CUSTOMS' ACT. (Hansard, 20 June 1845)

§ Mr. Ewart,
apprehending that it would be almost impossible that night to keep a House, after so protracted and exhausting a debate as that which closed last night, and not seeing around him those whom he had especially looked to for supporting the Motion of which he had given notice, for the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese, begged to say he should not then proceed with that Motion, but bring it forward at an early opportunity.

§ Mr. E. Buller
rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice at the commencement of the Session, for a repeal of the duty on tallow. The right hon. Baronet had altogether omitted that article in his recent commercial changes. Similar articles, oils, &c., had been reduced in 1832, and last year had been altogether repealed; but tallow had not been touched. The most serious consequences always arose from removing the duties from similar articles; but leaving the duty upon one particular article. The use of the one article was discontinued. The operation of this principle had been shown in the case of tallow. Its consumption had been very much reduced, to the extent of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 cwt., while the consumption of a rival ariicle—oil, had increased. Cocoa nut and palm oil had nearly quadrupled its consumption, and this increase had taken place since the reduction of duty. He saw no reason for retaining the duty upon tallow, while he saw every reason for repealing it. The tallow annually exported from Russia amounted in value to 2,000,000l. sterling, 1005 and surely it was desirable to foster a trade like that. Its falling off affected the general commerce with Russia; and the trade in hemp, corn, and other articles of Russian produce, had declined with the trade in tallow. The interests of the poor of this country were deeply concerned in this article. Lord Sydenham, in a speech delivered in 1836, had pointed out the necessity of candles to hand-loom weavers, and others of the industrious classes, who carried on their occupations at home. The hon. Member, who was most indistinctly heard in the gallery, referred to a variety of documents connected with the prices of tallow at different periods; but the particulars of them we could not catch, owing to the conversation in the House, of which the hon. Member himself complained. The hon. Member concluded his remarks by moving that the duty on tallow be repealed.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. Member for Dumfries having abandoned his Motion on the duties on butter and cheese—

§ Mr. Ewart
said, that he had no intention of abandoning his Motion; but that he had not considered he should have been doing his duty to the importance of the subject by bringing it forward in so thin a state of the House.

§ Sir R. Peel
said, it was not surprising, after four nights of fatiguing debate, that the state of the House should have been what it was. He had, however, redeemed the pledge he had given the hon. Gentleman, in reference to affording him an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.

§ Mr. Ewart
said, he should certainly bring it forward at a future period, though he would not do it to the interruption of the Supply Motions.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as the hon. Member who had brought forward the present Motion (Mr. Buller) had done so more for the purpose of bringing the subject of the tallow duty under the consideration of the Government, than in the expectation of being able to effect any immediate alteration of the duty, he should not follow him into the details of the question; though, had this Motion been pressed, he should have felt it to have been his duty to have resisted it, as well as the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries, had it been brought forward, on the ground that it would be impossible, after the great reductions in 1006 the duties on various articles which had been made already in the course of the present Session, to make any further reductions, even on an article which he acknowledged to be of so much importance as the one under discussion, without incurring the risk of great loss to the revenue of the country. He was not, therefore, disposed to go into the discussion of the question, or to prejudge its consideration at any future opportunity; and the hon. Gentleman must excuse him if—without any disrespect to him—he declined to give any pledge whatever upon the subject.

§ Mr. Parker
moved, that the duties on the importation of Copper Ore should cease and determine. The system, he said, which had been adopted in respect of those duties in 1842, and under which large importations had taken place, was, confessedly, only an experimental arrangement, and had nothing of finality about it. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Cornwall had any fear of the introduction of copper ore free of duty, a Committee might be appointed to inquire into the operation of the law of 1842. He thought the evidence would show that a change might be made without any danger to the interests which his hon. Friend represented. If the trade was made free it would tend to keep the whole copper trade of the world in the hands of the people of this country; it would keep the price of copper steady, and would be of advantage, as it would give facilities for mixing the rich foreign ore with the poorer one of this country. It would be of the greatest advantage to the shipping interest of the country. For these reasons he would move, that all the duties on the importation of copper should cease.

§ Sir C. Lemon
said, that his hon. Friend had chosen a very odd time to bring forward his Motion; for never at any former period was copper supplied in such abundance to the manufacturer, and never was the price so low. With respect to the price and quantity of copper his hon. Friend had nothing to complain of. He hoped that the duty would be retained, because it was a source of revenue to the Government, and was not prejudicial to any interest in the country.

§ Mr. Trelawny
said, Sir Francis Burdett used to say of a certain Cornish Member, that he was for free trade in everything 1007 except copper. Now he was not disposed, though a Cornish Member, to lay himself open to a reproach of a similar kind. He regarded the existing protective duty on copper as injurious to the shipping, the coal and smelting interest, and the consumer generally. It was easy to say it would throw many miners out of employment. Now, first of all, it was to be much doubted whether or no that would be the case. It should be recollected that for every additional ton of copper which was imported, there must be produced a quantity of commodities to pay for that copper. Therefore, at present, the exclusion of that copper lowered the wages of those who would produce the commodities to be exchanged for it. He was against bolstering up any interest; but if he were for so doing, the last occupation to which he would artificially stimulate his fellow countrymen, would be that of mining. When he considered the hardship and suffering which miners experienced; that they worked, by night and by day, one hundred or more fathoms under ground; that their gains were most precarious; that they suffered from damp and bad air—he did think he could claim for them the sympathy of the noble Lord who interested himself in the children employed in factories. Not that he would curtail the hours of labour by law—that he deemed impolitic and unsound—but he only said the mining interest was the last he would foster to the prejudice of other classes. Let it not be forgotten in what state we stood in relation to Brazil—that we were in danger of losing our trade—and that it was peculiarly important at the present moment to insure our ships some commodity which they might be enabled to bring back, if they could not bring Brazilian sugar in exchange for the manufactures we export. The smelting interest, too, deserved at least so much favour as that it should not be sacrificed for the sake of another. We had been told that smelting establishments were growing up in America and elsewhere, where fuel abounded; and if this country did not take care, our smelters would be seriously injured. The right hon. Baronet might say in reply, that there was the same reason for reducing duties in this case as in that of tallow, butter, and cheese; viz., that the revenue would suffer. But he would say, why not raise the Income Tax, and, substituting direct for indirect taxation, benefit at once 1008 the revenue and consumer? His hon. Friend and relative (Sir C. Lemon) had said plenty of coffee came in. That he regarded as a fallacy. It was incumbent on him to show that no more would come in if the duty were lowered. The fact was, this was another protection duty, and nothing else; and, as such, he for one was for its abolition, as he was in the case of other commodities.

§ Sir G. Clerk
said, that it had been admitted that the change which had taken place in the law in 1842, was beneficial; that in consequence of it copper ore was much more abundant and much cheaper than before the law passed; and such being the case, he thought it would be unwise to disturb an arrangement which was productive of so much benefit. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division.

§ Dr. Bowring
then moved, that the duty on pine logs, not exceeding ten feet in length and eleven inches square, be reduced to 12s. 6d. per load. The present duty was 25s. This wood was principally used as sleepers for railways; but the supply was insufficient and costly. The Canadian timber was little adapted to the purpose, and the Baltic timber was too dear, the duty being equal to 200 per cent. on the value. He trusted that there would be no objection to his Motion.

§ Sir G. Clerk
said, that the timber duties had been very much considered in 1842. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman had made out any case for reducing the duty on this particular description of limber which the hon. Gentleman said was particularly used for sleepers for railways. There were other descriptions of timber, as that used in buildings for the poor, which were entitled to be as much considered as that which the hon. Gentleman had brought under the consideration of the Committee.

Mr. Williams
objected to going into a Committee of Supply at that hour of the night, particularly as several hon. Members had left under an impression that it would not be proceeded with.

§ Sir R. Peel
said, that in general when the Government brought forward the Esti- 1009 mates, so many objections were made by hon. Gentlemen at the other side of the House to the smallness of the sums proposed, particularly in the Naval Estimates, it would be worth the hon. Member's while to consider whether it would not be a saving of the public money to allow them to carry their Estimates at once.

§ Dr. Bowring
objected to going into Supply, as several hon. Members had left under an impression that the Estimates would not be brought forward.