§ Mr. Ewarthaving presented a petition for a reduction of the duty on tobacco, then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice on that subject. He did not deny that, abstractedly speaking, tobacco might be a fair object of taxation; but, practically, it had turned out to be otherwise, for it had given rise to smuggling, and the extensive demoralisation which always accompanied smuggling. The duty, compared to the price, was actually 1,200 per cent.; and the consequence was, that no law could prevent smuggling. To prove that smuggling took place to a great extent, it was only necessary to state that the duty was 3s. per pound, and yet tobacco might be bought in the country for 2s. 8d., 2s. 6d., and even 2s. a pound. That could only arise in consequence of smuggling, which he knew was carried on to a remarkable extent, tobacco being introduced in casks of fish, of resin, and even in the interior of loaves of bread. The only contraband trade which equalled it was that of opium in the Celestial Empire, The. Excise Commission, and Sir Henry Parnell, who he wished had been present, had recommended the reduction of the duty. That right hon. Gentleman had proved that smuggled tobacco amounted to one half of that which paid duty; so that, estimating the whole consumption of thecountryatl5,000,0001bs., 5,000,0001bs. of that were smuggled. Not less than 20,000 persons were engaged in smuggling, and it had a most pernicious effect on their morals. This brought with it the necessity of the coast-guard establishment, which was chiefly employed in repressing the contraband trade in tobacco, and which occasioned an annual outlay of 400,000l. The honest trader was obliged to give up dealing in tobacco altogether. He was able to state the case of one gentleman who had been in the habit of paying to the amount of from 15,000l. to 20,000l, a year duty, and he owned that the competition with the smuggler was so hopeless, that without illicit dealing, the trade Would be worse than profitless. The 765 effect of this course of things was, that it taught the trader to confound all distinctions of right and wrong. For these reasons he had thought it his duty to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject; and he would conclude by moving, that the duty on tobacco be reduced from 3s. to 1s. per pound.
§ Mr. Humeseconded the motion, on the ground, that if successful, it would have the effect of putting an end to smuggling. The evidence of this fact from every quarter of the country was so strong, that he was quite surprised to find so high a tax kept on. He was quite sure, that if the proposed reduction were made, it would, instead of diminishing, increase the revenue.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that his hon. Friends who had last spoken, in the present state of the House, could hardly be serious in proposing that the House should come to a resolution upon a point of such extraordinary importance after so slight a discussion. Some observations, however, had been made by both his hon. Friends, from which he must express his dissent. The present amount of duty he admitted was not defensible, but he had some remarks to offer to their consideration before the House came to any conclusion on the subject. He would state a few of the considerations which had operated with the Government, and which ought to have had some weight with the House, in abstaining from proposing any reduction on that article. His noble Friend, Lord Spencer, in 1831, when he brought forward his budget, proposed to reduce the duty on this very article of tobacco; and how was that motion met by the House? His hon. Friend, who brought forward the present motion, was not in that Parliament; but if there was one part of that budget which was objected to more than another, it was that very proposed reduction' of the duty on tobacco, and particularly on the ground that the reduction would not prevent smuggling, and would promote the consumption of the article itself. The chief point in his hon. Friend's speech which called for an immediate examination was the alleged extent of the contraband trade. He thought that a fairer subject for taxation than the article itself could not be pointed out. It came unquestionably within the definition of a 766 voluntary tax. The question then was was the present amount of duty too high for the purpose of revenue? If it could be shown to him that the same amount of revenue could be obtained when the proposed reduction was made, undoubtedly no man standing in the position in which he did could hesitate at lowering the rate of duty. He certainly, however, was of opinion that the amount of tobacco smuggled was exaggerated. He admitted, that a great deal of tobacco was smuggled, but not so much as was represented. He could not help thinking, if the statements which were made on this head were correct, that the revenue derived from tobacco would either have remained stationary, or would have receded in amount. He would begin with the years 1826–7, after the last reduction of the duty. In 1827 the tobacco which paid duty in England was 14,700,0001bs,; in 1828, 14,500,000lbs.; in 1829, 14,700,000 lbs.; again, the next year, 15,100,000 lbs.; in 1831, 15,300,000 lbs.; in 1832, 15,800,000lbs.; in 1833,16,000,000lbs.; the next year, 16,400,0001bs.; and the next year, 17,000,000lbs. Here, then, was a progressively increasing quantity, on which duty was paid since 1827. He did not mean in the slightest degree to deny the statement, that smuggling had gone on to a very considerable extent, but he merely mentioned these facts for the purpose of fortifying his doubt that the smuggling which was no doubt carried on was so extensive as was supposed. But it might be argued that the returns which he had quoted applied only to England, and that the smuggling was carried on to a greater extent in Ireland. He would therefore take from the year 1831 and upwards the returns for Ireland alone. In 1831 the amount was 4,100,000lbs.; in 1832,4,300,000lbs.; in the following years, 4,500,000lbs.,4,700,0001bs.,4,800,000lbs. and 5,000,000lbs. Here again the duty steadily and progressively increased. He thought, therefore, that there was nothing to prove the allegation, that half of the tobacco consumed did not pay duty. Why did he rely on these facts? Because, the returns thus taken show that smuggling could not have prevailed to the extent supposed. This excess of the consumption of one year over the preceding year had regularly continued throughout this period; and it became a serious question how far the attempt to convert the con- 767 traband trade, at present carried on, into a large extension of the legitimate trade, under the operation of reduced duties, would be likely to succeed? When he saw that, in a former year 2,600,000lbs. was the amount of consumption in Ireland, and 757,000l. was the total amount of duty paid on that consumption, he was pretty sure that the experiment of low duties was fairly tried. He turned, then, to a period when the duty on tobacco was lower, and the price of the commodity, also, lower, than at the period in which the hon. Member for Middlesex had spoken. Of 1782 the records were unfortunately lost, but he had those of 1786. In 1786 the duty was only 10d. per pound. At that period the amount consumed in Great Britain was 6,800,000lbs., in Ireland 3,400,000lbs., making together 10,200,000lbs. The present consumption of tobacco was in Great Britain upwards of 17,000,000lbs.; in Ireland, 5,000,000lbs.; making together, in round numbers, 23,000,000lbs., as compared with the 10,000,000lbs. consumption of 1786. Now, comparing the present times with the year 1786, he begged to say, that there had been no such increase of the population, or alteration in their habits, during the interval, as would enable him to come to the conclusion which his hon. Friends had arrived at,—that only one half of the quantity of tobacco which was consumed in the United Kingdom paid duty, and consequently that only one half of the revenue which ought to be derived from the tobacco actually consumed was paid into the Treasury. If he could think with his hon. Friends, he should be very happy to give them the benefit of his concurrence in their suggestion. At the present hour of the night it would not be proper for him to occupy the attention of the House further; but when he told his hon. Friend that the subject of his motion engaged the anxious consideration of the Government, he felt confident that he would not press it before the Government was able to come to a decision. If he could arrive at the same conclusion with his hon. Friend, it would give him great satisfaction, but he must see that it would be impossible for him, till he could see that the public revenue would not suffer from the reduction, to pledge himself to his hon. Friend's resolution. It would not do for him to be trying experiments with the revenue. If he had the means of 768 diminishing the amount of taxation, he should first wish to give greater developement to the productive industry of the country, which was now languishing. He was desirous certainly of putting down smuggling, but he was first of all anxious to protect and encourage the productive industry of the nation. If a report were to go abroad that the House or the Government were pledged to reduce the duty upon any article of general consumption, the effect of it would be to throw the trade into confusion, by stopping sales and suspending orders. In this case he should be extremely sorry to take such a step, for the article of tobacco yielded a revenue of 3,000,000l., and the duty impeded no manufacture. At the same time he could assure his hon. Friend that the whole subject was under the consideration of Government, and should have their best attention.
§ Viscount Sandonthought, that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that there was such an immense mass of smuggling, that it would be almost incumbent on him to take measures for the reduction of the duty, if not immediately, at some future time. That such was the case was abundantly proved by an accumulation of evidence from Committees, Commissioners, and facts derived both from private and public sources, showing that the honest dealer could not gain a livelihood under the existing system. The question, however, after all, must be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was idle for a Member of that House to attempt to dictate to the right hon. Gentleman on such a subject, and all that private members could do was to bring the case before the public, and trust to their good sense for the ultimate adoption of the measure. Much as he desired to see the duty put an end to, he would recommend his hon. Colleague not to press his Motion.
§ Motion negatived.