part of the community, they would add in time of peace to an odious burden.

Mr. Norris opposed the amendment. In reply to the assertion that the paper-duty was not an element of cost in books, he insisted that, in many of the cheaper classes of books used in schools this duty added from 5 to 20 per cent. to the price paid by the purchaser. He referred to the admission of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that the collection of the duty, owing to the difficulty of defining what paper is, was beset with embarrassments.

Mr. A. Mills supported the amendment.

Mr. Black opposed it. Upon every principle of political economy, he contended, if the cost of the raw material was reduced, the price of the manufactured article must be diminished. The additional Id. Income-tax was not to be put in competition with the repeal of the paper-duty.

not falling off. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue objected to it because of the difficult cases which were brought before them. But he looked upon their Report as made to order. He diverged into details upon the subjects of direct and indirect taxation, arguing that, according to every principle of sound finance, all classes ought to pay alike, and, if so, the indirect taxation of the country ought to be increased, not diminished, and therefore the paperduty should not be repealed.

Mr. M. Gibson said, after the commercial treaty with France had been agreed to by the Housewhich had approved the general policy of the financial scheme of the Government, that fiscal arrangements should be made to give remissions of indirect taxation-the question now was, not between the paper-duty and the income-tax, but between the former and some other branch of indirect taxation. Why did the GovernMr. Maguire likewise opposed ment select the paper-duty? After the Resolution. In replying to Sir a careful review of our indirect W. Miles and Mr. Stanhope, he taxation, they could not overlook showed how the paper-duty, which this duty, and they found that for was an unfair tax, affected the the last twenty-five years those small tradesmen in Ireland. It who were entitled to the greatest pressed, indeed, upon all who used weight in Parliament had looked paper in any way, and the trade forward to its repeal as an object was fettered and obstructed by it. to be accomplished as soon as possible. The Resolution of the House that this duty was not to be a permanent source of our taxation was part of a long, uniform system of condemnation which the duty had received, and the Government would have been culpable if they had given this Resolution the go-by. He complained of the reflection cast by Lord R. Cecil upon the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; the question was, he remarked, as to the truth of

Lord R. Cecil observed that what the House had to decide was, whether they preferred the paperduty or a 1d. Income-tax. In his opinion, the duty had marks upon it which placed it low in the list of duties which should be remitted. Its repcal would have no sensible effect upon the diffusion of knowledge and education, though it might benefit paper-makers and publishers. Why was it an untenable tax? It was increasing,

England.]

HISTORY.

the Report. He maintained that the Report was true, and that if the duty was to be retained, a Bill must be introduced to define what paper was, including in the definition articles which came in competition with paper, but which now escaped the duty. The question, after all, was whether the tax itself was of that character that its retention should be desired. The production of paper was smaller in this country than in the United States, where there was an absence of all restrictions. What was the reason of the crippled state of the manufacture here? He believed that the Excise survey and restrictions had something to do with it. The lamentation over the want of rags was not new. He believed that the repeal of the paper-duty would create a demand for the raw material, and that a supply would meet the demand. Flax fibre and other products of the land might be applied to this purpose, and become a source of profit to the agricultural and farming interest. He showed the oppressive effects of the duty upon the cheap press, by eating up its profits, and suggested the influence which its impoverishment must exert upon its quality. In this view, the paper-duty was really a tax upon knowledge, while it operated as an obstacle to the reward and the enterprise of authors.

Mr. Horsman observed that Mr. Gibson had not said one word upon the principle of the Bill, which, under the semblance of a measure dealing with a single duty, was in reality a proposal for a change of vast importance, not only on account of the principles it involved, but of the consequences to which it would lead. Having a million of taxes to remit, instead of relin

quishing the tea and sugar war
duties, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer preferred to remit the
paper-duty, because it would in-
crease employment. But so would
the remission of the tea and sugar
duties. The difference was, that
the one affected a rich class and
the other the labouring classes. It
was of the greatest importance-
socially, morally, and politically-
that the latter should receive the
best wages; and, if their money
payment could not be increased,
the remission of the taxes on tea
and sugar would enable them to
buy more of these articles, or to
raise themselves in the social scale.
The question, then, was whether
most benefit would be conferred
by remitting the tea and sugar du-
ties, or the paper-duty. He said.
the object would be best attained
by remitting the former, and he
warned the House of the false
principle and the mischievous pre-
cedent they were establishing.
They could not rest here. Fresh
demands would be made for other
remissions; a premium would be
given for the agitation of classes.
This small precedent of filling up
a deficiency by a remission of an
indirect tax, and laying on a direct
tax,-shifting the whole burden of
taxation upon one class,-would
He concluded a speech replete with
effect a complete fiscal revolution.
point and sarcasm with some se-
vere remarks, directed against Mr.
Gladstone, and by denouncing the
Bill as a flagrant abandonment of
The Chancellor of the Exche-
the principles of Sir Robert Peel.
quer, after a temperate notice of
the invective of Mr. Horsman,
vote he intended to give; whether
professed not to understand the
he considered that the Government
had made a bad choice in the tax

England.]

HISTORY.

were throwing away a large portion
of our indirect taxation without
establishing the principles upon
which the direct taxation to be
substituted for it was to be based.
He referred to the financial state-
ment of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and pointed out certain
discrepancies between that state
ment and the estimates before the
House, which exhibited an excess
to be provided for. He argued
thence that it was necessary, be-
fore going further in the reduction
of indirect taxation and throwing
away a tax for ever, to go into the
Estimates and Expenditure, and
ascertain the financial condition of
the country. He urged other con-
siderations-the state of the com-
mercial treaty with France, and
the expediency of taking time for
putting our direct taxation upon a
better footing-to the same effect,
and he concluded by moving his
amendment.

Mr. M. Gibson complained of
the course taken by Sir S. North-
cote. It was contrary to all pre-
cedent, he contended, after the
Bill, which had been debated on
the second reading, had passed
the Committee, and the drawbacks
had been settled, for the third
reading to be met by a motion to
hold the question in suspense.
Such a course was not consistent
with justice to the important in-
dustry connected with the tax, and
to the large capital employed in it,
and it struck at the root of the confi-
dence reposed in that House. The
speech of Sir S. Northcote at-
tacked the whole principle of the
Budget; he would take the finances
out of the hands of the Govern-
ment, laying down a scheme en-
The repeal of the
tirely new.
paper-duty did not stand on mere

financial grounds; it had been ad-
vocated upon high moral grounds,
affecting the interests of education,
of literature, and of general know-
ledge.

Mr. Ball dilated on the injury
which would be inflicted on the
paper-makers, if this Bill passed, by
the unfair competition to which they
Mr. Puller said the question
would be exposed with foreigners.
raised by Sir S. Northcote as to
the expediency of repealing the
The real point
Excise duty on paper had been
already decided.

at issue was whether since then
any fresh circumstances had arisen
to induce the House to reconsider
its decision and reserve the duty
for another year. This involved a
question of confidence in the Go-
vernment, and those who had that
Lord H. Vane wished for some
confidence would vote for the Bill.
explanation of the fact alleged by
Sir S. Northcote, that larger esti-
mates might be expected, before
he consented to a considerable
sacrifice of revenue, by parting
with a duty to which, though it was
not desirable to retain it perma-
nently, the country had been long
accustomed.

Mr. Ellice said he felt it his duty, most reluctantly, to vote against the third reading of this Bill. The resources of the country had been placed in jeopardy by the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had framed his Budget this year. This tax, he admitted, was an odious one, but he desired to wait a fitter time for its repeal.

Sir H. Farquhar opposed the third reading of the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded the House that they were not debating the principles of