The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

year's 10d.; but.of course if that arrangement were altered,
it would involve the loss of a considerable portion of the
year's revenue. The right hon. gentleman spoke of the
change as a matter of mere excise regulation ; but in point
of fact, in order that there might be no mistake about it,
he had introduced it into the income tax bill of last year.

It was, indeed, previously the law of the land that the tax

should be collected quarterly, but there was no sufficient
authority to bind the revenue officers to account quarterly,
and it had therefore been determined that the change should

bo effected by actual legislation. It was the opinion of the
authorities that the alteration made the system much more
effective and manageable, and it was of course the duty of
those who wished for a change to point out the na►ure of
the alteration which they desired. Last year the change
was naturally felt to bear hard upon the taxpayer, but that
was because an additional amount of tax was levied. Apart
from that, however, it was believed that the public, would
find it more agreeable to pay the money in tour sums rather
than in two. (Hear.)

Mr. CONINGHAM thought it was a hardship upon the
railway companies, that they alone should be obliged to
collect the income tax payable by such of their servants as
were paid by weekly wages.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the hon.- gentleman was not quite accurate in supposing
that the railway companies stood alone in the respect to
which he referred. No complaint had been made by they
companies, but the matter should be considered.
In answer to Sir S. NORTHCOTE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER added that
the assessment for the present year would be a new one,
and would not include the same years as the last.
SirlV. JOLLIFFE repeated that he would bring the sub-
ject of his former remarks before the house at a later stage.
Mr. RICARDO was glad to hear that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would consider the ease of the railway com-
panies, which had often to pay the tax for their servants.
Mr. BRISCOE thought that the returns should be made
to the officer of the district, as such hardships often arose►
from the necessity of persons going with their appeals tcl.
Somerset-house.

Mr. CONINGHAM pointed out a difficulty in deducting
he tax from persons in the receipt of weekly wages, Who

might be one week working for a railway company, and the

next fbr a private yard.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
if there was any provision in the law which operated harshly

on such persons as had been alluded to, it was his business

to examine it. With respect to the complaint by his hon.
friend behind him, it was true a clerk might have only £l2o

a year salary, and still he might have up £l5O from other
sources. He did not understand that it was necessary for
a man who claimed abatement to attend personally at
Somerset-house.

Mr. HANKEY opposed the re-enactment of the tlanse.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE made an observation which did
not reach the gallery.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected
to raising so many questions in committee. A new assess-
ment would be made.
Mr. HENLEY asked when ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must first
know when the bill would receive the royal assent, but the
legal liability to spay would not depend on the new assess-
ment.

Mr. HENLEY said that a quarter of the new tax would
be due at Midsummer. When did the right hon. gentle•.
man expect to get his new returns ? The payments had
been most ridiculously chopped about during the last 16
months, so that no man knew when he might expect the
collector. There ought to be a proper time fixed for making
these assessments.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no power to hurry the country commissioners in making
the assessments. The Government would make all possible,
preparations before the law was passed, but until it had
passed they could not be put in operation.

Mr. HENLEY hoped the right hon. gentleman would
see that due time was given for the purpose. He trusted
that no undue pressure would be exercised.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
know what the right hon. gentleman meant by undue pres-
sure. Nothing would be done that was not necessary to the
collection of the tax.
Clause 3 was agreed to.

PAPER (EXCISE) DUTIES.
On clause 4 (the Paper Duties),
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER added
some verbal amendments.

Mr. K. SEYMER said that his constituents were univer-
sally opposed to the clause now before the committee. In the
same way as noble lords who generally supported the Govern-
ment in the other house had last year voted against the repeal
of the paper duty, many of the electors in his (Mr, K, Say-
mer' s) district, who were on the same side,were now inclined
to look unfavourably on the budget. The fact was that
when the budget was first published people were so agree-
ably surprised at finding there was to be a reduction instead
of an increase of taxation that they were not inclined to in-
quire too curiously into the existence of a surplus, or as to
how that surplus was to be disposed of. Since then, how-
ever, cooler counsels had recovered their influence. The
lamentable account. from America, which must affect the
revenue, and the protest of the China merchants respecting
the indemnity, had thrown great doubt upon the surplus,
and with regard to the paper duty had decided the people
as to the inexpediency of its remission. Ile could say for
his constituents that their unanimous feeling was that an
injudicious moment had been chosen. (Hear, hear.) As to
the constitutional question, the people were so satisfied that
the House of Lords had acted rightly last y ear that it had
been found quite impossible to get up any excitement on the
subject. Even this year, notwithstanding all the interesting
discussions they had had, the people remained equally apa-
thetic. The fact was, that the constitutional question was
one which they cared little about; they allowed it to bo
fought out in that house, but it was beyond their range of
thought, and they were content that it should be dealt with
by that house. - What was the objection which existed to
the paper duty ? Why, that it was an excise duty. Every-
one knew that excise duties were most objectionable. He
had himself voted for the repeal of the paper duty; ho had
voted for the repeal of the malt tax—(hear, hear)—but it
did so happen that that was a year and a half ago, before
this question of the paper duties was discussed. He had
lately addressed his agricultural constituents, and had
told them that although the paper duty and the malt
tax were most objectionable, yet they must not
expect him to repeat either of those votes on this occa-
sion. Whatever mystification there might be in the house,
there was none in the country. (Hear, hear.) People in
the country very well understood how it was that a man
might vote for the repeal of a tax generally, and yet not
vote for its repeal at a particular time. But if they had to
I consider the question of excise duties in general there was
a-case which he (Mr. K. Seymer) could not help thinking
irresistible, he meant the case of the hop duties; and if the
right hon. gentleman were really in possession of a surplus,
he (Mr. K. Seymer) could not conceive how he could have
steeled his heart against the case of the hop growers,
which had been so ably argued by the hon. members for
Kent and Sussex in that house. They found no applica-
tions for relief from the paper makers—no application in
forma pauper is for a remission of duty, for a postponement
of duty, and the like. (Hear, hear.) Instead of complain-
ing of the excise duty, what they complained of was the
French treaty—(hear, hear)—and the peculiar position in
which they were placed by the requirements of the French
treaty. Indeed one honourable member had gone so far
as to say that the circumstance of the scarcity of the raw
material made the ordinary conditions of free trade inap-
plicable to the case. That circumstance fully disposed of all
the sanguine expectations of the right hon. gentleman as
to the increase in the manufacture of paper. The prospects
of the papers makers were that there woul.TdfyhtbaeexaaGntiooinvnecmremas Government
manufacture, but that it would take place in foreign coun-
tries. There was no analogy between the case of the excise
duty on paper and the excise duty on bricks, glass, and
soap, because with respect to all those there was no scarcity
of the raw material. It was otherwise with regard to paper.
This was the great disadvantage to which the paper maker
was exposed ; and as the hon. member for Birmingham
said, it was not a competition to which the British manu-
facturer ought to be exposed. They objected, therefore*
to the abolition of a permanent source of taxation la
the face of a war expenditure. (Hear, hear.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer complained of the elotra_vrif
of the public expenditure, and then went on to ray,
you will spend £70,000,000, I will "7:wtoliim
—" take off the paper duty I" This appeared
o,s sequitur. The
K. Seymer) to be a meat extraordinerY
hav:said, he would re-
right hon, gentleman should rattle;
impose new taxes.of the
i hpeeoipnletenodfetlaiiato
(Hear, htealr3.od9Nor waswtehi.ulsd afindudtyit
dluro If he attempted to
latihne:Era.xcdhequer wish to in
which pressed upon the grant
country.tit
hwnr ooteintroduce
ddreuoelpee economy_eadDoi
tt
oe idthcbtr
increased
osch a nehe
cte:ed(op means,
uxtpne
nathrft,
he certainly
andG odious,br not
,of expenditure übreelobwy making
th
the Coast of DorsetshieregaangpwerafyeCt
aredfroeasruciueatoirYct:al;toironhuns at Portland were quite a study for
were
force
rcteehtheforming
thetar ;curious in engineering matters; and the result would be
that they would
very require in peace ave large additional
force of artillerymen. The same process
was going on else-
where ; in the Medway, at Portsmouth and Plymouth. Was
it in these measures that the Government calculated any
great reduction of taxation ? The noble lord at the head of
the Government knew very well that the country must be
kept in a state of defence. The noble lord was popular in
the country, and the reason of his popularity was that
people believed the noble lord would defend the honour of
his country. They liked him because he had often stood
up manfully against hon. members below the gangwayt
and especially against the hon. member for Birmingham.
(Hear, hear.) And if there was any distrust of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, as he (Mr. Seymer) believed there
was— (hear, hear)—notwithstanding the high character
and splendid abilities of the right hon. gentleman, it was
because he had shown himself rather inclined to the econo-
mical and financial doctrines of hon. gentlemen below the
gangway. What hon. members on that side of the house
said was-4g If we are about to undertake this great expen-
diture, you ought to relieve the people of those duties which
press upon the necessities of life as they may be called—
tea and sugar." By this means also they would re-
cover a great deal of the duty they wore taking
give aMt 4121)4148 to fortis; trAdo, a mild sot, 02"-