HC Deb 09 May 1854 vol 133 cc39-49

brought up the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means, and the first four Resolutions were put from the Chair.


said, he would beg to ask if this proceeding were merely formal, and if Members would have the opportunity of opposing the Resolutions hereafter.


said, there could not be the smallest doubt as to the meaning of the vote hon. Members were called upon to give. It was a vote simply to enable the revenue officers to act with full authority, and, therefore, to prevent any evasion of the intentions of the House, in case it should, on deliberate consideration, adopt the proposition of the Government. It had no effect whatever in committing the judgment of the House.

Four first Resolutions agreed to.

On the fifth Resolution for the augmentation of the malt duty being read,


said, he begged permission, if he were not out of order, to offer a few observations which he hoped would have the effect of inducing the House at once to reject the proposition of Ministers.


said, the hon. Member had better move an Amendment to strike out the Resolution regarding the malt tax, after all the Resolutions should have been read by the clerk.

This having been done,


again rose, and said he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the House to a circumstance which had occurred in the course of the last Session.


said, he rose to order. This was not a Government night, and, as he understood, the arrangement made last night was that this Report should now be brought up pro formâ, not for the purpose of being discussed. Now, the hon. Gentleman opposite apparently meant to go into the whole question, and when malt was once begun, there was no knowing when or how it would end. He had a notice of Motion on the paper for this evening, but if this question were gone into he should have no chance of bringing it forward. The Government was bound to postpone this discussion, and the hon. Gentleman ought not to commence it.


said, that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was perfectly in order. The House had determined yesterday that this Order of the Day should be read at half-past four o'clock; and the Order of the Day having been read, if the hon. Gentleman chose to take the sense of the House upon it, there was no doubt as to his being in order.


said, that the House had consented that the Report should be brought up that evening upon the understanding that no discussion should take place upon it. It was a violation of good faith, therefore, upon the part of the Government, to permit that discussion to proceed.


said, he preferred taking the decision of Mr. Speaker rather than that of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, of course, recollect that for many years a conflict had been carried on upon the question of whether free trade should be adopted by the country, or whether the system of protective duties should be continued. The House had come to a decision upon that subject, in which those Gentlemen who had supported protective duties were defeated by a large majority, and those who were defeated then thought that it would be improper to dispute the opinion which had been expressed by the country and the House. Having been so defeated, he declared at once that he would not provoke the discussion further, that he bowed to the decision of the House, that he adopted free trade, and that he should honestly endeavour to carry out those principles. He appealed to the Honse whether he had not acted up to that declaration. Having come to that decision, however, and having submitted to an open competition with the foreigner, he contended that the agricultural interest had a right to expect that they should be kindly considered in future legislation, and that if there were any possibility of granting them relief it should be done. It was with great astonishment, therefore, that he had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to derive a considerable amount of the additional revenue of the country from an increase of 50 per cent upon the malt duties. He was astonished, because it seemed to be the opening of a subject which he had thought was settled, the ripping up of a question which had been terminated, and the fresh commencing of a party warfare which he had hoped every section of the country had agreed to close. It was scarcely wise either, at such a moment as the present, to arouse again a spirit of party warfare, and that House had certainly shown every disposition to assist the Government in carrying out their measures for the vigorous prosecution of the war in which we were engaged. He must say that not only was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman calculated to awaken a spirit of party contention, but that the hardship of raising four-fifths of the whole increased amount of taxation upon land was one which the House ought not to consent to have imposed upon the agricultural class. Of the 6,850,000l. additional which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise, he procured 3,150,000l. by doubling the income tax for the second half-year. He did not object to that. The income tax was a fair tax to pay; from it a legitimate revenue might be raised to carry on the war, and it pressed equally and fairly upon the landed and mercantile classes. But this left 3,700,000l. still to be raised, and the right hon. Gentleman actually proposed to raise four-fifths of it, or 2,900,000l., from the land by means of the spirit tax and the malt tax. This was a hardship which the agricultural interest of the country ought not to be called upon to submit to, and he had hoped, after the suffering through which they had passed, that they would not have been subjected to this great aggravation of their distresses. He called upon the House not to allow so partial and unjust a system of taxation to be adopted. He knew that from a large portion the land could not expect to obtain justice; but he could not believe that the House would permit those who were engaged in the cultivation of the land to become permanently "hewers of wood and drawers of water." Under these circumstances, he begged, in order to meet the Resolution with a direct negative, to move as an Amendment, the omission of that portion of it that relates to malt.


seconded the Amendment. He freely admitted that in the present condition of the country it was the duty of all sides of the House to do their utmost to support the Government in carrying on a war in which the honour and interests of the country were involved, and he must appeal to the Government whether hon. Members upon the Opposition side of the House had not given them every possible support and assistance? There was a certain limit, however, to the carrying out of the best principles; and when they saw a tax of this kind attempted to be imposed, so utterly at variance with all justice, he thought that they were bound to pause before they assented to such a proposition. He confessed he was not surprised at this proposition coming from the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was very much in unison with the characteristics of all the financial measures which had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman and by those with whom he had acted since 1846. From the moment that they abandoned the party to which they had formerly belonged, and forfeited the pledges which they had made, they had in all their financial propositions evinced a degree of hostility which had amounted even to malignity towards that class to whom they were pledged, and whom they professed to support. He trusted, however, that there was in that House a stronger sense of justice than existed in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they would not sanction a Resolution so utterly at variance with everything that was fair and right, and so fraught with injury to the agricultural class.

Amendment proposed, To leave out the words 'for and upon every bushel imperial standard measure, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity of Malt which, after the 8th day of May 1854, shall be made in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.'


Sir, if I were to advert to the observations which have fallen from the two hon. Gentlemen who made and seconded the Amendment in detail, I am afraid that the pith and purport of what I should have to say would be, if not a contradictions yet an attempt at a confutation of everything which proceeded from them. I could not agree, I am afraid, to any single proposition which they have uttered; and especially I fear that I should be bound, in general terms, to protest against the doctrine of the lion. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Bali), who appears to think that it is the landed interest whom we had in view in the imposition of this tax, and to be of opinion that this tax and the tax upon spirits are to be borne by the landed interest alone. Sir, I entirely dissent from that proposition. The view of the Government has been an equal apportionment of taxation. I shall not attempt to go into the proof of that proposition, but I content myself with respectfully stating it, and postponing to a future occasion any defence that may be necessary against the charges of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. My object in rising is simply to apologise to those hon. Gentlemen for not entering upon the task of answering them. I assure them that it is neither out of any want of respect to them, nor from any indifference to the great importance of the subject, that I refrain from doing so; but it is that, if I entered upon a discussion of the question at the present moment, I should be guilty of a virtual breach of faith to the House. I have stated within the course of only a few minutes, that in the view of the Government the vote which you are called upon to give is purely a pro formâ vote, and that its whole intent and object is to complete the authority of the revenue officers to raise the charge upon the com- modities, so that if the determination of the House should ultimately be to adopt the proposition of the Government, the intentions of the House may not be evaded by the withdrawal of the commodities out of bond. That being the intention of the vote, I must decline to discuss the merits of the Resolution at the present moment, for, if I did so, every Gentleman would have a right to complain of it as a breach of faith on the part of the Government. For this reason, I beg leave entirely to decline discussion until we arrive at the stage to which my noble Friend has already adverted, when the question may be raised and fully considered. On the part of the Government, of course, I meet the Amendment with a negative, and adhere to the Resolution as it stands.


I am not going, Sir, to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Resolution now before the Committee, but I merely rise to repeat the suggestion which I made last night, that the consideration of this Resolution should be postponed. The ground upon which that suggestion was met by the Government was, that there was no precedent for such postponement. Of course, it was not possible to answer a reply of that kind immediately, because it was not in my power at the moment to consult precedents on a subject which I thought of very great importance. Considering the unexpected character of the proposition of the Government—considering that it unhappily reopened the whole of that industrial question which has so often been discussed in this House—considering that, in a manner most impolitic, it brought a controversy again upon the carpet of Parliament which I thought had for ever disappeared—and considering, more especially, that unanimity was most desirable throughout the country when a tax of this nature should be brought forward, I was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord the Member for London, would have assented to postpone his Resolution, in order that the whole question of the financial scheme of the Government might be discussed together. I will now mention briefly precedents which think are the highest authority for the course which I suggested, and which the fight hon Gentleman informed me last light did not exist. I will not go into old, precedents, but I shall take those which gore particularly have reference to the course taken by Governments with which either the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was connected. In 1840, with a Government with which the noble Lord was connected, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now in the House, proposed, upon Friday, the 15th of May, a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, for an increase of 5 per cent upon the Customs duties. That Resolution was not reported until Tuesday, the 19th, although the House sat upon the intervening Monday. That was a precedent afforded by a Whig Government. Here is another precedent drawn from a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member. This, certainly, is one of the advantages which we have in arguing a point of this description before a Coalition Government. In 1842, upon the 4th of April, there was a Committee of Ways and Means upon the income tax and upon the Irish stamp duties. That Resolution was not reported until the 13th of April. I am aware that the noble Lord may tell me that the interval was occupied in discussions upon the income tax Resolution. That is true; but during the whole of that time the Resolution upon the Irish stamp duties, with respect to which there was no opposition, was also hung up, and it likewise was not reported until the 13th of April. I have now brought for the consideration of the House two important and effective precedents in favour of the course which I recommended last night, when the Government stated that no such precedents existed. All that I myself seek is, that the scheme of the Government shall be fairly discussed in this House as a whole. I know that they may tell me that the House is pledged to nothing by reporting this Resolution. We know, on the contrary, that no discussion on the malt tax can take place until the second reading of the Bill, that a considerable interval will elapse, that great misconception will exist in the country, and that, practically, as in the case of the Resolution respecting Exchequer bonds, although the House is not pledged to assent to the proposition, the Minister will always appeal to a Resolution to that effect having been passed in Committee and reported to the House. I must still urge upon the Government the postponement of this Resolution. If they will consent to postpone it till Monday I shall support the Government; but if, on the contrary, they will not assent to a proposi- tion so reasonable, and enforced by such high authority and precedents, then, to prevent myself from any misconception, I must support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ball); because I cannot but feel that much apprehension will exist upon this subject throughout the country; and I do not wish it for a moment to be supposed that I, at least, can in any way assent to the increase of a tax which I believe now to be most improperly and unjustly imposed.


Sir, I thought that the Committee of the whole House had agreed last night that, though the formal Resolution might be agreed to and be reported, yet that the whole question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan of finance should be discussed on Monday next. It appears now that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) is disposed to recede from that engagement, and to make new objections to the course which we have proposed. His only ground for proceeding in that course is, that we had supposed that there were no precedents for any other course than that which the Government proposed, whereas he has found several precedents, as he alleges, for a different course. I must say that those precedents are entirely inapplicable. They are precedents with regard to the Irish Stamp Acts and to the income tax, and are totally different from the proposition now before the House. [Mr. DISRAELI: They apply to the Customs duties and to spirits.] The question before the House at present relates to a practical injury which the public would suffer if this Resolution were not agreed to. I mean supposing always that the House should ultimately agree to the plan of my right hon. Friend. The precedents which were chiefly looked to by us were those of 1801, of 1802, and of 1819, all of which are precedents with regard to malt. In 1802, the malt duty was raised from 1s.d. to 2s. 5d.; and in 1819, it was further raised from 2s. 5d. to 3s.d. Upon both those occasions, and upon the other occasion to which I have referred, the Resolution which was agreed to upon one day was reported upon the next. The consequence of not doing so would be either a very great loss to the revenue, or very great irregularity on the part of the revenue officers. The revenue officers, no doubt, might act upon the Resolution of a Committee of the whole House; but that Resolution, not having been approved by the whole House, would not, as I conceive, be an authority which might afterwards be considered sufficient. If, however, they did not act upon it, there would probably be a very great loss of revenue. The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue has calculated that the consequence of the delay of a week in collecting this duty would involve a loss of no less than 250,000l. Now, I put this to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who say—and I am quite ready to admit the truth of it—that they have been ready and willing to give us every assistance in the exertions which we have been called upon to make in the prosecution of the war: I ask them now, will they depart from that honourable course? Will they deprive the Government of 250,000l. of revenue for the sake of—it is difficult to define what—for the sake of debating a Resolution upon Monday next rather than the second reading of a Bill? If they have then before them the second reading of a Bill imposing new duties upon malt, they may throw out that Bill, and they may reject the duty altogether, in which case the persons who have paid it would, no doubt, be reimbursed the amount which they had paid; but if, on the other hand, they approve the duty, they might pass the Bill, and they would have the consolation of thinking that 250,000l. of revenue had not been lost to the Government. I own I cannot conceive, under these circumstances, why hon. Members can refuse to accede to the passing of the formal Resolution. I can assure the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that no person on this side of the House, neither my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor either of his Colleagues, will take any advantage of this permission. They will not say, because the Resolution passed, that the House approved the scheme of increasing the malt tax; on the contrary, it will be admitted that the passing of the Resolution was necessary to carry into effect the duty of the revenue, and the whole question can be fully discussed on Monday next. I must, in conclusion, say that this is the understanding which I thought was come to last night. It will be a great loss to the revenue, or a great irregularity, to attempt to collect the duty without the passing of this Resolution; and, at all events, I am greatly surprised at the course which hon. Members are now attemptino. to pursue.


said, that he quite agreed with the noble Lord in con- sidering that the Resolutions were now to be passed pro formâ, and that on Monday the whole question was to be fully discussed on the second reading of the Bill. He would not now lend himself, by voting with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), to an attempt to take the House and the Government by surprise.


said, he should positively deny that they had come to any understanding to the effect that the Resolution was not to be opposed that evening. He would not at that moment enter into a discussion of the general question; but as he had not been a party to any understanding with the noble Lord, he felt himself at perfect liberty to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire.


said, that as he was not present during the debate of last night, he could not say whether any understanding was come to, but it appeared to him that if they were to act upon rational principles they could not resist the request to pass the Resolution. If they were not to do so, the whole of the stock now in hand would go out and be charged at full prices, including the duty, and the question to consider was, whether the Government would be enabled to levy for the public service 250,000l., or whether, by a delay in coming to a decision, they would allow the maltsters to put that sum into their own pockets at the public expense?


said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that they had not come to any agreement on the preceding evening to the effect that that Resolution should not be discussed whenever it might be brought before the House. He must entirely dissent from what the right hon. Member (Mr. Goulburn) had stated would be the result of the postponement of the Resolution. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated that there was a wide difference between the present occasion and the precedents cited by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), but that difference consisted in this —that on the former occasion a sum of 5 per cent would have been lost in the interval between the passing of the Resolution and the bringing up of the Report, while on the present occasion the sum of 50 per cent was involved in this question.


said, he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the House that on the former occasion the small sum of 5 per cent would have been lost, while on the present the loss to the public would be 50 per cent, and this sum of 250,000l. would not be put into the pockets of the landed gentry, but most probably into the pockets of the malsters. Last night, when the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Disraeli) appealed to the Government, and was told by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that no person would be pledged by his vote on this Resolution, that right hon. Member sat down apparently satisfied, and did not express a single objection to the course Government proposed to adopt. He could not, therefore, look upon the present otherwise than as an attempt to take the House by surprise.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 143: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Divett, E.
Alcock, T. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Anderson, Sir J. Drummond, H.
Atherton, W. Duff, G. S.
Ball, J. Duff, J.
Baring, H. B. Duncan, G.
Bass, M. T. Duncombe, T.
Beamish, F. B. Dundas, G.
Beckett, W. Dunlop, A. M.
Berkeley, Adm. Egerton, W. T.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Egerton, E. C.
Bethell, Sir R. Elcho, Lord
Biggs, W. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Blackett, J. F. B. Ellice, E.
Blandford, Marq. of Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bonham-Carter, J. Elmley, Visct.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Emlyn, Visct.
Boyle, hon. Col. Euston, Earl of
Bramston, T. W. Ewart, W.
Brotherton, J. Fagan, W.
Brown, W. Feilden, M. J.
Bruce, Lord E. Fergus, J.
Buckley, Gen. Ferguson, J.
Byng, hon. G. H. C. Fitzgerald, J. D.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Cavendish, hon. G. Foley, J. H. H.
Challis, Mr. Ald. Forster, C.
Chambers, M. Forster, J.
Chaplin, W. J. Fortescue, C. S.
Clay, Sir W. Freestun, Col.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Cogan, W. H. F. Gardner, R.
Collier, R. P. Geach, C.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Glyn, G. C.
Crossley, F. Goodman, Sir G.
Currie, R. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of Gower, hon. F. L.
Dalrymple, Visct. Grace, O. D. J.
Denison, E. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Denison, J. E. Greene, T.
Dent, J. D. Gregson, S.
Grenfell, C. W. Otway, A. J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Paget, Lord A.
Grey, R. W. Palmerston, Visct.
Grosvenor, Earl Pechell, Sir G, P.
Hadfield, G. Peel, F.
Hall, Sir B. Pellatt, A.
Hankey, T. Pennant, hon. Col.
Hanmer, Sir J. Peto, S. M.
Hastie, Alex. Philipps, J. H.
Hastie, Arch. Phillimore, R. J.
Heard, J. I. Phinn, T.
Heneage, G. F. Pigott, F.
Herbert, H. A. Pilkington, J.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.
Hervey, Lord A. Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Heyworth, L. Price, W. P.
Higgins, G. G. O. Ricardo, J. L.
Hindley, C. Ricardo, O.
Horsfall, T. B. Rice, E. R.
Horsman, E. Rich, H.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Richardson, J. J.
Howard, Lord E. Roche, E. B.
Hughes, W. B. Russell, Lord J.
Hume, J. Russell, F. C. H.
Hutt, W. Sadleir, Jas.
Jermyn, Earl Sawle, C. B. G.
Johnstone, J. Scholefield, W.
Keating, H. S. Scobell, Capt.
Keogh, W. Scully, F.
Kershaw, J. Scully, V.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Seymour, Lord
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Seymour, W. D.
Langston, J. H. Shafto, R. D.
Langton, H. G. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Laslett, W. Sheridan, R. B.
Lawley, hon. F. C. Smith, J. A.
Layard, A. H. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Lee, W. Stafford, Marq. of
Liddell, hon H. G. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Stirling, W.
Locke, J. Stickland, Sir G.
Lockhart, A. E. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Luce, T. Stuart, Lord D.
Mackie, J. Talbot, C. R. M.
Mackinnon, W. A. Thicknesse, R. A.
MacGregor, Jas. Thompson, G.
MacGregor, John Thornely, T.
Marshall, W. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Martin, J. Uxbridge, Earl of
Massey, W. N. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Matheson, A. Vivian, J. H.
Miall, E. Vivian, H. H.
Milligan, R. Walmsley, Sir J.
Mills, T. Walter, J.
Milner, W. M. E. Whitbread, S.
Milnes, R. M. Wickham, H. W.
Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW. Wilkinson, W. A.
Monck, Visct. Willcox, B. M,
Moncreiff, J. Williams, M.
Montgomery, Sir G. Williams, W.
Mowbray, J. R. Wilson, J.
Muntz, G. F. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Mure, Col. Wise, A.
Norreys, Lord Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wrightson, W. B.
O'Brien, P. Wyndham, W.
O'Brien, Sir T. Wyvill, M.
O'Connell, D. Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
O'Connell, J.
O'Flaherty, A. TELLERS.
Oliveira, B. Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Osborne, R. Mulgrave, Earl of
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Herbert, Sir T.
Alexander, J. Irton, S.
Archdall, Capt. M. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bagge, W. Jones, D.
Bailey, Sir J. Kelly, Sir F.
Bailey, C. Kendall, N.
Baillie, H. J. Ker, D. S.
Baird, J. King, J. K.
Baldock, E. H. Knatchbull, W. F.
Bankes, rt. hon. G. Knightley, R.
Barrington, Visct. Knox, Col.
Barrow, W. H. Langton, W. G.
Beach, Sir M. H. H. Lennox, Lord A. F.
Bective, Earl of Lisburne, Earl of
Bellew, T. A. Long, W.
Bennet, P. Macartney, G.
Blair, Col. Malins, R.
Boldero, Col. Mandeville, Visct.
Booker, T. W. Manners, Lord G.
Booth, Sir R. G. March, Earl of
Buck, L. W. Meux, Sir H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Miles, W.
Butt, G. M. Michell, W.
Campbell, Sir A. I. Montgomery, H. L.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Morgan, O.
Cecil, Lord R. Mullings, J. R.
Chelsea, Visct. Mundy, W.
Child, S. Naas, Lord
Christopher, rt.hn.R.A. Neeld, J.
Clinton, Lord C. P. Noel, hon. G. J.
Clive, R. North, Col.
Cocks, T. S. Oakes, J. H. P.
Codrington, Sir W. Packe, C. W.
Coles, H. B. Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.
Compton, H. C. Palk, L.
Davison, R. Palmer, R.
Deedes, W. Parker, R. T.
Dering, Sir E. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Portal, M.
Dunne, Col. Pugh, D.
Du Pre, C. G. Rolt, P.
Egerton, Sir P. Scott, hon. F.
Evelyn, W. J. Seymer, H. K.
Farrer, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Fellowes, E. Smijth, Sir W.
Filmer, Sir E. Smith, W. M.
Floyer, J. Somerset, Capt.
Forbes, W. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Spooner, R.
Forster, Sir G. Stafford, A.
Frewen, C, H. Stanhope, J. B.
Fuller, A. E. Taylor, Col.
Galway, Visct. Thesiger, Sir F.
Gaskell, J. M. Tollemache, J.
George, J, Tomline, G.
Gilpin, Col. Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Graham, Lord M. W. Tudway, R. C.
Granby, Marq. of Tyler, Sir G.
Greaves, E. Vance, J.
Greene, J. Vane, Lord A.
Grogan, E. Vansittart, G. H.
Halford, Sir H. Vernon, L. V.
Hall, Col. Vyse, Col.
Hamilton, G. A. Waddington, H. S.
Hamilton, J. H. Walcott, Adm.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Harcourt, Col. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Hawkins, W. W. West, F. R.
Hayes, Sir E. Whitmore, H.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Wyndham, Gen.
Wynn, Major H. W. W. TELLERS.
Wynne, W. W. E. Ball, E.
Yorke, hon. E. T. Bentinck, G. P.

Resolution agreed to.


in reply to a question from Mr. Dunlop respecting the Resolution on the sugar duties, said, that in the statement which he had the honour of making last night he had proposed a certain scale of duties on sugar irrespective of origin, and that scale of duties was to have taken effect immediately. The objection taken to this by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) was, that, as there was still a period of eight or nine weeks during which those persons interested in colonial sugar had a right to anticipate, under the sanction of the faith of Parliament, a continuation of the differential duties, the Government had, under these circumstances, given way, and had framed a Resolution by which it was proposed to raise 15 per cent additional duty on the sugar duties as they now existed. The Resolution contained no reference to the time, but it was drawn up in that respect with due regard to precedent. The proper period for limiting the time would be when the Resolution was introduced in the form of a Bill. At that stage an enactment would be proposed limiting the time to the 5th of July, and they would likewise propose that after the 5th of July the scale of duties which he had last night proposed to the House should come into operation.


said, he wished to know if the definitions of the different classes of sugars as now understood were to be maintained?


said, he had last night mentioned the subject of the standards of sugar that divided class from class, and that it was intended to consider and modify those standards. The alteration in the standards that would take place would be an alteration of no great effect, but, so far as it went it would be found to be in favour of sugar of the lower qualities.

Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

Bill or Bills ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord John Russell.