the paper duty
had exhibited much greater productiveness under the
law than the high scale, and continued)—ln conclusion,
I would observe that as the question of revenue is the
only thing under consideratioe, and as we have no advo-
cates for the paper duty except on these grounds—l do
nay, with the greatest conviction of truth, that the in-
creased trade, the increased employment, the increased
c e-ssumption of taxable articles which would follow from
an abrogation of this duty, would compensate for the
amount levied by the excise on paper. Ido hope that
the house will have the courage and justice to pronounce
its opinion that this tax is doomed, and that we shall not
stand in the world as the exception in levying texes on
the intelligence, literature, and industry c f the nation.
Mr. SALISBURY, while supporting the motion, said
there was no question in which the working classes of
this country took greater interest in than the repeal of
the paper cutiss. When canvassing fer Chester, a
pledge was universally demanded of him to vote for the
motion; end his own opinion was that if any arrange-
ment could be made for rumoring the duty, it would
give universal sati,fictien.

Mr. AYRTON pointed out the importance of the mo-
tion in cmnexien with educe.,'ion, Even the copy books
of the children were so heavily taxed that in many
school; for the poor the miserable expedient of the slate
had to he substituted, so that when the pupils after-
wards went out into the world they were wholly unable
to write with pen and paper. He bad himself once
thought the agitat:ou for the repeal c f the paper duty
unnecessary, but having subsequently gone into some
calculations respecting the establishment ofa cheap paper
duty was the whole qeestion. The same argument ap-
plied to all cheap punlications, as the cheaper the publi-
cation the greater was the oppression of the paper duty.
Then with regar 1 to the prebable effeotof abolishing
such duties, ho might mention that in Arnerice, where the
manufacture eras untaxed the production aid consump-
tion of paper was treble it was in this country. And
there could scarcely be a doubt that if the du'y were
taken off here, the production would increase three-fold
in a very short time. It was not merely the amount of
the duty that was complained of,—a much more serious
evil was the interference of the excise. He was told
that if there was no excise paper might .be printed as it
came from the mill, without undergoing the process of
drying and damping, by which a considerable saving
both in time and labour would be effected. Probably
there was no commodity that entered into the op:ire.-
tions of manufactures and trade more largely than paper,
and in one instance, and oee only, the statute considered
that circumstance a sufficient ground for an exemption
from the duty. The paper that was used in pressing
woollen cloths paid no duty. But could there be a
greater anomaly than to ex,rnpt the paper employed in
pressing, while that which was used in packing was
chargeahle ? "Filen were many branches of manufacture
in which paper was largely consumed, as well as in
making woolen cloths. Why should not the duty be
remitted in those cases also ? From a return of the
applications to, and the concessions made by, the Beard.
of Inland Revenue for exemption from the paper duty,
he found that paper and mill-board used in the naar?u-

facture of pacer macho were allowed toga free of duty,
on the special ground that the existing regulations
operated is juriouely to the trade. In the same way the
commiesiontri had ail)wed the application ia the case
of paper ernplayed in making patterns f.:r the Jacquard
loam, and a diawback was ale-) to be alowed on the
cuttings of envelopes. Tee rule appeared be that if
the parties were eep,?cially pemeverial::, and insisted
that the paper used by them wee for the putpcFe
of manufacture, the application was allowed. But
what diff:ronce was there in p,int of principle be-
tween paper used for pressirg cloth and racking
cloth ? or between that used in the manufacture of
papier maebe and that used in making hat-bosea ?
He contended that every man who used paper for
the purposes of his trade was entitlsd to the draw-
bach— (hear, heai)—and if the china was allowed
to that extent, how could they consistently insist upon
the duty upon parr which was used in the highest, the
best, and the tro,t, righteous empl)yrnglit to which it
cauld be devoted, viz, for the education of the people?
(Hear, hear.) A4air, why should prayer-books printed
in one form be exempt from the paper duty, while
prayer-hooks printe I in another form were charged ?
The txernp:ion made is favour t f bibles and prayer-
books no doubt W 33 originally made because at that
time they were the plineipal means of education ; and
now, when the means of education were eo hugely ex•

tended, why should not the exemption be exEended in
the same props rtiot: ? But if they were to get rid cf
the du'y in all oases whole it operated as an obstruction
to trade, ar:d in ail cases vi here it obstructed progress of

education, where were they to go for the paper duty ?
(Hear.) Nothing would remain to charge but the waste
paper, and really it would not be worth while to keep
up all the machinery of the excise for what that would
produce. The objection to the ways and means might
be met by a reduction in the public expenditure, espe,
cially in the army and navy, the cost of which depart-
ments, which averaged 14j millions a year previous to
the late war, now amounted to 25,000,000/. a-year. He
trusted that the present Government would exert them-
selves to bring down the expenditure of the country
within reasonable limits, and that they would give an
assurance to the house that one of the first benefits re-
sulting from their adoption of a policy of economy should
be the remission of the duty on paper. (Hear.)
Mr. COWAN, as a paper manufacturer, could con-
firm the statement of his right hon. friend as to the effect
of the duty on the Export of paper, and though there was
now no positive interference with the process of manu-
facture, there was still a considerable and injurious dis-
tinction resulting in the system of labelling. The tax
operated most prejudicially upon literature, and was most
partial in its application. Indeed, it was difficult now to
say what was paper. Three or four years ago a gentle-
man took out a patent for an improved parchment, but
the excise interfered, and insisted that the manufac-
ture was paper, and liable to the duty. The question
came on for trial in the Court of Exchequer ; but after
a long investigation it was impossible to say whether
the article was paper or not, and a verdict having passed
for the Crown, a new trial was granted on account of the
doubt in which the matter was involved. There was a
spelling-book published, the material being cloth so
closely woven that few persons were able to detect
whether it was the produce of the loom or the paper mill.
Was it not, too, an anomaly that cotton waste, which was
formerly carted away as refuse, now that it was employed
in the making of paper, should be subject to a duty six
times the amount of that which was charged upon the
cotton as it came originally from America ? (Hear, hear.)
He would not advocate any measure that should endanger
the public credit, but he could not forget that if they were
under an engagement to the public creditor, they were
also under a long standing engagement to the paper ma-
nufacturers and the public in reference to this tax, which
ought to be discharged. The paper tax and the soap tax
were imposed together as war taxes in the time of Queen
Anne. A few years ago the soap duty was remitted, and
he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be pre-
pared to carry out the remainder of the pledge of the
Government of Queen Anne by abolishing the paper
duty also.
The CHANCELLOR of the ErCHEQUER regarded
the paper duty as one of those taxes which, as soon as a
favourab!e opportunity arose, ought to be erased from
the statute-book, Looking at the operation of the tax in a
moral, commercial, and literary point of view, he should
be glad if he could feel it consistent with his duty to re-
commend that it be at once remitted ; bu'a like all other
remissions of taxation, it must depend on the position of
the minister in reference to the stateof the public finances
at the time. He could not assent to the resolution as
proposed by the right hon. gentleman. To one part of
it he could offer no objection, though he could see no
great use in making such a declaration. He agreed with
the right hon. gentleman that the maintenance of the
excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would
be impolitic ; but he could not agree with him that such
financial arrangements might be made as would enable
Parliament to dispense with that tax. By carrying such
a resolution the house would hamper and cripple the
Government in a manner which be did not think fair or
politic. (He nr, hear ) The paper tax was not the only
tax which in the two great sources of revenue derived
from innirect taxation required consideration and revi-
sion. Whether they linked at the customs or the inland
revenues, notwithstanding the great changes and ix-
pr,vernents which had been made in the mode of raising
the means for meeting the public expenditure during the
last 10 years—he might say the last 25 years--in these
two branches, there was in both much that required
consideration and great room for improvement. There
were many duties ia the mit mars that did not pay for the
cost of collection. No one would say that was a state
of affairs which it was desirable permanently to main-
tain. (Hear.) There were claims too in connexion with
the customs revenue, in reference to bonding, which re-
quired consideration and revision. In the sister branch
cf indirect revenue, the inland tssces, there were like-
wise many subjects the consideration of which could not
be delayed, and the revision of which was much re-
quired, including the whole question of drawbacks and
credits. The drawback on paper called for serious at•
tention and alteration, and he was not prepared to say
that the tsx itis if was not entitled, if not to immediate,
at least to early consideration. But the subjscts were
so numerous that it would become the duty of the
Government to sus jeet both these branches of revenue
to an early and searching examination. In the course
of the recess the subject would be taken into considera-
tion, and he hoped when Parliament met for the next
session to be in a position to offer some suggestion to
the house which he trusted would meet with approval.
But he hoped the house would not hamper the Govern-
ment in the course they intended to pursue by passing a
resolution which could not but cripple their a ff,rts to im-
prove and to simplify that part of the revenue which was
derived from indirect taxation. One hon. gentleman
who had spoken, and who looked to the remission of this
tax more as a matter of course than he thought circum-
stances justified him in doing, had iudicaOed a reduction
of the public expenditure as the means by which any de•
ficiency arasiug from such remission might be supplied.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchecin,r) had on former
occasions urged upon the house the importance of bear-
ing in mind that great reductions in the public establish-
ments could not be accomplished in a moment. (Hear.)
In the naval and military establishments especially any
reduction of importance required a long course of pre-
paration, and preparation arising from circumstances
that were not mere circumstances of routine. (Hear.)
The public expenditure of the country—as he had before
remarked—depended upon the pubic policy, and it was
only by the establishment of a policy that they could
I ultimately and considerably affect the expenditure either
way. (Hear.) He hoped the policy pursued by her
Majesty's G iverninent in respect to their foreign rela•
tious had not been of such a character as could give
the house any reason to suppose that they were anxious
to encourage any vast exoenditure in the naval and
military establishments ; and that if by a fair and well-
considered scheme of economy they could find the means
for a remission of taxation they would be indisposed to
adopt it. (Hear.) When circumstances in due course
would allow such reduction of expenditure no one would
more gladly hail such a state of affairs than himself, and
no one would be more delighted to propose that redue-
ti .n in the public burdens which would bo the natural
consequence. But he hoped the house would net ham-
per the Government by passiag a resolution respecting
any itemt of taxation upon which it was obvious that
they could not act. It was quite impossible that they
could at the present moment deal with the paper duty,
What might be their position next year it was impossible
to say. Why, then, should they seek to bind the Go-
vernment in respect to that or any other particular tax?
There were various considerations which must operate
with the Geverement when they came to deal with
the finances of the ensuing year before they could
decide upon a question cf this nature. Under
any circumstances it would be impolitic and inexpe-
dient, and practically most ur fair to a Govern•
ment which did not seek to conceal its general
opinion that this was a tax which ought not to form a
permanent source of revenue—(hear)—and which they
would be glad of the opportunity to remit, to fetter them
by a resolution of this kind. (Hear.) He trusted,
therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would be satia-
fied with having brought the question fairly before the
house and the country, and that he would not press the
resolution to a division. (Cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT 61 not complain of the right hon.
gentleman's speech, for it was much the sort of speech
that any Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been
expected to make. His right hon. friend (Mr. Gibson)
must feel satisfied that his case was now so good that
no attempt was made to reply to it. (Hear.) He
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer attached too
much importance to the danger of hampering a Govern-
ment by a resolution of this kind—for he thought if the
right bun. gentleman would look back for a few years
only he would find an instance where his right hon.
friend induced him and many of his friends to vote for
a similar resolution with respect to the newspaper stamp
duty, from which no such danger resulted, and the effect
of which resolution was to bring about the remission of
the duty. (Hear.) His right hon. friend's object now was
to put on record in like manner the opinion of the house
that when the state of the Treasury would permit it
the Chancellor of the Exchequer cf the day, and he (Mr.
Brigh,) hoped it would be the right hoe. gentleman—
(hear, hear)—might take this particular tax as the first
to be got rid of. (Cheers ) The right hoc. gentleman
had referred to the customs duties, but he was no more
anxious than his right hoe. friend (Mr. Gibson) or him-
self to abolish the obnoxious and unproductive duties to
which he alluded. It was easy, however, to show that
the abolition of a tax of a million in the customs branch
of the revenue would not afford anything like the relief
to the public that this excise duty of the same amount
would give. The paper duty was a tax which operated
as a coda of pains and penalties on 300,000 or 400,000
persons who were engaged in carrying on a useful and
important occupation. He did not believe it was pos-
sible for those who had had nothing to do with the ex-
cise to form an idea of the intolerable nuisance of having
an exciseman constantly about their premises. (Hear,
hear) They were t.ld that they were living in a free
country ; but if they attempted to maen'acture paper,
excisemen might come in, go through their premises
whenever they pleased, and interfere) with all they did.
That was not what freeman in a free country ought to
be exposed to. There were 300,000 or 400,000 persons
engaged in that trade who had a r;ght to come and ask
for a rernisiion of this duty. Nobody could say that
there was any trade more important with reference to
instruction, the a !vanoetneet of the people, and to good
order, than the trade cf makieg b;eks and newspapers,
and 3, et, after relieving the cotton manufacturer from
a small tax, you came upon this trade with a tax if a
roost Onerous character. Oiie fact had been relate iby
an eminent pubii-her, v:z., that in 20 yews he had paid
80.000/. to wri ere and author., and in the same time he
had paid 50,0001. to the Government in the shape of
paper duty. A million remitted on each of the duties on
tea and sugar would not he half the relief that this
single million of duty on paper would be. Ile knew a
reseectable paper manufacturer in the
neighbourhood
of Birrn!ngbani who paid 1201, a year in wages to
men whose whole duty was to wait continually
on the exciseman. With regard to the question
of seitoel books, there was a fact be wished to mention,
aoch, if the hon. gentleman the member for the Uei
verAity of Dublin was preeent, he could bear his
testi-
mony to, that out of every thousand school books pub-
lished by that university, and there were none better—
ni:t less than 250, cr one-fourth of the whole, were
seized by the exciseman fcr trio duty on paper.
was one single fact more he wished to mention before he
concluded. His right hoe. friend had referred to a

deputation which waited on Lord Derby on this ques-
tion. He (Mr. Bright) was present. One of the depu •
tation was a paper manufacturer in Yorkshire, who
stated that just before the recent commercial panic he
was in London making a contract for the sale of paper.
The cost of the paper at the mill was 4001., while the
duty was also 400/., making the cost to the buyer 8001.
He had to pay the duty in six weeks. He took a bill at
four months in payment on the sale, which had to ran
through the commercial hurricane which ensued, and he
had to pay 4001. to the excise, which he could only get
if the bill was paid at maturity after having to run four
months. How could any trade survive a system of
regulation like thie by which this trade-was regulated?
He was sure that it was not statesmanlike or fair for a
Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a million of tea or
sugar duties in comparison with the paper duty, which
interfered with a great trade in a manner so offensive and
disastrous. There were gentlemen present who repre-
sented boroughs and counties in Ireland, and this was a
question of importance-to them. When the duty was
taken off, paper could be made of straw, and especially
of oat straw, which was better than wheat straw. In
Ireland there was abundance of labour and water power,
and especially of oat straw, and Ireland therefore offered
an admirable field for the extension of the paper trade.
It was also the same with regard to many agricultural
counties in England, where the trade was now shrinking
and coming to nothing. In Buckinghamshire, the
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) if he asked
the paper manufacturers—if there were any left —they
would tell him h )w much it had been destroyed, and how
much industry had been garotted by this duty. His
right hon. friend had a right to aik the house whether
the duty was not so great an evil as to entitle him to
ask the house to say that " its maintenance as a perma-
nent source of revenue was impolitic." The right hon.
gentleman asked his right hon. friend to stop there in
his resolution. He (Mr. Bright) knew that there might
be many gentlemen who agreed in opinion with him on
this question, but who doubted whether a resolution
should be brought forward which asked a government
to act in a particular way when it could hardly act in
any way, and he thought that his right hon. friend
might fairly stop at the first part of his resolution, and
put generally that which the house had done that night,
for every member who had spoken had uttered the con-
demnation of the duty ; and he should recommend his
right hoc, friend to agree to the adoption of his resolu-
tion to that extent. He did not wish to hamper the
government, but if the house declared that the paper
duty was impolitic as a permanent source of revenue, it
would be a great step towards freeing knowledge from
the hand of the tax-gatherer ; and he took it for granted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the
resolution if it stopped at the first words ; and if so there
would be no necessity for a division.
. Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should not have added any-
thing to this discussion, if it had not been that his right
hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had attributed to him an
opinion which he had never expressed, and which he
had never entertained, namely, that the paper duty, was
an excellent duty, and. ought to be maintained at all
hazards. Ho had never expeessed such an opinion.
Mr. M. GIBSON—My right hon. friend has misre-
presented me. I did not state that he said that the paper
duty ought to be maintained at all hazards, but only that
it was a good tax.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—What he said—and it was said
in the course of a financial statement—was that, com-
paring the paper duty with other duties, it did not appear,
looking to the circumstances in which the country
was placed, that it was expedient that it should be
repealed. lie had a distinct reccllection that he said no
more than that comparing it with other duties there was
no reason for placing it high amongst [hose which it was
expedient to repeal. When his right hop, friend said
that he called it a good duty, would his right hon.
friend undertake to name one good duty in the whole
list cf our taxes, or one, whether it was among excise,
customs, or direct taxation, to which objection might
not be made? Every duty was attended with its own
disadvantages, and was, by its very nature, an evil and
an inconvenience to the community. But what a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had got to do was, to take into
consideration those duties to which the smallest number
of disadvantages attached. From that point of view
they had to consider whether the paper duty was one
which ought to be abolished. They had been told that
the income tax was to be repealed in three years, and
that statement had been rece.ved with great approba.
tion ; but it so, you mutt abandon five millions of direct
taxation. A question tnigbt C. en arise, not whether it was
possible to remit indirect taxes like the paper duty, but
whether i: would not be necessary to impose other direct
taxes to replace the income-tax. When the preposition
was made for the prospective repeal of the income-tax,
he (Sir G. C. Lewis) made the same obj7ction which he
did now, that the house had bound itself to a reduction
of taxation. When it was known that there was a sur-
plus, that was the time to consider what taxes were to
be remitted. He should rejoice when the time arrived
that such a reduction could be made ; but till that time
did arrive, he could see no advantage in the house tying
itself down by prospective resolutions like the present.
Mr. DRUMMOND said he should like to double
and quadruple that tax which you called the tax on
knowledge. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very indistinctly heard,
was understood to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said that this tax was one of the few remaining excise
duties which, as being vexatious, ought not to be kept up as
a permanent source of revenue. With regard to Bevel al
excise duties,it had been found that after their abolition the
revenue continued as large as before, and he believed that
their abolition gave a spring and an impulse to the general
revenue. But as to the ox act time for repealing this or that
tax, great latitude should be given to a Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He thought that this was not the exact mo-
ment for such a step. When a Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was calletlion to repeal a tax, he ought to have before
him the whole of the customs and excise duties, and on a
review of them all, to ascertain which would cause the
most benefit to the public by its repeal. There was a
question which had been touched on by the hon. member
for Birmingham, with regard to which he (Lord J.
Russell) differed in opinion with that hon. member. The
house would recollect that last year the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed that the income tax should be
kept up at 7d. in the pound, and that, instead of Is. 3d.,
the duty on tea would be la. 51, ; and that there should
be a proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year
we had a'lowed the income tax to fall from 7d. to stl. in
the pound ; but we had kept up the duty on tea at ls. 53.,
and also retained the proportionate increase in the duty on
sugar. It was almost a matter of good faith when next
there was a reduction in taxation that the duties on tea
and sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties;
and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa-
tion than in those articles of consumption which entered
so largely into the comforts of the people. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer, when ho was in office before, was of
that opinion; and he (Lord J. Russell) was sure that if
there was a duty of is. on tea, the increased consumption
would soon lming up the revenue. He hoped the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer would take these taxes into consi-
deration. Re trusted his right hon. friend would not press
his resolution, as it stool, on the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, but would leave out the latter part, and be satis-
fied with the declaretion contained in the first paragraph,
" that the paper duty ought not to form a perm anent source
of revenue," and as the amount was so small it would pro-
bably be one of the first taxes which would be repealed.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that as he understood there was
no objection to the first part of his resolution, namely, that
the retention of the paper duty was impolitic, he would
withdraw his resolution, and move " That in the opinion
of the house the maintenance of the excise duty on paper
as a permanent source of revenue was impolitic."
Mr. BASS said he apprehended that if this motion was
agreed to it did not commit the house to the opinion that
there was no other tax equally oppressive. (A. laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--In assent-
ing to this motion, I must express a hope that the house
may be allowed at once to go into committee of supply,
and proceed with the vote on education.
Tho original resolution was then withdrawn, and the
amended motion having been put,
Mr. BENTINCK said, before the question was put he
wished to say a word. He hoped that it was clearly un-
lerstood that the resolution meant nothing. (Leughter.)
The motion was then agreed to.
SUPPLY—EDUCATION.

The house then went into committee of supply.
The first vote was 663,435/. for education.
Mr. ADD ERLEY said that after the very extensive
powers of by-legislation which the house had entrusted to
those who had charge of this subject, it had a right to Ex-
pect a very explicit statement from the responsible officers.
So strongly had he been impressed with what was due to
the house on that score that from the moment of his en-
tering upon the duties of the office he ha 1 the honour to
hold, he had lost no time in snaking every effort by which
this by-legislation could berendered more open to Parlia-
ment. In saying that much, he hoped it would not be
understood that he took credit to himself for arranging
and codifying the by-laws of the Committee of Council on
Education. That labour had been most admirably per-
formed, however by Mr. Lingham, the successor of Sir K.
Shuttleworth, who had devoted much time to the subject
and than whom the public had not amore efficient servant.
The minutes of council, from the Oast appointment of the
committee, were now in the hands of hon. members not only
chronologically arranged, as they were two years ago on
his own motion, but codified. Now the whole amount of the
vote was 66 ?,003., which could be divided under the three
following heads :- -157,0001. for building and furnishing
schools, 400,0001. for training various kinds of masters,
and 57,0001. for the management and inspection of the
schools, which included the staff. It would be seen that
there was an increase in this vote of 83,0001. as compared
with that of last year, and he had to appesl to the com-
mittee to say whether that increase was not a matter of
entire satisfactiOn. With regard to the increasing amount
of this vote, he would at once say he was not one of those
who took a gloomy view of the question, and thought the
vote would one thy assume the most formidable propor-
tions. On that point, however, he would submit his cal-
culations to the commitee. From the first commencement
of the system, they had expended in building schools the
sum of 1,000,00 I. That sum insestal in school buildings
and furniture, he would put at 6 per cent. as an annual
charge to the Treasury, amounting to 60,00:1. The cur-
rent expenses annually were 5:;0,0l0/., and therefore the
whole expenditure on account of edue igen was 56 ),0001.
per annum. The number of children in the schools war
80),0v0. Now, taking the paopullaastsiounmoinfgEtnhgalatnodn,e-Nelrigailietsh,
and Scotland at 21,000,000, m
of that number would be children within the age of
education, that nunsber would be 3,000,000. Deducting
from that number those who were educated in private
schools, or who bel ,ngsd to the upper classes, there would
remain about 2,000,0d0 children to be dealt with by those
schools. If, therefore, a sum of 40,000/. was the annual
charge for the Es; ueation of 800,000
children, an easy sum
led thew to the result that 1,41_0,00C/. would suffice for
the education of all the children whom they could p r-
sibly expect to come to the schools. But in that case
a great economy could ho effected in the normal and
training schools, and he had great seven to hope that a
sum of 1,030,€001. would prove abundantly sufficient to
meet all the wants of the system they had created.
He was happy to say that he belieyEd the question could
noses- be discussed upon party grounds in that 'house.
Whatever difference the! e might be among them as to ti e
mode in which the end should be attained, there could be,
and there was, he believed, none as to the end in view. It
would therefore, he believed, be satisfactory to the house
to know that the Royal Commission on the subject which
the house had agreed to on the motion of his right hon.
friend the First Loud of the Admiralty recently requested
her Majesty to appoint, was now completed and would be