The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LUNDON,] TZESDAY EVENITIG, APRIL 16, 1861.

them as to give them an urgent, imperative, and para-
mount claim upon the attention of Parliament. The other
two subjects which must occur to the minds of the commit-
tee are those which were likewise associated together in the
legislative proposals of last year and in the debates of this
house; I mean what is called the tenth penny on the in-
come tax and the repeal of the paper duty. (Hear.) When
her Majesty's Government proposed the repeal of the duties
upon paper the issue was raised by my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Sdmersetshire (Sir W. Miles), representing the Op-
position, of course, in the form which he thought was most
favourable to himself, but which undoubtedly involved no
unfairness and could not be complained of—viz., that the
10th penny of the income tax was imposed in order to bring
about the repeal of the duties upon paper. These are the
subjects upon the discussion of which I wish to enter at this
moment, and to which I invite the particular attention of
the committee. And here we are faced by the old question
between direct and indirect taxation. I take some credit to
myself that I have never entered into the debates upon that
subject. I have always thought it idle for a person holding
the position of Finance Minister to trouble himself with
what to him is necessarily an abs tract question—viz,, the
question between direct and indire,lt taxation, each consi-
dered upon its own merits. To many people both appear
sufficiently repulsive. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) As for
myself I confess that I entertain quite a different opinion.
1 never can think of direct and indirect taxation except as I
should think of two fair sisters who have been introduced
into the gay world of London, each with an ample fortune,
both having the same parentage—for the parents of both 1
believe to be necessity and invention—having somewhat
different manners, one being more free and open, and the
other more retiring and insinuating. (Laughter.) I cannot
conceive any reason why there should be any unfriendly
rivalry between the admirers of these two damsels ; and I
frankly own, whether it be due to a lax sense of morals or
not, that, as a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a member of
this house, I have always thought it not only allowable but
even an act of duty to pay one's addresses to them both.
(Laughter.) lam therefore perfectly impartial as between
direct and indirect taxation; but this I must say, that with
regard to the remission of indirect taxes, I hope that the
memorable history of the last 20 years will never be forgot-
ten, for I do not scruple to state that if you look to its eco-
nomical, and then to its political, social, and moral results,
it is difficult to know which to prefer. (Hear.) If we had not
gained a shilling by the remission of indirect taxation, it
would have been worth having for the sake of the manner
in which it has knit together the intereets and feelings of all
classes from one end of the nation to the other. (Cheers.)
If, on the other hand, it bad had nothing to do with any
question of moral and social results, still the merely econo-
mical results in promoting the material well-being of the
people have been so signal and extraordinary, that we may
well rejoice to have lived in a period during which it has
been our happy lot to take part in bringing about such
changes. (Cheers.) But, Sir, there cannot be a grosser de-
lusion than the supposition that the work of Parliament has
been to destroy indirect taxation. The business in which
Parliament has been employed has been the business of
pruning the tree—not to destroy it, but in order to streng-
then it and give it greater size and vigour; and the conse-
quence is that at this moment, when indirect taxation has
been destroyed and undermined in the public mind, as the
phrase is, not once but four or five times over, indirect taxa-
tion is larger and more productive, I do not mean in this
particular year, but upon the average of the last two or
three years, than at any former period of our history. This
recalls to my mind the tree of golden leaves which has been
described by Virgil, from which his hero was ordered to
pluck a branch, and on which the moment one branch was
plucked another took its place. The poet says :

Primo avulso non deficit alter
" Aureus ; et simili frondescit virga metallo."

And he goes on with advice which we shall do well to fol-
low :

"Ergo alto vestiga ocalis, et rite repertum
" Carpe menu."
I believe that Parliament has done much of what is to be
accomplished in that matter, but yet something may remain,
and I trust that the House of Commons will not hold its
hand when favourable circumstances shall offer, but will
from time to time carry on so good a work within the limits
of prudence and justice. But, Sir, in speaking thus of indi-
rect taxation I cannot deny that remissions of direct taxation
are just as desirable, and las fully feel as gentlemen op-
posite may feel that our direct taxation has reached a
point at which it is most desirable that we should if we can,
begin at least to apply to it the process of reduction. (Op-
position cheers.) Ido not think that the condition of this
country with regard to its finances can be wholly satisfactory
when, in time of peace, the income-tax stands at 10d. in the
pound. (General cheers.) I know very well that lam sup-
posed to be under a special responsibility not only for the
amount, but for the existence of the income-tax. (Hear.)
It has often been charged upon me, and I believe is to this
day alleged that it is my duty, whatever be the circum-
stances, and whatever be the, expenditure, to find means of
abolishing that tax with or without a substitute. I must
confbss that I think that is a hard imposition. I should like
very much to be the man who could abolish the income •tax.
I do not abandon altogether the hope that the time may come
(A laugh, and hear, hear.) I can assure 'hon. gentlemen
that I am:not going to be too sanguine. I was going to quote
the Rev. Sydney Smith, who in his admirable pamphlet
upon the ballot, speaking of soma rcry- i omoto result, says,
I think we had better leave the care of this subject to
those little legislators who are now receiving a plum or a
cake after dinner." lam afraid that that course may be
I necessary with regard to the incomeetax. But in point of 1
fact this is a question cf expenditure—(cheers)—and I will
not speak of expenditure as a thing that can be suddenly
and rapidly dealt with. Upon all sudden attempts to re-
duce it, and upon all promises to make sudden, extensive,
and sweeping reductions in it,l should look with great sus-
picion and disfavour ; but, if the country is content to be
governed at a cost.of between £60,000,000 and £62,000,000
or £64,000,000 a-year, I do not believe that there is any
reason why it should not be so governed without the in-
come-tax, provided that Parliament so wills. (Hear, hear.)
If, on the other hand, it is the pleasure of the country to
be governed at a cost of between £70,000,000 and £75,000,000
a-year, it must be so governed with the aid of a consider-
able income-tax. That I believe to be the whole case, and
I really cannot conceive that my responsibility to abolish
the tax is so absolute as it has been represented by some
gentlemen. I think that it would be a most enviable lot
for any Chancellor of the Exchequer—l certainly do not
entertain any hope of itr—but I think that some better
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in some happier times, may
achieve that great accomplishment, and that some future
poet may be able to sing of him as Mr. Tennyson has sung
of Godiva,—although I do not suppose the means employed
will be the same,—
"He took away the tax,
" And built himself an everlasting name."
What we have now to do is to deal with a moderate surplus,
and her Majesty's Government think that, looking at all
the circumstances of the case, they may in the present year
propose to Parliament to remit from the income •tax the penny
which in 1860 they asked Parliament to impose. (Cheers.)
The cost of that change if it be accepted by the House of
Commons will be as follows :—Each penny of the income-
tax now yields about £1,100,000 a-year, and the remission
of this penny will in the course of the financial year cause a
loss of £850,000. The tax will then be levied at the rate of
9d. in the pound upon incomes of above £l5O a-year, and of
61. in the pound upon incomes below that amount. The 9d.,
it will be recollected, was imposed upon the country without
any reference to remissions of duty. It was imposed in 1859
to meet the necessary charges of the year, and it stands
totally disconnected from the financial and legislative mea-
sures of the country. The fourth of those subjects to which
I refer is the duty on paper; and her Majesty's Govern-
! ment feel that happily the time has now arrived when they
may approach the consideration of that question without
awakening adverse feeling, and when they may hope not
only that there will be no revival of a painful and arduous
controversy, hut that by so doing they may seal and bring
the controversy to a final close. (Hear, hear.) I have
heard but few members of this house object to the repeal
of the paper duty on the merits of that proposal. My right
hon. friend the member for Coventry on the third reading
of the bill for the repeal of that duty gave expression t,)
sentiments which certainly did not accord with my own
feelings at the moment, but which I admit were felt by
many members of this house. On the Bth of May, 1860,
—and his observations will spare me the necessity of enter-
ing again into detail on the question—his words were :
" With respect to the tax which we are now ellseassing, I
have not a word to say in its defence. It is about as odious
a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a tax which
interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an important branch
of manufacture, being almost the only tax"—
My right hon. friend might, perhaps, have gone further.

and said the only one—
"Of that description now left in our fiscal system, but it
also impedes the circulation of information and of know-
ledge. Upon all these grounds no man is more disposed to
repeal this tax, whenever we can do so without robbing the
Exchequer. But when we are called on to repeal it at the
risk of leaving a large deficit, or when we are called on to
impose other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we
should wait until some more favourable time presents itself."

My right hon. friend laid down two conditions. He said,
"I will not repeal this tax whilst there is any risk of a de-
ficit." I do not raise any old controversy, but I have shown
you on the figures that there is no risk of a deficit now. He

also said, "I will not repeal it when we are called on to
pro-pose other:taxes equally odious ;" and Ido not think I
am misrepresenting his speech when I say that his mean-
ing was—" I will not repeal the duty on paper if that re-
peal is to be purchased by the augmentation of the income
tax." I now invite the right hon. gentleman and the house
to concur in that repeal in conjunction, not with an aug-
mentation, but with the commencement of a diminution.
(Cheers.) When we consider the subject on its merits,
every man, I am sure, will admit the powerful considers..
tions that must concur in recommending the measure we
propose. There is the yet unredeemed pledge convoyed by
the resolution of this house. (Cheers.) There is the in-

creased and increasing difficulty of executing the law;
there is the conscientious and impartial declaration of the

department intrusted with the duty of collecting the tax ;
there is the important fact that the repeal of this tax received

the. sanction of a large majority of this house last year; and
though that majority dwindled on a subsequent occasion, it

dwinaled only in the face of the fact that new demands for

public purposes had come into view, and it was obvious that

new - haol, =mum allot be taken, t4OIIPPIY the yirailt4