HC Deb 02 June 1853 vol 127 cc1061-72

House in Committee.

MR. MITCHELL

said, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the duty on raisins not of British possessions would be reduced to 10s. per cwt., as proposed in the first edition of the new tariff?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that when the Resolutions were first published, he was under the impression, according to the best intelligence he then possessed, that raisins would be of great use to the community in mitigating the serious inconvenience occasioned by the extreme scarcity of currants. It was on that account that the reduction of the duty upon raisins was inserted in the Resolutions. After that period, the hon. Gentleman gave notice of a Motion to reduce the duty upon currants also. To this proposal he could not accede. A popular proposal it might have been upon many grounds, and he should be glad if it could be adopted, on account of our relations with the Ionian islands, had it been certain that the: consumer would get the benefit, or that the revenue would recover itself. But the accounts of the prospect of supplies, and the anticipations of the future supplies, were such as put an end to the question. In point of fact, there was a currant famine. They were at double their ordinary price, and we had arrived at a state of things under which any remission: of duty would be so much boon to the persons engaged in the trade. Whether this was the case or not, it was quite plain there would be little or no recovery of revenue from the remission of duty. At that time there were also alarming accounts with regard to the produce of raisins. We derived large supplies from the Levant. The Levant was our second source of supply—certainly inferior to Spain, but likely to become more important in consequence of a reduction of duty. Alarming accounts then were received of the ravages of frost and locusts upon both raisins and currants. But there had since been a change, and a very favourable change. The fears once entertained had passed away; the frost, instead of destroying the raisins, had destroyed the locusts. What was much more important was, that the actual stock of raisins of low quality in bond in this country had become extremely large. There was at this moment in bond so large a stock of the middling and low qualities, perfectly sound and available for use, that though it was probable a high duty might exclude a considerable quantity, there was every prospect that these would be introduced into the market, and that they would supply a large portion of the population with a substitute for currants. The stock was so considerable that there was every prospect that the reduction of the duty upon raisins would not be attended with any sensible loss of revenue. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

On the item of Cables, not of iron, new and old, tarred and untarred, on which it was proposed wholly to remit the duty,

MR. MITCHELL

said, the proposed reductions upon cordage, which Russia supplied, was equivalent to twenty per cent. The manufacture of cordage was carried on chiefly by manual labour. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to sweep away the whole of the duty of twenty per cent upon the manufactured article. As a free trader he was not prepared to oppose this reduction, but he thought it a precipitate step. Russia supplied both the raw material and the manufactured article, and there was every facility for importing it into this country. In the execution of her own policy, Russia levied a duty upon the export of the raw material, but not on the manufactured article. The difference between the cost of the raw material and the manufactured article was 12s. per ton. At the same time, he would beg to ask how long the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to retain the duty on foreign wood, which was a much more important article than cordage, and on which he (Mr. Mitchell) should certainly next year call for a reduction of duty?

MR. CAYLEY

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the best ropes and cables were not made by hand labour, but by machinery.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he must complain of the large amount of revenue that was frittered away by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the present case he was not aware that any one had complained that the duty was excessive, nor would its repeal save anything in the cost of collection, nor would it even stimulate the manufacture in this country. He should propose, therefore, that the duty on these articles be retained.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the principle on which he acted was a very simple one. It was to simplify the tariff by the reduction of duties wherever they could effect it at a moderate cost to the revenue. With regard to duty-free goods, there was but one material office the Customs had to perform, that was to ascertain that the articles were really what they professed to be, and for that purpose searching was necessary. That was all that was necessary with regard to duty-free goods; with other articles, however, it was not so. However low the duty, there was the whole warehousing system involved. If the duty were only one penny, it was worth the importer's while to pay something for the postponement of the duty. Then it was necessary to charge the duty, to levy the duty, to account for it, to audit the accounts, and so on. By removing articles of this nature entirely from the tariff, great inconvenience and expense were obviated. He believed it would be found that no less a sum than 400,000l. had been saved in expenses of collection by the abolition of Customs duties during the last few years. Of course he could not consent to the Amendment of the noble Lord.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought the Committee would agree with him that articles of luxury offered a fair subject for taxation. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was surrendering upon articles of that description a sum of upwards of 10,000l. a year, He would further observe, that the right hon. Gentleman was not practising in that case a wise economy; for while he would not be able to reduce the number of public officers by ten men, he would diminish the revenue by a sum which would pay fifty men. There was involved in such a policy an absolute waste of revenue.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expected to save in the cost of collecting the revenue in consequence of the repeal of those duties? and the right hon. Gentleman had stated in reply, that the removal of Customs duties had not hitherto led to any perceptible reduction in the cost of collecting the Customs revenue, but that it had prevented that increase in the cost of collection which would otherwise have taken place in the midst of our constantly increasing commercial transactions. But he (Lord J. Manners) would remind the right hon. Gentleman, that while the cost of collecting the Customs revenue bad increased during the last ton years, the cost of collecting the Excise revenue had considerably diminished during the same period. The right hon. Gentleman would not surely contend that the difference in these results was to be attributed to the fact that there had been no increase during the last ten years in the consumption of articles subject to the Excise duties. The fair inference to draw from their experience in that matter was, that where Excise duties were repealed, a large portion of the expense of collecting those duties was removed, while no corresponding reduction took place in the case of the repeal of Customs duties. He found that the cost of collecting the Excise duties in 1842 had amounted to 823,682l., and that the cost of collecting those duties in 1851 had amounted to only 673,826l.; showing a decrease in the cost of collection to the amount of 149,856l., while the Excise duties repealed had amounted to 1,619,000l. But in the case of the Customs duties, he found that the cost of collection, which in 1842 had been 1,254,590l., had risen in 1851 to 1,290,756l.; showing an increase in the cost of collection to the amount of 36,166l., while the Customs duties repealed had amounted to 1,450,000l. How did the right hon. Gentleman account for these facts? His (Lord J. Manners') inference from them was, that where you repealed Excise duties, you diminished the cost of collecting the remainder by striking' off a number of those persons who had been employed to collect the duties; but where you repealed Customs duties, you did not diminish the number of those who were employed to collect the remainder; you only lessened the difficulties in the way of importers. With the view of testing the opinion of hon. Members on this subject, he should persevere in his Motion, and divide the Committee.

Question put, "That Coir Rope, Twine and Strands, stand part of the proposed Resolution."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 68: Majority 126.

Resolution agreed to.

The Resolution for a repeal of the duty on Pictures having been put,

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he felt bound to offer his decided opposition to the proposal. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was about wantonly to throw away 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year in that case. He did not see how the people of England could benefit by a repeal of the duty on foreign pictures; and the Resolution was, in his opinion, so objectionable that he should take the sense of the Committee against it. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was sorry that the guardians of the public purse should be so impatient whilst he was endeavouring to maintain a Customs duty, against which, he ventured to say, no intelligible objection could be raised, and which, when repealed, would simply have the effect of reducing the revenue of the country without rendering any benefit to the community. For the reasons he had stated, he should take the sense of the Committee upon this Resolution.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I confess, Sir, that I have heard the speech of my noble Friend with the greatest regret and surprise. I really had hoped that there was no man in this House—and if there was any man I should have thought that he would have been the last man—who would have exhorted us in tones so solemn to beware how we exempt pictures while we continue to tax beer. Why, Sir, we live in a utilitarian age, and utilitarianism is supposed to be the danger of this period—and perhaps it is the danger of this period; and here we come down to a popular assembly, to do something if we can to meet that spirit of utilitarianism. We are laying out large sums of money upon the education of the people—we are endeavouring to train their taste, to educate their eye, to make them—[De- risive laughter.] Are these sentiments, then, to be received with jeers by the Gentlemen who represent the counties of England? Why, Sir, I venture to say that there is no man who could rise in an assembly of working men in this country where such sentiments would be met as they have been met by hon. Members opposite. Well, Sir, this is a serious question. It is no mere question of 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year levied upon pictures. The question is this—Is it desirable, or not, to make the people of this country familiar with the works of great men, whether it be in art, or in science, or in letters? Is high culture valuable, or is it not, in a nation? Sir, I think it is valuable in a nation. Upon that principle we propose to remit this duty. It is not a mere question of trade. And what are we doing? We are but following the example of those who, even in the times of Protection, adopted the same course, and who, although the tax upon pictures had remained until now, had remitted the tax upon statues and works of art of other kinds. Well, will you retain the tax upon these articles, while other works of art are admitted free? Is that wise, or is it foolish? I should have thought that this would have been the last in this long catalogue of articles which would have been subjected to opposition; and if subjected to opposition, I confess that I should have thought that my noble Friend would not have been the foremost to object. Why, I should have supposed that he would have, set himself manfully against the utilitarianism of the age. I should have thought that if he had a bias or a leaning in his mind, it was towards what is ancient, and venerable, and great, and that he would have been disposed to look down upon the mere acquisition of wealth, and to have desired to teach the people that there is much more in this world than wealth that is worth having, and worth living for. These, Sir, are the principles upon which this proposal is founded; and yet it meets with opposition from him. I will not detain the Committee, for I am convinced that the matter does not require argument.' I am satisfied that there never was a proposal—insignificant in appearance although it may be, and small in its amount—which was more in unison with the spirit of the House of Commons, or more consonant with the spirit of the people whom we represent,

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that hon. Members might fancy they were teaching their constituents to respect them because they were labouring for the cultivation of art; but, perhaps, their constituents would remember that they were ministering to the comforts of the epicures, and increasing their taste for turtle and truffles. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be as anxious to train the taste of the people in turtle as in fine arts, and had put in the same category pickles and pictures. The right hon. Gentleman was thus labouring for the epicure as well as the artist. The right hon. Gentleman was rather affected in assuming such regard for art in taking off a duty upon pictures at so much per foot. But he also intended to put on a specific duty Upon musical snuff-boxes, of so much per tune, with an additional charge for variations; so that it would be necessary to have a skilled musical professor to levy the tax. He (Mr. Newdegate) regarded the plan of the right hon. Gentleman as a blind sacrifice of revenue to the ignis fatuus of free trade.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that after the eloquent appeal that had been made in favour of art and educating the minds of the people by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee might be surprised to know that the great inducement which the right hon. Gentleman held out to the artisans of England to study the works of the great masters of painting in foreign countries was to remit the amount of 1s. 6d. upon every picture of a Correggio or a Raphael, with an additional duty of 1s. 6d., and 6–10ths of a penny upon every foot that such a picture might occupy. The right hon. Gentleman filled a high position, which had been occupied by many distinguished men in his time, who had not been wanting in their desire to stimulate the taste of the people; but yet the House of Commons had never heard that they had laid claim to these great and noble ideas on account of having proposed to repeal an eighteenpenny duty upon pictures. Governments in recent days had offered some 10,000l. or 11,000l. for a picture to be added to the National Gallery; would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what additional cost this duty of 1s. 6d. per picture, and 8–10ths of a penny per foot, would add to a picture of that sort? He could hot believe that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest when he told them that in repealing this small duty on the importation of pictures, the Government intended to stimulate the demand for pictures, and improve the taste of the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been in earnest in what he said, but had taken the opportunity of throwing an unworthy taunt upon his opponents. After what had passed he felt bound to divide.

Question put, "That Pictures Stand part of the proposed Resolution."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 46: Majority 140.

Resolution agreed to.

On raw Apples,

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he must ask why the rates of duty were not uniform? The right hon. Gentleman's object was, of course, to prevent any protective effect. Thus there was a lower duty on apples, which we did produce, than upon oranges, which we did not produce. Why should cherries pay 2d. a bushel, and apples, 5d., and oranges, 8d.? He wished to know why it was that pines paid a duty of 2s. per dozen, while apples and pears paid only 3d.?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the answer to the hon. Baronet's question was, that it would be a very good thing if they could have all these fruits admitted free, but they were under certain necessities as to raising a revenue, and had gone as far as they could with safety in reducing duties. 2d. on cherries, an extremely perishable fruit, was as high as 8d. on oranges.

MR. VANSITTART

said, he should feel bound to take the sense of the Committee against Ministers on this subject. He should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in the Motion, though he thought the arrangement of duties proposed by Government very unsatisfactory.

MR. VANSITTART

said, he would propose an Amendment establishing a uniform duty of 6d. on all fruit.

Amendment negatived.

Resolution agreed to.

On Butter,

MR. TOLLEMACHE

said, he must object to the reductions on butter and cheese, as inflicting additional injustice on the agricultural interest, which had suffered so much from the removal of protection Oh cattle and dairy produce. With regard to cheese, he anticipated that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would occasion a certain loss to the revenue, without benefitting any class. He should, therefore, move the omission of butter and cheese from the list of articles in the Resolution.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, that the remission which was proposed to be made in the case of glass and other articles would bear with equal severity upon the manufacturers; and that, therefore, those who were connected with land had no right to complain of being unfairly dealt with by the remission intended to be made with reference to cheese and butter.

MR. GEORGE

said, that in the district which he had the honour to represent, a great many farmers had turned their attention to the manufacture of butter, and the improvement of the breed of cattle. Without offering any opposition to the principle of free trade, he thought the present moment ought not to have been seized for making such a reduction as that now proposed, and trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give Ireland a little more breathing time

MR. SPOONER

said, he must inquire why the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to alter this duty? At the time when free-trade principles were first promulgated by Sir Robert Peel, that right hon. Gentleman fixed the duty on butter and cheese. What circumstances, then, made it necessary to alter it?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would venture to say, from a recollection of the transactions to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that when Sir Robert Peel fixed the duty on those articles, he fixed it with the hope that after a moderate period it would be unfixed. He thought it was quite obvious that, on the principles which that House had adopted, articles of food ought to be progressively relieved from duty.

MR. SPOONER

said, he must declare the principle of free trade to be entirely wrong, and he believed it would result in ultimately raising the price of articles.

The MARQUESS of GRANBY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that Sir Robert Peel had fixed a duty upon cheese and butter, which he meant to be repealed. He (the Marquess of Granby) would only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself would follow out the same principle, and take off duties at the present only in order to impose them again at a future day. He had to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of land throughout the country had been converted from tillage into pasture in consequence of what had, on a former occasion, been enunciated by a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. Having been advised by the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Admiralty to take that course, it was scarcely fair that the Government of which that right hon. Baronet was a member, should propose to take away the protection, in the case of cheese and butter, which the farmers of England at the present day enjoyed. With respect to the revenue of the country, he should say that it was his opinion that it was in considerable danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the income tax was to be retained only for a few years. But if that tax were repealed, and indirect taxation were to abolished to the extent which the Government proposed, he should like to know from what source the revenue of the country was to be derived? The people of this country would not stand the imposition of an excise duty, unless there were, at the same time, duties raised upon the importation of the produce of foreign countries into this kingdom. He should warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he followed out the system which he seemed inclined to pursue, he would find that the revenue of the country would shortly be insufficient to meet her expenditure.

SIR WILLIAM VERNER

said, he considered the reduction of these duties of the utmost importance, and as being calculated to do considerable injury to Ireland.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he was of opinion that these reductions, as affecting the revenue to the extent of upwards of 80,000l., were worthy of serious consideration. He did not speak on the subject from any horror which he entertained of free trade; but because it seemed to him that the measure came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the wrong time, inasmuch as the part of the kingdom most affected by it had been dealt rather hardly with already in the financial measures of the right hon. Gentleman. The sister country was more affected by the proposed change than any part of the kingdom; and although he himself had he concern in the manufacture of butter, yet, concluding that the proposed change would affect the principal source of industry in Ireland, it seemed to him to come with a very ungracious appearance from the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR ARTHUR BROOKE

said, he should not be doing his duty unless he urged upon the Government the necessity of con- sideration before taking off the duty upon butter. The farmers had already suffered by the introduction of free trade, and now a reduction was to be made in the duty on butter, which was one of the principal articles of produce in Ireland. He should have preferred, if a reduction were to be made at all, seeing the duty reduced by one-quarter rather than by one-half.

MR. TOLLEMACHE

said, he should divide the Committee on the question that butter be altogether omitted, and that the duty remain as at present.

Question put, "That Butter (not of British Possessions) the cwt. 5s., stand part of the proposed Resolution."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 49: Majority 92.

Resolution agreed to.

On Cheese,

MR. COLVILE

said, that he thought a heavier duty than 2s. 6d. a cwt. should be imposed on cheese, which was a manufactured article. He should prefer that the present duty of 5s. a cwt. should be retained, and would therefore move that the word "cheese" should be struck out of the Resolution.

Question put, "That Cheese (not of British Possessions) to be charged on the landing weight 2s. 6d. stand part of the proposed Resolution."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 40: Majority 95.

Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he should support the Motion. There must be some limit to their sittings, and, considering the time which hon. Gentlemen had been already occupied during that day in the business of the House, and the probability there was of a long and heavy debate on the following evening upon the Indian question, he thought it only reasonable that the Chairman should then report progress.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would suggest that those parts of the Resolution to which there was no objection should be then taken, and that others, which were opposed, should stand over.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 125: Majority 114.

The Committee then went through the unopposed items in the tariff, and confirmed the proposed duties.

House resumed; Committee report progress.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.