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the indirect taxation of the country ought to be increased, not diminished, and therefore the paperduty should not be repealed.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 they proposed to remit; otherwise his speech, he said, tended only to bewilder. He admitted that the remission of the war duties on tea and sugar would afford great relief, but the decision of the Government in favour of the paper-duty was founded upon a careful examination of conflicting claims. He denied that this was a concession to the rich, and he showed that the effect of the Excise on paper checked the manufacture of the article, and operated as a positive prohibition of experiments that would create new trades for the employment of labour. He insisted that the repeal of the paper-duty was in the spirit of the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and that paper had a stronger claim than glass, the Excise upon which had been repealed by him. The paper-duty burdened the trade in all its branches, and its effect was to create a chain of monopolies, or a system of narrow and exclusive trading, between the making of paper and the selling of books. The Resolution moved by Sir W. Miles, however, dealt with two different questions, and called upon the House to vote not only that the paper-duty should not be repealed, but that there should be no addition to the Income-tax; but he contended that they could not be combined. The Incometax had many vices, but it had one virtue-that, in the main, it did make the property of the country subservient to the uses of the State for beneficial purposes. Sir J. Pakington denied that the House had been under any engagement that, on the falling in of the Long Annuities, the amount should be applied to the reduction of indirect taxes; the understanding was, that it should go towards the repeal of the Income-tax. He implored the House to recollect that the Budget had done nothing for the working classes or for the holders of small incomes. Upon a division there appeared: For the amendment, 192; against it, 245-majority, 53. On the committal of the Bill, Mr. Bovill moved a Resolution in favour of allowing a drawback to printers and publishers of the duty paid upon their stock of paper purchased and printed after the passing of the Bill, and remaining in sheets unbound at the time when the duty would cease-viz., 15th August, 1860. The Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted this motion, as one to which the publishers had no equitable claim, and as likely to give great opening to fraud. The Resolution was negatived. On the third reading of the Bill, which was moved on the 8th of May, the opposition was renewed more vigorously, the feeling of anxiety as to the revenue having in the meantime gained ground, with the prospect of increased demands for the China war and the defences of the country. On this occasion an amendment was moved by Sir Stafford Northcote in the following terms :-"That the present state of the finances of the country renders it undesirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise duty on paper." The hon. baronet said, without maintaining that the paperduty was a tax which was free from objection, or one it was desirable to retain, he did not think the present was the right time to repeal it, or that the Resolution of the House in 1858 pledged it to do so. He objected to the whole financial scheme of the Government; he considered that they England.] HISTORY. were throwing away a large portion Mr. M. Gibson complained of financial grounds; it had been ad- Mr. Ball dilated on the injury at issue was whether since then 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 the financial plan of the Government. The principal points raised in the debate had been already decided. Whether it was wise or not on the part of the Government to propose a repeal of the paperduty, to be made up by an additional 1d. Income-tax, that additional 1d. had become law. The paper-duty had been long in bad odour with the House; its effect was to keep in limited bounds the manufacture from fibrous substances, which by the repeal of the duty might be liberated from shackles, and be enabled to pass those limits. This, however, was not the question at issue. The Resolution referred to the financial state of the country. The amount of the demands upon the public purse had been stated by the Government, accompanied by an avowal that the statement contained some elements of uncertainty; but, as far as regarded the present circumstances of the country, there was nothing, he affirmed (after reviewing the calculations of Sir S. Northcote), that would justify the Government in making new financial propositions to Parliament. He asked whether a case had ever been known in which the repeal of a tax had been proposed as a fundamental part of the financial scheme of the year, and deliberately approved by a large majority, and the Bill had been arrested at the third reading. He did not question the right of the House of Commons, but it would be a new course of practice, and the effect would be to give a shock to publie confidence. It was necessary, above all things, in the matter of taxation, that the public should know when the voice of Parliament had been uttered, and the House had in this case given a promise to the country, which it would be neither just nor wise to recall. Mr. T. Baring dissented from many of the views of Mr. Gladstone. The House had to consider, he said, whether, looking to the future and what might happen next year, we were in a condition to part with a source of revenue which did not press upon the productive powers of the country. Mr. Disraeli observed that the amendment raised a very simple issue, which was entitled to the grave and earnest consideration of the House-namely, whether, in the financial position of the country, they were justified in taking the step to which the Government invited them. There were reasons for believing that, combining loss of revenue with excess of charge, the amount of deficiency arising since the Budget was brought in would nearly equal the produce of the paper-duty. And, besides this, there was the expense of fortifications. Mr. Gibson had represented the financial ground of discussing the expediency of repealing this duty as a low one; but he (Mr. Disraeli) maintained that a sound state of the revenue was the only foundation on which to place the improvement of the people. The paper-duty was not to be remitted, as Mr. Gibson seemed to argue, whether we could afford it or not. He protested against the doctrine laid down by Mr. Gladstone, that when once the House had consented to the remission of a tax it could not recede, citing instances in which the House had reconsidered and receded from its vote in matters of taxation. In the course of a very severe criticism of Mr. Glad |