HC Deb 09 June 1853 vol 127 cc1352-9

House in Committee on the Customs, &c. Acts.

On the Motion that, in lieu of the present charges, oranges and lemons pay 8d. the bushel,

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, that he approved the change that had taken place in now charging them by the bushel; but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have gone further than he had gone. Oranges and lemons deserved at least as much of his attention as apples, pears, or cherries, for they were enjoyed by the poor, and they did not interfere with any article of home growth; yet whilst those other articles were reduced one-half, oranges and lemons were reduced only about one-third. There was, on those grounds, no reason why he should deal with them otherwise than as he had dealt with other raw fruits; and, besides, it must be remembered that these were articles from foreign and distant lands—that there was a large and would be an increasing trade in them—and that the case was one in which all the advantages derivable from unrestricted trade would probably he derived. Whether, therefore, they looked upon these as articles not coming into competition with our own cottage and market gardens, or as a trade susceptible, by increased consumption, of considerable increase, cither way he thought they should be put on the same footing as the other fruits he had mentioned; and therefore his proposition was that the duty on them should be 6d. a bushel instead of 8d., the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. J. WILSON

, being a freetrader, was not going to oppose the hon. Baronet's arguments, but would simply state the case. Hitherto the articles under consideration had been charged by the measure of the packages—an inconvenient mode. Now, not only had they reduced the duties, but they had also arranged to charge by the bushel; and, with regard to the rate fixed, they had seen a great many people connected with the trade, both wholesale and retail, who all thought the 8d. a very fair duty, and considered this a large reduction. He believed, also, that the hon. Baronet would find that the reduction was as nearly as possible one-half, though, from the awk- ward mode of charging before, it was difficult to estimate it precisely. However, those engaged in the trade were perfectly satisfied with the change, and only desired to have it with all convenient speed.

MR. HUME

said, there was not a man, woman, or child, who was not benefited by oranges, and lemon juice was essential as a matter of medicine. He therefore wished the duty removed altogether. The amount was really trifling, and there was not a charge in the whole tariff the abolition of which would be a greater boon. The article came in competition with no one, and was beneficial to everybody.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that with regard to the hon. Member's proposal, that these articles should come in free, he thought that the hon. Gentleman had given several very good reasons for its being so, and that those very excellent reasons might likewise be applied to several articles, including tea. Not a word fell from the hon. Member which would not have equally applied to a proposal for taking the entire duty off tea; and though it would be a very desirable thing to set oranges free, they must condescend in this as in other cases to cut their coat according to their cloth. The question came to be this—do you think that in making the financial propositions of the year we have reserved too great a surplus of revenue? With operations of such extent as we are proposing, do you think the surplus too great? The reduction with regard to oranges and lemons was not insignificant in point of revenue. The produce of the duty, at present, was between 80,000l. and 90,000l. The reduction proposed in the tariff was fully one-half that amount, giving a relief to the extent of 40,000l.. He, however, calculated on an increase of consumption which would bring the revenue up to 50,000l.. or 60,000l., so that he did not reckon on losing more than 25,000l. by the proposed change. But if the duty was removed altogether, where was that sum to Come from? The general opinion of the House, at the time he made his financial statement, was that the margin left was quite narrow enough. He then pointed out various elements which were necessarily uncertain, and he had found it necessary in one or two instances to make minor changes in the tariff, which would somewhat encroach on that narrow margin. That being the case, he trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose and the Committee would be content with dealing in the same way with this article as with other articles—that they would proceed by degrees, and not make a precipitate reduction of taxation without providing resources to supply it.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, that the remission suggested would be a great boon to the poor, and trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on consideration, would be able to abolish these duties altogether.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIPPE

said, he would not press his Amendment to a division.

Resolution agreed to.

On the Resolution that a duty of 10s. per cwt. be paid on raisins (not of British possessions),

MR. MOFFATT

objected to any distinction between the duty on currants and raisins, and moved, as an Amendment, that all currants imported into the kingdom be charged the same duty as raisins. He thought it unfair to levy a differential duty of 50 per cent against our own possessions, in favour of Spain and Turkey. The difference would be felt as a great grievance in the Ionian Islands, the staple produce of which was currants, the export duty on which was about one-fifth of their whole revenue. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would acquiesce in the justice of the Motion. The difficulty with respect to the revenue was sufficiently answered by the fact that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the loss by reducing the duty on raisins would be 70,000l. he had received such information as must satisfy him that he would not lose a shilling. Viewing this as a question of consumption, and seeing that it adopted a distinctive duty against our own produce, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would acquiesce in his proposition.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

agreed in all the propositions laid down by his hon. Friend, but differed from him as to the application of those principles. For the same reasons, but applying with greater force, which governed the Committee on the last vote, he could not consent to a further reduction in the duty on currants. It was true the growth of currants was of immense importance to the commerce of the Ionian Islands; but that was not exactly a good argument for the reduction of our import duties. He admitted that nothing could be stronger than the claim of the Ionian Islands to a favourable consideration; but on the question of a reduction of import duty it was impossible to look at that element of the case alone. We ought to endeavour to give increased vent for the products of countries in which we were interested; but it would be a fatal mistake to make that either an exclusive or even a primary consideration. The first thing to be looked at was this: should we, by reducing the import duty, reduce the price to the consumer? The next question was, what would be the effect of the reduction in a fiscal point of view? Would the duty recover itself after the reduction, or, if not, could we bear the loss? Until these two major questions were disposed of, they were not free to go into the other, whether the reduction would or would not be beneficial to the people of the country producing the article. Now, how did that matter stand? The hon. Member said it was proposed to establish a differential duty in favour of raisins as against currants. Now, in what sense? Not because they were the same article— not because the prices of the articles were the same, for he spoke near the mark when he said the price of currants was, as nearly as possible, double the price of raisins. This was an exceptional case. With respect to currants, there was almost an absolute famine; and if the Committee consented to take off 5s. or 6s. per cwt., the benefit of the reduction would not go to the consumer, and the revenue would not gain any considerable fraction. Currants were now at a famine price. In fact, they did not exist. All that could be drawn from that country had already been obtained. If this reduction were made, it would be neither more nor less than a present, partly to the population of the Ionian Islands, but in a greater degree to the importers. This was no slight matter. The revenue from currants, when there was a large consumption, was 400,000L.; in 185l it produced 350.000L.; and last year, with a decreased consumption, the produce was 280,000L On these grounds be felt satisfied the Committee would negative the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. Under different circumstances, and when there was a probability of a better supply, be did not deny that the question might be fairly reopened.

MR. MOFFATT

said, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should not press his Amendment.

In reply to a remark from Mr. HUME, that a duty of 9s. 4d. per cwt. would facilitate the calculation of the duty,

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said it might be convenient if the duties charged were exactly adjusted to the subdivision of the coin; but a change at this moment in that respect might give way to another next year. The great question of a decimal coinage was now under serious consideration. A Committee was sitting to examine it, and many eminent men had expressed themselves strongly in favour of such a change, and it would be better to come to some conclusion on that point before readjusting the tariff.

Resolution agreed to.

On the Resolution fixing the duty on books printed prior to the year 180l. at 1s. per cwt.,

MR. COWAN

suggested the propriety of postponing it until they came to the consideration of the duty on foreign paper.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought it undesirable to mix up the two questions. He did not think it desirable to levy any amount on books beyond what was necessary to cover the excise duty.

MR. COWAN

said, that a statement had been made a short time ago that not one book out of three paid its expenses, and that not one pamphlet out of twenty was published without loss. This arose partly from the large amount of waste; and not long ago one publisher destroyed nearly 3,000 reams of paper in consequence of some error in the printing of a hook. Circulars had been received by the London booksellers from a company in Jersey, which had been formed for the purpose of printing at a lower rate than in London, which they would be able to do by saving the duty on paper. Persons abroad would have a decided advantage over the publishers at home, and under these circumstances he proposed that the rate of duty should be 1l.. 3s. 4d. —the same as on paper.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, this question was one which entered into our treaties with foreign countries, and we must be prepared to alter our literary intercommunication with them if we tampered with books which were the subject of treaty.

Resolution agreed to.

On the Resolution that the duty on stockings of cotton or thread be 6d. the dozen pairs,

MR. HUME

said he did not see why the duty was retained, as it interfered with the principle of free trade.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the reason why he had thought it proper to retain a low duty upon stockings and gloves was, that these articles were made up in this country by a very poor and ill-paid class of people, with whom the House had always felt disposed to deal tenderly. The whole sum was very small; but if they refused to retain the low duty now proposed, they would have to go further and strike out a great many other duties. They could not afford to adopt such a course at present, and in his opinion their best plan was to go on gradually reducing duties from year to year, watching the effect of the changes they made, and shaping their course accordingly. It was more especially incumbent upon them to proceed with caution in dealing with the articles under discussion, inasmuch as they interfered with the labour of a class of people who were deserving of sympathy and encouragement, but who did not quite understand the philosophy of free trade.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPS

regretted to say that there was no class in this country who laboured for so small a sum as the stockingers of Leicester and Nottingham. He was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to apply the principle of protection at least to one class of the community.

MR. HUME

said, that taunt was well deserved. He did not wish, however, to divide the Committee.

Resolution agreed to.

On the proposal to reduce the duty on linen and cotton manufactures,

MR. CROSSLEY

expressed his surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he had always understood was a convert to free trade, should seek to retain a duty upon these articles. The right hon. Gentleman might say that the interests of the poor needlewomen of London required to be looked after; but that was the very reason why he wanted to see this protective duty removed altogether. He believed protection was an injury to them; and if the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with him in that opinion, he was not entitled to the name of a freetrader. He hoped the Committee would not continue protective duties on any kind of manufactured goods.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was one thing what should be argued out of doors by those whose business it was to look at questions from a particular point of view, and to consider them abstractedly, and quite another thing what should be said by those who were responsible for the proposals submitted to the Committee, and for their application to the immediate circumstances and condition of the people. The hon. Member seemed to think he was doing something peculiar in proposing to retain a small duty upon linen and cotton manufactures. Now he had two reasons for what he proposed. In the first place, he was acting in strict conformity with what had been the course of legislation for a long time past, namely, to proceed gradually in these matters; and, in the second place, he thought the hon. Member would find that if they were to sot all these articles free from duty, they would involve themselves in a very embarrassing fiscal difficulty. Moreover, he had always considered that these were as much questions of policy as of revenue, and he could not but think that they would prejudice free trade if they gave good grounds for supposing they were indifferent to the condition of the helpless and suffering classes. But if they were to remove entirely the duty upon small articles of linen and cotton manufacture, upon what principle could they leave a duty upon silk, which produced a large and indispensable sum to the revenue? He hoped the hon. Member would not, at least in the present instance, attempt to enforce the rigid application of his principle, which he admitted was a good one.

Resolution agreed to.

On paper,

MR. COWAN

said, he should have preferred the retention of a higher duty than that proposed; but he had no wish to divide the Committee, though he thought the manufacturer of paper had received very little consideration from successive Governments. They were still left under the odious thraldom of the Excise; but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who adorned the office he so ably held, would ere long grant their entire emancipation.

MR. CAIRNS

drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hardships of the paper makers arising out of the excise regulations, and suggested that the customs duty should be raised to 3d. per lb.

Resolution agreed to.

On watches,

MR. SPOONER

observed that by the 13 Geo. III. the gold for watch cases was allowed to be reduced to 18 carats fine. Gold of less value, however, was used by the foreign makers, and the effect was found to be very injurious to the English watchmakers.

MR. CARD WELL

reminded the hon. Gentleman that if foreign watches were cheaper in the home market, English watches enjoyed a greater reputation abroad. The question whether a new mark for gold of 12½ or 13 carats, should not be introduced, was under the consideration of the Board of Trade.

The remaining articles were then agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress.

The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.