The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

THE -1 SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 21, 1861.

sively to this side of the house have thought fit to join an
association for promoting the repeal of the paper duties.
The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, for whose
vote the country will look with interest to-night, and
the right hon, baronet the member for Herts,
whose vote upon a former occasion was given in the
manner that we Papeete,' from what we knew of him, are
members of an association for the repeal of the paper duties.
The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks is not
himself, as far as I know, a member of any such association.
Ho has probably acted upon the principle to which I have
always adhered, and, without censuring others, has de-
clined to be a member of any association outside the doors
of this house for Parliamentary purposes. But the object
has received the most distinct, conspicuous, and emphatic
support from the right hon. gentleman. The right hon.
gentleman voted for the repeal of the paper duties in 1850,
when the duty on tea was 2s. 2d. per lb. (Hear.) What did
the right hon. gentleman do in 1858 ? I am afraid I cannot
approach this part of the subject without coming to a point
on which I differ from my right hon. friend the President
of the Board of Trade, because in my opinion all abstract
resolutions on the subject of the extinction of taxes are im-
prudent and unwise. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend thought
differently, and he moved a resolution condemning the
paper duty, selecting it from all other duties, and making
no reservation in favour of tea. By his resolution he pledged
the house to the proposition that the paper duty should not
be permanently maintained, and that distinction was con-
ferred upon the paper duty alone. There was one gentleman
more responsible for that resolution than my right hon.
friend. My right hon. friend moved it as a private member
of Parliament—the right hon. gentleman accepted it as the
organ of a Government. (Cheers.) I confess that, as it ap-
pears to me, he did an imprudent act in acceding to that
resolution; but I confess also that it seems to me that, hav-
ing acceded to it, he would have done better to avoid the
temptation which has since been put in his path to endea-
vour to explain it away. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) Why, Sir,
the right hon. gentleman has since told us that that was a
hesitating resolution, passed in a languid house, and it was,
according to him, a resolution that meant that, at some
future time or other—probably in the days of our children
or grandchildren, when the war duties upon tea and sugar,
as they are called—and I will say a word upon that subject
by and by—had been disposed of, and the income tax was
extinguished, then, forsooth, we might proceed to repeal the
paper duty. But does the right hon. gentleman think that
he, as the organ of the Government, was right in advising
the house to give that pledge in the face of the country
—(hear, hear)—and does he think that he is using weapons
which are either safe or honourable when the House of
Commons is encouraged, in order to avoid some momentary
difficulty or to obtain some momentary favour—(hear, hear)
—to hold out promises of that kind which are to be
explained—l repeat the term—which are to be ex-
plained away in order to meet the prudential considera-
tions which exigencies may subsequently suggest ? (Oh,
eh.) The right hon. gentleman has to-night set up a
doctrine which, as far as I know, is entirely new. In the
first place, I must say that, differing in this respect very
much from some gentlemen who have spoken from that
side of the house, he has stated the issue with perfect fair-
ness. He made a comparison between an Excise and a Cus-
toms duty, and he said, " I admit at once that we are not
to look to the mere question to what extent a reduction is to
be effected in the price of some article of subsistence, but wo
are to look to the effect of oar measures upon the gene-
ral trade, industry, and employment of the country." With
respect to that 1 will only say that I entirely agree with the
right hon. gentleman as to the principle, but I believe it to
be impossible for any candid man, after any examination,
however cursory, of the facts of this case, to maintain that
the removal of some 3d., which is the utmost that could be
taken off the duty upon tea, would have anything like the
effect upon the industry of the eountry that we must in
common prudence anticipate from the abolition of the duty
on paper. (Hear, hear.) What is the effect of a Customs
duty ? The effect of a Customs duty is by burdening the
article to which it applies to limit the consumption. The
effect of an Excise duty so far considered is the same, but
over and above that effect an Excise has a serious in-
fluence through the medium of its restrictive regulations
and the indirect cost which it entails, which amounts not
merely to a burden, but, in many instances, to an absolute
prohibition. What was it that, in the year 1830, caused
Sir H. Parnell to designate this paper duty first among
those that called for repeal ? That was not the suggestion
of the hon. member for Birmingham, and every authority
from that time to this has concurred in that judgment.
The facts of the case as they concern the paper duty are
these. You are not simply to consider what is the incidence
of the duty upon the paper that is made in this country
—so far I grant that there is a certain parallelism between
that duty and the tea duty—what you must consider is,
what are the trades or branches of trade which are pesi •
tively prevented or extinguished by the operation of the
piper duty. Were this the time for details it would not be
difficult to state many such trades to the house. On a for-
mer occasion my noble friend mentioned one instance and I
mentioned another—and that might be greatly multiplied—
of a trade in paper, that is to say in sheets made of fibrous
materials, that is actually rendered impossible, or all but
impossible, in many cases quite impossible, by the opera-
tion of the paper duty. , The right hon. gentleman, feeling
the pressure of the argument, resorted to a doctrine which
I believe to be entirely novel, which I grant to be inge-
nious, and which I admit would have been entitled to in-
fluence our decision if it had been true—(a laugh)—by true,
of course I mean accurate. Ho said that the tea and sugar
duties are war duties, and that Parliament is under a pledge
to remove them. " Let us therefore," continued the right
hon. gentlemen, " let us above and before all things keep
faith with the nation." Now, sir, lam glad to get the
issue between us in some degree narrowed. If the first
part of this statement can be proved, I do not contest the
latter portion of it. I say "by all means let us keep faith
with the nation." But is it true that these are war duties ?
In what sense are they war duties ? Were they imposed in
time of war ? No. Were they imposed for the purposes of
war ? No. When were they imposed ? They were im-
posed in time of peace, and not for purposes of war. (Mur-
murs of disapproval on the Opposition benches.) Ido not
in the least complain of those murmurs. My desire is to
convey information, because I am sure that hon. gentle-
men, although they seem to muster as if for a party
struggle, are really actuated much more by a love of truth
and a desire to understand the facts of the case, of a great
many of which I do not think that they can possibly be
aware. (Cheers.) I want to know what is the meaning of
a war duty. Ido not now ask whether this expression
has prevailed as a cant phrase, or has been adopted as a
convenient one. Ido net know who is the author of it.
I cannot tell whether or not it has ever passed my lips.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition ibenches.) lam
not finding fault with the phrase, because I can under-
stand that if you treat it as a popular designation it is
so far true that the duties with which tea and
sugar are now burdened are higher than those
which were proposed before the Russian war. (Opposition
cheers.) But that does not make them war duties. Is the
present income-tax a war income-tex ? (Yes, yes, and
cheers.) The present income tax was imposed in 1859. Is
there, then, any pledge connected with the Russian war to
reduce the income-tax ? (Yes, and hear, hear.) Ido not
(Oh, oh, and hear, hear.)
speak
speak
ofanytime a
ot
th
e tax thatupo upon
s g
i ncoon b
me e s
imposed in 1859, and I say
that you may, if you choose, popularly call that a war in-
come• tax, because it is higher than the income-tax as it was
originally proposed—(hear, hear)—when we had an expen-
diture of £52,000,000 or £53,000,000 to provide for; but I
say that it would be ludicrous to call it a war income-tax in
the sense of founding upon that term an engagement—be-
cause that was what was done by the right hon. gentleman—
an engagement, to reduce that tax as if it had been an income
tax laid for the purposes of war. If there is no such engage-
ment, the whole argument of the right hon. gentleman falls
to the ground. What I say of the tea and sugar duties is
this. In the first place, however, I must complain of the
unfairness which is practised upon this subject. Again and
again we are told how wrong it is—and an endeavour is
made to delude the public upon the subject; again and
again the people have been told that it is absurd to repeal
the paper duty instead of repealing the war tea and sugar
duties. (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord the member
for Staffordshire considers that a fair statement of the case,
does he ? (Hear, hear.) Now, that is exactly the point
to which I want to bring the committee. The noble lord
says that, instead of repealing the paper duty, we oaght to
repeal the war tea and sugar duties, the repeal of the paper
duty entailing a loss this year of £OOO,OOO, and ultimately
of £1,250,000, while the abolition of the war duties upon
tea and sugar would cause a loss of £2,500,000. • (Cries
of " No, no," and "Hear, hear.") The right hon. baronet
the member for Droitwich denies that statement. I beg
leave to say that, speaking in round numbers, I have stated
accurately what would have been the cost for the year
of repealing 'what are called the war duties upon tea and
sugar, and I do not think that it can be denied that it is
grossly unfair to represent the repeal of the paper duty to
the public as if it prevented the repeal of another duty
which would cost more than twice the money. [Sir J.
Pakington was understood to say that no proposal had been
made for the sacrifice of so large an amount of revenue.] I
am stating that this is the way in which the subject has
been repeatedly handled in speeches, and the way in which
it is constantly represented to the public. I have in my
hand the last and most authentic instance of this unfair-
ness. You say that the people arc entirely in favour of
your policy—(hear, hear)—and you challengea reference to
the people. We have had an election within the last few
days. (Loud and derisive cheering from the Opposition
benches.) We have had an election within the last few
days, and the issue raised by that election was a very de-
finite ono, because a most respectable,:rnost competent, and
well-qualified gentleman made his appeal to the consti-
tuents, whose suffrages he solicited entirely upon the
ground of opposition to the financial measures of the ,
Go-
vernment. Here is his address, and in it a mode of state-
ment is adopted which I have no doubt was suggested from
head-quarters. In the most anti- entic manner, as if he had
undergone a regular ti aining through a course of these de-
The classes,
permanent
sacrifice e then
of says 1
de-
bates, he runs through the old points of the surplus, the
state of the national finances, and the comfort of the la-
bouring ,
seems to be imprudent at present, and the consequent main-
ys7
6.
500,000 of Paper Duty
tenauce of the war duties upon tea and sugar, those neces-
sary articles of consumption in every home, appears unjust."
(rlurmaure from the Opposition benches.) I merely state,