Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose for the purpose of submitting to the consideration of the House the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Quarantine Dues, and, in doing so, he called their attention to the report of a Select Committee, appointed to consider the subject some years ago. That Committee condemned the whole of our quarantine system, and, more especially, that part relating to the mode of levying the fees. The Report stated—"The Committee are convinced, that the charge of quarantine should be borne by the public, and not by the shipowners or merchants, as the quarantine is imposed solely for the protection of the public. The Committee recommend to the House to remove and abrogate all fees now paid by ships performing quarantine." It was in consequence of the recommendation of this Committee that the tonnage and poundage duty was repealed, and other changes in our commercial policy took place. Shortly after this a Bill was brought into Parliament for the consolidation of the quarantine laws, and it distinctly stated, that all Acts were repealed, and all fees were abolished, except those authorized by Act of Parliament. There was no Act to authorize the levying these charges. The preamble of the Act 6th George 4th, cap. 78, said—"Whereas it is expedient to repeal the several laws relating to the performance of quarantine, and to 1195 make other provisions in lieu thereof; be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, &c., that from and after the 1st day of June, 1825, all and every Act, and all parts of the Acts of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relating to the performance of quarantine, or relating to the charging any duty or duties upon vessels which may be liable to or have performed quarantine, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed, save and except such Acts and such parts of Acts as relate to the payment and recovery of any duties imposed by the said Acts or parts of Acts, which shall be due and unpaid on the 1st day of June by any person or persons under any or either of the said Acts," &c. &c. It was his opinion, that since the passing of that Act, founded upon the Report of that Committee, the levying of those duties on the shipowners was illegal. In the first place, the fee itself was heavy, being 5l. 14s. 6d., but the way in which it operated was particularly oppressive, for no difference whatever was made in the fee, no matter what might be the size of the vessel. Thus it happened in one instance, that a vessel from Hamburgh, having only a cargo to the amount of 16l., had actually to pay nearly 6l. for quarantine dues. Independent of this, there was so much trouble and loss of time, that the fee in reality amounted to 7l. or 8l. for the shipowner had to send his clerk to attend at the Council office. It might be said, probably, by his right hon. friend, that the shipowner or merchant must receive this sum back in freight. He must deny, that this would be the case, for it was impossible to calculate upon the probability of a ship being compelled to perform quarantine. He knew that was the case with ships coming from the Baltic; for when the agreement, relating to the freight was made, the shipowner had no conception that his vessels would have to endure it. He believed, that in no other European country were such heavy charges made. He freely admitted, that for public safety, the Government had a right to impose a quarantine upon, all vessels coming from infected places, but then the expense of this ought to be thrown upon the public, and not upon individuals, particularly where it operated so very unequally, a ship of 600 tons burden paying only the same fees as a vessel of the 1196 smallest class. The hon. Alderman concluded by moving a resolution to the effect—"That it is inexpedient to subject vessels placed under quarantine to the payment of the sum of 5l. 14s. 6d. for their order of release by the Lords of the Privy Council."
§ Mr. Dixonseconded the Motion; in doing which, he observed, that he could add nothing to the forcible statement of his hon. friend. It must be evident that the shipowner was harshly treated, by having these fees exacted from him, when the quarantine was established for the public benefit.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsoncould not altogether agree in the principle laid down by the hon. Alderman, that this was a tax on the shipping interest. It was a tax paid in aid of the revenue of the country; in the first instance, by the owners of ships, but ultimately by the consumers; and the shipowners, of course, had a return for the amount thus paid, by charging an increased rate of freight. Without entering further into the general question, however, he would at once admit, that it was an impolitic mode of paying a certain sum into the revenue, and he had the pleasure to state, that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government to put an end to the payment of this duty altogether, on the 1st of next January. When the hardship of this payment was commented upon, it should be considered, that the expenses of the quarantine establishment averaged 30,000l. a-year, and it was not so very unreasonable, that ships subjected to the quarantine regulations should pay a certain sum towards defraying this expense. If the expense of the quarantine establishment was not provided for in this way, it must be provided for out of the general revenue, and he thought, that much more than the sum received in this way was expended in carrying into effect the quarantine regulations. He contended, that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic had not been taken unawares by the levying of this tax on them during the last year, as they had chartered their ships with the full knowledge that it was to be exacted. He could not at all agree with the proposition of his hon. friend, that the duty should be immediately relinquished on ships coming from the Baltic, because it would be saddling the country with an additional expense, and making the owners of the ships which should ar- 1197 rive during the remainder of the year a present of that sum. He had no objection to give them the benefit of that sum, but on the present occasion he thought it would not be fair to the public. The hon. Alderman said, that the sum received during the present year, under this head, exceeded the amount on former occasions, by 25,000l. or 26,000l. It was to be considered, however, that its proportion to the whole expense of carrying into effect the quarantine regulations was not greater than before. The whole amount of the expense had necessarily increased, and it would be unfair to the country at large to increase it further by forfeiting the fees due on the ships which should come for the next half year. Under all the circumstances, he hoped, that the House would concur with him, that it was advisable as regarded the revenue, and only just to the country, not to carry into effect the determination of Government before the time stated. The hon. Alderman said, he knew of no country in which the quarantine fees were so considerable as in this. Now, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) knew of no country in which they were so light. In all parts of the south of Europe, quarantine dues were a horrible exaction, and he believed it would greatly promote the general interests of commerce, if we could induce foreign countries to follow our example, and reduce these fees.
Mr. Warburtonwas happy to find, that the difficulty was reduced to such narrow limits. The only question was, whether those fees were to be abolished in the middle of September, or on the 1st of January, 1832. So long as those fees were retained, it would be granting a bonus to ships to evade the quarantine regulations, and, therefore, the sooner they were taken off the better. He agreed that the tax fell, like all others, eventually on the consumer; but it was not fairly levied in this instance. The small vessels paid as much as the large, and the owners of the small vessels could not possibly bring back the money into their pockets by an increase of freight. He hoped, upon every ground, that the tax would be immediately taken off.
Mr. Maberlythought the Government had met this question with great firmness and fairness, and that they ought not to be pressed to reduce the duty sooner. It was admitted, that the tax ought not to continue to be levied on individuals, but 1198 its abolition was postponed till the 1st of January, because a large proportion of the vessels subject to quarantine had already paid; and he thought the shipping interest ought to be satisfied with the assurance, that they would have to pay the tax no longer than up to the 1st of January.
Mr. Humehoped to be able to convince his Majesty's Government, that they ought, not only immediately to reduce the tax, but, that they ought to repay what they had received from the owners of vessels trading to the Baltic, since January last. It had never before entered into the head of any individual, to charge vessels coming from the north of Europe a quarantine fee; and the freights of those vessels, from time immemorial, were calculated without any reference to such a charge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually in possession of 25,000l., or 30,000l., which he ought never to have had; and if he (Mr. Hume) had a ship clearing out, he would resist this charge as illegal. Those fees, when levied on the Turkey and Levant traders, were not intended, originally, to defray the expense of the quarantine charges. They arose out of an abuse in the public offices, and it was in 1784, on finding their enormous amount, that a Committee recommended, that they should be applied in aid of the public revenue. It was never contemplated, under the Act of Parliament imposing quarantine regulations, that the owners of ships should pay a shilling fee, and, as a matter of justice, the exaction should be put an end to at once. When the rate of freight to the Baltic was considered, and the increased expense to which the owners were subject for provisions and wages, consequent upon the quarantine regulations, it was quite clear they could not put a shilling in their pockets for freight; and it was very hard, under such circumstances, to oblige them to pay a fine of 5l. 14s. 6d. As a matter of fairness and right, he hoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to abolish the duty immediately, and to refund what he had received from the Baltic traders.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he had suffered, and was suffering, by the payment of those dues; but he had no objection that they should be levied until January, and then finally abolished.
Mr. Humesaid, it was very well for his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) to speak for 1199 himself; but he (Mr. Hume) spoke for others who were not so well able to afford to pay those dues as his hon. friend.
§ Mr. George Robinsondid not think that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic, ought to be exclusively considered. They were subjected this year to the quarantine fees, because a contagious disease prevailed in that part of the world, which made it necessary to place them under quarantine regulations. Government had expressed its willingness to concede the abolition of those dues; but he could not at all agree with his hon. friend (the member for Middlesex) that the reduction should be retrospective, and that Government should refund the fees received since January last. If the measure was retrospective, they should go back much further than January. He thought it would be entirely satisfactory to the shipping interest, if the fees were abolished from this day forward.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleyexpressed his satisfaction at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson), that it was intended to discontinue demanding those fees after the 1st of January next; but he should have been much better pleased if the quarantine fees were abolished at the present moment. The amount of this duty was very small when compared with the general revenue, and he thought his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be conferring a great benefit on the shipping interest if the duty was made to cease from the present time. The sum of 5l. 14s. 6d. was really a great object to many persons in the shipping trade.
Lord George Bentinckagreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that under the 5th George 4th, Government was not entitled to levy any fee whatever on the owners of ships subject to the quarantine regulations. The tax pressed very heavily on many of the shipowners of Lynn, who had to pay it perhaps three times in a season. It was a great mistake to suppose that this tax did not fall exclusively on the shipowners. Ships going to the Baltic had to compete with those engaged in the North American trade, and a shipowner having the option of going to either place for a cargo, would, of course, prefer that place not charged with these fees. The shipowner trading to the Baltic was not able to raise his freight, and consequently the loss fell on him.
§ Lord Althorpobserved, that, looking at this as a mere question of justice, he thought the fees should not cease until the month of January. The vessels were chartered under the impression that the tax was to be paid, and it was more just that the ships now abroad should continue to pay when they came back, until the end of the present year. He had heard nothing to convince him, that the arrangement proposed by his right hon. friend was not consistent with justice.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that if the tax was to be abolished instanter, he should not press his motion; but otherwise he could not consent to withdraw it.
§ Lord William Lennoxstrongly urged the worthy Alderman to persevere in his motion. It was unjust that ships of 250 tons should pay the same as those of 600. Besides, as most vessels in the course of the year made two voyages, most ships had already paid one fee; it would be quite fair to take the fee off from the present time. It seemed doubtful whether the tax was legal; at all events, it was highly inequitable, that individuals should pay for the benefit of the public at large.
§ The House divided on the Resolution: Ayes 20; Noes 64—Majority 44.