§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ MR. T. BARINGsaid, he did not wish to impede the course of public business, but he must enter his protest against the system of taking the duty off articles merely because the duty was not oppressive in amount. He thought the duty ought only to be remitted when it rested upon the consumer or upon the manufacturer, or when by its repeal they could reduce the expense of collection, or enlarge the commerce of the country. That opinion, he knew, was not popular in that House; but he felt the same difficulty in 1845, when the then Government proposed reductions upon a large number of articles, by which between 300,000l. and 400,000l. was thrown away for no purpose. He protested against the continuance of that system, because he believed that if, by this process, they threw the whole of the customs duties upon some twelve or thirteen articles of consumption, the people would rise and say that they should not be called upon to pay duty upon sugar, tea, and tobacco, while Parliament was repealing the miserable duty upon anchovies, agates, camelians, and other articles of that nature. The true principle of customs he conceived to be this—that they should throw their net over as much as they could, and not let it press unduly and heavily upon any one article, but make each and all contribute to the exigencies of the country.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend, who had just sat down, had expressed great contempt for duties on anchovies, agates, and cornelians, and called them miserable exactions. He did not much differ from the hon. Gentleman as to the principle, but he must express his astonishment at the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman arrived as to the propriety of keeping those miserable duties 821 still in force. The hon. Gentleman said he would not remove Customs duties, unless by doing so he could relieve the commerce, increase the trade of the country, or benefit the revenue. No doubt the taking off the duties on agates and cornelians would do little towards any of these objects; but still he said, that whilst the removal of duties from large articles led to a great increase in the trade of the country, the removal of duties from minor articles also increased trade in the proportion of the amount of revenue formerly produced. If the hon. Gentleman said that the reduction of duties made of late years had had no appreciable effect on our commerce, he would appeal to any Gentleman conversant with subjects of public economy to say whether great relief had not been given to trade, and whether the facilities had not been largely increased by the removal of duties. He did not claim for this proposition the character of a great national benefit; but, on the other hand, there was no national object involved in the levy of the duties in question. If he was told that to remove the duties off a few small articles was bad and dangerous policy, he replied that he thought it defensible in point of reasoning; and in point of authority he was inclined to fall back on the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, that the most advantageous course was to raise the bulk of the Customs revenue from a few articles, leaving the whole range of minor articles untouched.
§ MR. T. BARINGsaid, he must explain that he meant to speak of the proposed reductions as miserable in point of the relief to be afforded. If it were convenient to sacrifice some thousands of pounds of revenue, it would be much better to apply the sum in removing the duty from articles which entered into general consumption.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had not been led to expect, by the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they would have entered at that late hour on the discussion of the principle on which our Customs duties ought to be established; but as the question had been started, he did not wish, so far as his own opinion was concerned, to let the matter pass over silently. He thought there was a great deal in what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Baring). The Committee must remember, that in putting an end to Customs duties on small articles, they did not reduce the cost of 822 general collection. You might abolish almost every item of Customs duty; but if you raised your revenue from a dozen articles, the cost of collection would still remain about the same. You must examine the articles in order to charge them with duty; for if you did not, every article would come in free. Thus, one of the greatest reasons why it was extremely advisable in dealing with Excise duties, that you should entirely remove them, did not apply to Customs duties. Another reason for removal, that did not apply to Customs duties, was, that in leaving them you did not interfere with any process of manufacture. These were distinctions which should always be borne in mind in legislating on these matters. He did not think they ought to set their faces against raising moderate duties from a variety of articles. The principle that a toll ought to be paid on articles entering into the consumption of the country, appeared to him a very sound one. What they ought to oppose, under all circumstances, was excessive duties. Let him recall to the attention of the Committee, that at this moment a very moderate Customs duty, proposed by the eminent person who first brought it under consideration as merely nominal, the one shilling per quarter on grain, now yielded to the Exchequer a revenue of 500,000l. yearly. It was unwise, in the revision of the tariff, to aim at the annihilation of duties. The leading principle ought rather to be to keep them general in application and moderate in amount, and he believed that a tariff of this kind would form a healthy and considerable source of revenue.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to enforce what had just been said as to the removal of Customs duties not diminishing the cost of collection, by reference to a Parliamentary paper just delivered. In 1842 the cost of collecting the Excise duties amounted to 862,682l.; in 1851 it was reduced to 673,826l., whilst during that period the total of Excise duties repealed amounted to 1,619,000l. On the other hand there was no corresponding action of the repeal of Customs duties in diminishing the amount of the cost of collecting the Customs revenue. In 1842 the cost of collecting the Customs revenue amounted to 1,254,590l., whilst in 1851 it had actually increased to 1,290,756l., showing a difference of 36,166l. The total of Customs duties repealed during this period amounted to 1,450,000l. Thus, whilst by repealing Excise duties you could con- 823 fidently calculate on a proportionate diminution in the cost of collecting the revenue, the removal of Customs duties gave no ground for expecting that you could save materially in the collection of those which were retained, and you must absolutely not he surprised if you found the cost of collection considerably increased. He thought that, if no other reason could be alleged for postponing the consideration of the articles to which he specially objected in the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the remarkable figures which he had laid before the Committee would be in themselves sufficient. If for the sale of simplifying the tariff it were thought advisable to strike out of it 119 articles, producing 80,000l. to 90,000l. revenue, that was no justification for striking out eleven articles yielding 33,000l. or 34,000l. It might be wise so to alter duties as to combine with the largest revenue the greatest amount of importation, but he saw no reason either in the state of our finances, or in that of our foreign relations, for throwing away even a sum of 33,000l. or 34,000l. If gentlemen blessed with a taste chose to import pictures from Italy, or painted glass from Munich, there was no reason why they should not pay duty on the articles imported, or why their wives and daughters should not have to pay if they chose to import cambric handkerchiefs from France.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not want to prolong the discussion, but he could not permit the noble Lord to state as a conclusive reason against removing Customs duties the fact that he had discovered an increase of 36,000l. on a total expenditure of no less than 1,200,000l. in the collection of this branch of the revenue. The noble Lord bad entirely omitted any reference to the increase that had taken place in the commerce of the country; but if they looked at this they would find that the corresponding increase in the cost of collection ought to have been, not 36,000l. but somewhere about 200,000l. He could not at the moment state the difference in the official value of the imports, but that of the exports did not reach 48,000,000l. in 1842, whereas it exceeded 73,000,000l. in 1851. He remembered that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) brought forward early in the Session a Motion for the removal of Customs duties yielding no less than 1,500,000l. to the revenue, and obtained for that proposition the support of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). If he was not greatly 824 mistaken, one of the categories particularly recommended to their attention, both by the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman, embraced the very articles under discussion, and which they were then told yielded no revenue to warrant the expenditure of such a sum in the collection. He remembered as well as possible the same arguments being used in 1846; but they had made a great advance since that time in the application of sound principles to the economy of the public finances. Were they to be told in 1853 that it was of no advantage to the trader that in a particular class of goods he was free from the interference of the Customs, and that he might bring his imports at once into the market? They had had no notice that any resistance would be offered to the present propositions; and he called on the Committee to bear in mind that the trade of the country had been held in suspense, owing to the pendency of the financial arrangements of the year. Would it be said by a Gentleman of such high respectability, and such deserved authority in trade as the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. T. Baring) that they should keep these matters longer undecided? It was absolutely necessary to terminate a suspense which benefited no interest, but injuriously interfered with the vast transactions of our national commerce.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the figures he had adduced relative to the diminution in the cost of collecting the Excise. No one could doubt that the increase in our domestic trade had been commensurate with that of our foreign commerce, yet the fact stood untouched, that whilst the cost of collecting the Customs duties had rather increased, that of collecting the Excise duties had materially diminished. His position had not been invalidated by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should feel bound to take the decision of the Committee on eleven articles on which he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified in asking a remission of duty.
§ MR. T. BARINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him as a merchant as to the inconvenience occasioned by suspense; but the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the only two articles at all interesting to commerce were tea and soap; and when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the injury of suspence in reference to such an article as 825 anchovies, he certainly must be at a great loss for a reason for pressing forward the propositions. With respect to the other argument of the right hon. Gentleman, every hon. Member knew that the interference of the officers of Customs was not in exports. The expense of collection was not at all diminished by the removal of small duties, and there was no equivalent benefit to the consumer.
§ MR. CARDWELLexplained that he quoted those figures, which he remembered accurately, merely for the purpose of showing the great increase which had taken place in the trade of the country.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had charged him with inconsistency in voting on a previous occasion for a Motion made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he wished to explain that he did not vote for that Motion on the ground that it removed a number of small duties, but because it terminated protection on a number of articles consumed by the cultivators of the soil.
§ On the Tea Duties reduction,
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to offer any observations to the House on the present state of affairs in China?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would be happy to give, at a subsequent period, any information in his power upon this subject.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought that subsequent statements were not generally satisfactory to the public. He should like to have had some idea of the estimate which had been formed of the increase in our commerce with China in consequence of the reduction of the tea duties, and also he should like to have known if the Government was possessed of any information as to the present state of affairs in China. He would not at such a late hour lead the Committee into any discussion; but the question was, in his opinion, one of a most important character.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that very considerable excitement had been caused in the trade by the announcement of the intention to withdraw the pound draught on tea; that a public meeting had been held in the City, at which a deputation had been appointed to wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that the deputation had had a very lengthened interview with that right hon. Gentleman. It had been shown to that deputation, consisting principally 826 of persons connected with the trade, that the weighing and taxing of tea were more favourable to the trade than they had previously believed; and the result was, that, although by no means satisfied with the withdrawal of the pound draught, which had been for so long allowed, the deputation admitted that they could not equitably resist the arguments and facts adduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The result of the interview was an arrangement by which the pound draught would be extended to all tea now in bond or to arrive prior to the 5th of July next; and, with this compromise, it was not desired by those who had previously been anxious for the Amendment of which he had given notice, for the continuance of the pound draught, that he should now persevere in that Motion; he, therefore, urged the Committee to pass the Resolution now before it.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not enter into details at that late hour, but would simply state that it was proposed that all tea imported and reported at the Custom-house before the 10th of July should have the benefit of the pound draught; but that, after that time, it should cease altogether.
§ MR. DISRAELIThe Committee should understand, Sir, that this Resolution is a most important one. We are now called upon to vote a reduction in the tea duty to the amount of nearly 3,000,000l., and we must recollect that on this subject we have received no statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that we ought not to agree to the Vote without some statement from the right hon. Gentleman of his detailed opinions on the subject; and I say that we ought to have some estimate from him of what he thinks the increased consumption in this article will be in consequence of the gradual reduction of the duty. We ought also to have an expression of his deliberate opinion as to the increased supply which he expects from China, and we ought to have an authoritative statement from the Government whether, in their opinion, the political changes which are occurring in that country are liable to affect that increased consumption, and to promote that increased commercial intercourse which is expected in consequence of the reduction in the duty. We have not yet heard a single word on this important subject; but there are many points connected with it which ought to be fully put before the 827 Committee to enable hon. Members to express their views on the question. Without offering any formal opposition to the proposition of the Government, I think it not only discreditable to this House, but that we should be wanting in our duty to our constituents, if we have not an opportunity of calmly and properly discussing a question of this kind in which their interests are deeply concerned. The Committee must recollect that when a proposition was made by the late Government to deal with the tea duties, we purposely combined with it an article of British growth, with which tea was supposed to enter into competition. I will not enter into a long argument on the question of the malt tax; but it is well known to every hon. Gentleman in this House that the consumption of malt has been diminishing in this country; and no matter what the real cause may be, the cause which has been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite is, that tea has become a substitute for an article of British growth and manufacture. You are now called upon immensely to reduce the duty on a foreign article, without reducing the excessive duty which is paid on an article of home growth. A proposition of this kind, I say, ought not to be brought forward at one o'clock in the morning, without any statement from the Minister, and without any opportunity being given to Gentlemen on this side of the House of submitting those considerations which they think may affect the decision of the Government. I think that, at one o'clock, it is somewhat preposterous that the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to hurry over so important a question as the tea duty—one which enters into competition with an article of home growth, and which, if carried out, will effect a reduction of 3,000,000l. in our revenue. No estimate has been given of the probable increased consumption of tea under the unprecedented circumstances which are occurring in China, and which may have the effect of diminishing the supply from that country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it convenient to bring forward this very important subject at a more seasonable time.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not understand before this moment, and, indeed, he could hardly understand it now, that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it required the consideration of the Committee, whether they ought to proceed to reduce the tea duties, or to take off one-half of the malt 828 tax. He certainly had thought that the opinion of the Committee was entirely made up on this subject. He was aware that in the ordinary state of things it would have been his duty to make a statement to the Committee on this question; but considering the hour of the night, and considering, also, the great inconvenience produced by a suspension of trade in consequence of this part of the financial proposition not being settled, he thought such a statement might be dispensed with. He was not master of time and tide; he could not regulate the discussions of the House, and had been prevented by the debates on the income tax—a most important subject certainly—from bringing forward the subject of the tea duties sooner. The practical question now was, whether they would have the speech of the Minister, or their tea admitted at a lower duty? He was not so bold as to think that the commercial world would rather have a speech from him, than the tea which was locked up in bond liberated. There was a choice of difficulties, and, though he was quite ready to make a statement, he was altogether unwilling to oppose the progress of the business of the House on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that in his financial statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had detailed all that the Government had to state upon the question. He then stated, as exactly as the nature of the subject admitted of, the amount of revenue expected in consequence of the change; and, with regard to China, he mentioned that, while it was in a state to inspire discomfort and apprehension as to the future supply of tea, there was nothing positive to regulate their knowledge on the subject. But, again, the right hon. Gentleman should recollect that he himself had placed this question almost beyond the possibility of debate. The measures taken by the merchants in consequence of the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, combined with the state of public opinion generally, were of such a character that very little choice lay with the Government as to the course which they should take. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that discussion in that House was a very good tiling; but considering the great inconvenience that would be caused by delay, he had no difficulty as to the alternative which he ought to choose.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid, he must ex- 829 press his satisfaction with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was much more convenient to take the course he had proposed, than to keep the trade of the country in suspension by making speeches. If the Members of that House generally were as much mixed up with commercial matters as he was, they would see the importance of passing this measure without delay, and would deprecate all unnecessary speechmaking.
§ MR. DISRAELIIf my hon. Friend who has just spoken had been a teetotaller, which I am sure he is not, he could not have made a better speech on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman, if a correct one, would be good against their having discussion on any subject whatever. If it is understood that the moment a Minister proposes to deal with a tariff, no one is to call in question the policy he is pursuing, and is to be debarred from even asking questions regarding it, I wish to know why such questions are brought before the House of Commons at all, and not settled by the Board of Trade or by an Order in Council? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had formally given them all the information the Government possessed on this subject; but, I am bound to say it was of a very slight character indeed. He has never yet given us any detailed statement of the increased consumption; and as to the state of China, which he says he has alluded to, I must remind the Committee that there has been three or four arrivals from China since that statement was made, and that none of those important views that have recently attracted our attention to the state of China, had then been made known. Surely it is not unreasonable that the House of Commons should wish to know what opinion the Government have formed with regard to a market so important as China. No doubt in a great change of this kind, the convenience of the trade should be considered; but surely it is not to be considered at the expense of all discussion whatever. I therefore make the reasonable request that this Resolution should be now postponed, to be brought on again on some early day—the first on which they should again meet, if the right hon. Gentleman pleased.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI cannot speak, Sir, with the same weight or authority as does my hon. Colleague (Mr. Masterman), knowing, as he does, the feelings and opinion of the City of London; 830 but I quite agree with him in the conclusion to which he has come. Nor do I think he has in the least exaggerated the state of the question. I was under a delusion up to this moment, that if there were any one thing in the whole financial scheme of the Government upon which the House of Commons was agreed, it was the reduction of the tea duties. Why, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) himself proposed to reduce the tea duties to a similar extent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the tea duties to 1s. per pound; and up to this moment not one word was said against that proposal. This is the first period at which the question could properly be brought before the House in this form; for it could not be proposed until the income tax had passed through Committee. But, after all we have heard, I now ask, does the right hon. Gentleman oppose the proposition of my right hon. Friend? He says he likes discussion and debate; but discussion and debate, however good things they may he, are, I think, not to be preferred where the material interests of the nation are concerned, especially where discussion and debate are not founded on any solid grounds of opposition. As to the mode in which the consumption of tea may be increased or diminished, and the present state of China, whatever is said upon those points must be to a great extent speculative. [The noble Lord then referred to a passage in the Budget-speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the tea duties, and proceeded to say:] Undoubtedly my right hon. Friend might have ventured a little more into detail, had the debate on the income tax been closed at an earlier period of the evening; but, after all, the question for the Committee to decide is, will they incur the proposed loss of revenue? Are you prepared to make those remissions? As to China, anything which may be said about the progress of the civil war in that country, must be still more conjectural than as to the amount or extent of consumption of tea. However, so far as we can learn, the march of those engaged in the insurrection does not seem to be accompanied by plunder and devastation, which often takes place in lines of march; nor does there seem to have been that interference with the pursuits of industry which might have been feared. The apprehended success of the insurrection, so far as I can learn, has not very materially interfered with the industry of the Chinese 831 population. The real question, I repeat, is, whether the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the reduction of the tea duty or not? If he declares he is, I will yield to him at once, and consent to a postponement; hut, if not, I trust we may be allowed to proceed.
§ MR. DISRAELISir, the noble Lord has anticipated the purport and effect of the observations I made, in a very disingenuous spirit, and in a manner which, I must say, is not favourable to the independent Members of this House. I do not think I was bound to say I opposed the reduction of the tea duties. [Ironical cries of "Hear!"] The hon. Gentleman is quite at liberty to indulge in that intelligible sneer, and I advise him to confine himself to that peculiar style of oratory, in which, I think, he is pre-eminent. The noble Lord says he cannot tell us what is taking place in China. Why, I believe the noble Lord finds some difficulty in stating what has taken place in Constantinople. Of course, it would be difficult for him to say what is, or what has, or what may occur in China—a question which he was not asked to answer. The late Government, however, felt it to be its duty to endeavour to obtain the best information they could upon such subjects as this now under discussion, and to state that information to the House. The noble Lord said the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given us all the information that was necessary, and he quoted five lines of his speech, which he seemed amazed at our not remembering, though it was part of a speech of five hours' duration. But still the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given us any estimate as to the expected increase in the consumption of tea—
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(pointing to the Resolution): There it is.
§ MR. DISRAELIThe right hon. Gentleman has not told us how many millions of pounds will be the probable increase of consumption during the first year.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe common rules of arithmetic will inform the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. DISRAELIThe statement of the right hon. Gentleman upon such a subject ought to be clear, plain, and explicit, and to leave no occasion for the application of the rules of arithmetic. It is a question which affects some millions of the revenue of this country, and the state- 832 ment ought to be put before the Committee in an intelligible and business-like manner. The right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord admit that, but for the lateness of the hour, a more detailed statement would have been made. Sir that is my vindication, and a sufficient vindication for the course I feel bound to take. The manner in which the noble Lord asks me, do I oppose the proposal, or do I approve it, is not an ingenuous manner, for though the late Government proposed a remission of the tea duties as great as that of the present Government, it did not propose to confine its operations within so short a period; and the recent news from China certainly does not seem to justify the limiting of the reduction of the tea duties to half the term proposed by the late Government. I think, Sir, we are entitled to have a full and fair opportunity of expressing our views and opinions upon this important subject;—and I must say I do not think our request has been met in the fair spirit in which it ought to be received. The same feverish haste was evinced with respect to the financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. It was said there was a perfect fever in the City. I do not know whether the hon. Colleague of the noble Lord was prepared upon that occasion to vouch for the statements of the Government with the same zeal and promptitude he has done upon this; but the Committee must remember how it was pressed to avoid delay in the adoption of the proposals with respect to the 2½ per cents, and the 3½ per cents, and the Exchequer bonds; because there was such heat and fever in the country, that there could not be any delay. If the right hon. Gentleman had on the first occasion made a business-like statement, and permitted him (Mr. Disraeli) to vindicate the policy he had recommended, he would only have done that which the spirit of justice of the House of Commons would have approved of, and would have taken a course more creditable to his Government than that which he had now pursued.
§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANEsaid, he should move that the Chairman report progress. He thought that his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was unfairly treated by this question of the tea duties being brought on at a quarter-past one in the morning.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the noble Lord persevered in his Motion, the Government were bound by their pledge not to oppose it; but they 833 thought it their duty to avoid procrastination in passing these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had not chosen to demand delay, but he had thrown on the Government the odium of refusing it. He regretted extremely that they could not proceed, but he was bound not to force on the Resolution.
§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANEbegged to explain that he had no wish to obstruct the Government, nor any intention of taking part in the debate upon this question. He had suggested the delay out of fairness, and would like to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain his proposition.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been somewhat wanting in courtesy to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House in not bringing forward the proposition in a manner that would afford an opportunity for fairly discussing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to complain that he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to delay the Resolutions without pledging himself to oppose them. It would, however, have been perfectly open to him to say he would oppose the Resolutions; and of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the general engagement he had made, would not have pressed them to-night; but he (Mr. Disraeli) would not himself oppose the Resolutions, or offer any obstacle to their passing. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend (Lord A. Vane) would withdraw his Motion.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the Committee now agreed to the Resolutions respecting tea, he hoped they might be reported to-morrow. Of course, he had no right to ask hon. Gentleman who had Motions on the paper to postpone them; but at the same time he might say, that it was most desirable to obtain a decision upon these Resolutions at the earliest possible period. He could assure the Committee that there was no wish to prevent the discussion of the Resolutions relating to tea; but communications had been made to various Members of the Government, and especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the last week or ten days, representing that it was most important to the interests of trade and commerce that a decision on this subject should not be longer delayed.
§ MR. T. BARINGsaid, he believed that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted his financial propositions to the House, there had been a sensible rise in 834 the price of tea. He wished to know whether this circumstance might not affect the calculations upon which the right hon. Gentleman had founded his measure. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman's calculation as to the revenue to be derived from tea was founded upon an increased consumption consequent upon a falling price. He (Mr. Baring) doubted whether the consumer would derive the benefit that was expected from the proposed change, and whether there would be such an increase of consumption as would realise the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it would have been better to make at once a greater reduction, and to leave any further reduction for future consideration.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had been no change in the condition of the tea market since his statement was made, which had materially altered the calculations upon which he based his proposal.
§ The Motion for reporting progress was then withdrawn, and the Resolutions were agreed to.
§ House resumed; Committee report progress.