§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in rising to move a Resolution in favour of the suspension of the search of baggage of passengers arriving from France during the period of the French Exhibition, said, it was his intention to take the decision of the House upon it, as it proposed to got rid of a grievance which was wantonly inflicted on a large number of Her Majesty's subjects. That grievance arose from what he ventured to call a red-tape prejudice. Ever since the time of the last French Exhibition, there was a growing feeling in the country against the wanton search among passengers' luggage for non-existing articles, and for articles with regard to which Customs duties did not exist, which produced so much trouble and vexation to persons travelling between Folkestone, Dover, and France. Upon this subject 124 Members of the Upper House, and 318 Members of the House of Commons, presented themselves in solemn deputation a few weeks since to the Treasury. They submitted their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he received them with that dignified courtesy which was inherent in his nature. He heard their case, shook 1582 his head, and sent them off with a Papal non-possumus. All they had then to do was to throw themselves upon the House, and show how futile were the reasons of that venerable Board of Customs which instructed the Treasury. On this question he would read a short opinion as to this search of luggage—an opinion which, on account of its brevity, should be the text of his remarks. That opinion was to the effect that after all the allowances to be made the system of examination must always be productive of inconvenience and vexation to the public, and could only be justified by imperious necessity. The name subscribing that opinion was the justly respected one of George Ward Hunt, and it was contained in a letter to the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) and Lord Harris, the chairmen of the two companies most affected. A paper had been circulated that morning containing two learned discourses from the Board of Customs, and a second series of learned discussions in the form of letters from the Treasury repeating the text of the former. These documents, while entering fully and with great accuracy into the whole system of the balance of trade between England and France, and stating what was the price of tobacco and spirits, and how much had been exported and imported; had yet to make the confession that there were only two articles at present liable in any appreciable extent to any Customs duty—namely, spirits and tobacco. But the Board of Customs had omitted from that statement all reference to the mode and machinery of smuggling. The Board were wrong in supposing that the remonstrants asked for unlimited leave and licence to carry all or any baggage or packages between France and England. They asked for no such preposterous privilege. They only asked to be allowed to carry without examination that which was clearly and obviously passengers' luggage—portmanteaus, trunks, and bags, which they required; that in respect of merchandize—that is to say, of all packages which proved themselves by their shape and construction not to be passengers' luggage—all the existing regulations might continue in force. They asked for a limited relief for a limited class of goods, and they asked it from about the 1st of April onwards down to the period of the close of the Exhibition. They could not force the French Government; but judging the concessions by France in 1855, it was probable 1583 that any liberal step on our part would be met in a corresponding spirit. He wished the House to consider what a heavy and bulky article spirits were, and to look at the difficulties in the way of their being surreptitiously brought over to this country. They must be brought by a passenger, who had to pay £4 or £2 for his ticket. A passenger could only bring over 56 lb. weight of luggage from Paris without extra charge, and it was preposterous to suppose that, under these conditions, there could be any smuggling of spirits sufficient to affect the revenue within the limits of the under-weight. Cheap and nasty spirits could be obtained in England as cheap and nasty as in France. An Englishman drunk his gin as a Frenchman did his absinthe. Cognac of a superior quality was an article of luxury for limited consumption at gentlemen's tables, and therefore not likely to be smuggled; but there was scarcely any appreciable difference in price between ordinary English and French brandy. A certain liquor called Betts's British brandy, costing 18s. a gallon, was about as palatable or unpalatable, as gentlemen might think, as French brandy of a similar quality at 21s. Now, then, this fluid was, as every one knew, bulky and weighty—so, also, was every vessel in which it could be stored without fear of breaking or spilling. He had himself that day weighed the bottle in which brandy was usually put, and found it to be 1 lb. 10 oz., while, were it put in pipkins the vessels containing the liquid would still be very heavy. Here he could offer a wrinkle to the Treasury. Let them just arrange for the railways porters to be only a very little more rough than they usually were, and he would undertake that with no further trouble to the Customs Department any amount of brandy smuggled in bottles would come out a very disagreeable mess of smashed glass. Surveillance, if not of a very vexatious kind, was not objected to, and so smuggling was carried on by passengers there would be no difficulty in detecting it by means of a police system, exercised, not by companies of Mr. Pollaky's inquiry officers, as the Treasury seemed to suppose, but by their own Customs officers; with such arrangements it was preposterous to suppose that in portmanteaus and paper parcels brandy could be smuggled to any appreciable extent. If a gentleman smuggler contemplated such a thing as bringing over six dozen of Cognac, weighing 280 lb., he would have to pay, not only 1584 the cost of his ticket, but 1s. 6d. for every extra 10 lb. beyond the 56 lb. allowed him—the 1s. 6d. being the excess charged on the South Eastern, and the London, Chatham, and Dover lines. It was absurd to suppose that half-a-dozen persons would club together to bring over this spurious article. Now as to tobacco, cigars were doubtless a much lighter ware; but it must be remembered that in France tobacco was an article of Government manufacture, and it was not the right of anybody to open a tobacco shop, or charge his own price, for this was treated as a very strict monopoly and privilege, and was usually granted to officers' widows, in lieu of a pension. Of course, Madame la Capitaine is too great a lady to exercise the privilege except by deputy. But she makes the deputy pay high. He had the particulars of one bureau de tabac in the Rue de Dunkirk, Paris, where the man who kept it had to pay £160 a year as royalty to the lady besides the landlord's rent. And yet, owing to the monopoly, it was only at such shops that tobacco could be got at all. What possible room was there, he asked, for possible smuggling under such conditions? The selling price of tobacco in France was about 4s. per lb. He really believed that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hunt), with that ingenuous generosity which distinguished his every thought and action, almost fancied that the gentleman smuggler was so upright that every article produced by him might be supposed to be imported from the country from which he professed to have come, instead of being the production of British labour. His hon. Friend would possibly suppose that the sailor-looking man who might meet him at Margate or Ramsgate, and who, with the "tip" of a "knowing wink," would offer cigars for sale with the implication that they were "really good cigars," and had been brought from France, was a veritable smuggler, though in some better informed quarters there might be a suspicion that the article was of home manufacture, and the smuggler a person who was sinning not against the revenue, but only against truth. If a gentleman was silly enough to bring over a bottle of brandy which he felt a pride in putting upon his table as "stolen waters," or if a lady brought over a bottle of scent which Rimmel could make here at the same price, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think that their folly would produce an appreciable diminution in the revenue. As to the traffic 1585 between the two countries, this was expected to be a very crowded and turbulent year; and therefore it was utterly fallacious to suppose that the figures which had been put forth by the Treasury as the average of time employed in the search of each passenger's luggage, could furnish any test of the trouble and time to be occupied in searching passengers' luggage during the period of the Paris Exhibition. Besides, the amount of inconvenience incurred could not be calculated by any arithmetical test, mixed up as it was with the disturbing element of sea sickness. In a word, this search was likely to become a gigantic evil, and he called upon the Government to apply a remedy; but the Government met them with cut-and-dried figures, though he believed it was a mere chimerical evil that they were seeking to put down. He hoped that the prayer of nearly half the Members of that House, and of more than 100 Members of the other House, would be granted, and that every facility would be given for expediting the search of passengers' luggage during the continuance of the Paris Exhibition. He would now beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Customs Revenue is now derived from in exceedingly small number of articles, the prices of most of which in London and Paris are equal, this House considers that no appreciable injury would be inflicted upon the income of the Country were the present practice of the search of the baggage of travellers at Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven, and in London suspended during the period of the French Exhibition of 1867,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. Friend accused Her Majesty's Government of being harsh towards those persons who were anxious to visit the French Exhibition during the coming year. If this were done out of wantonness, the terms would not be too severe. But the Government had to consider what was their duty in dealing with the very influential deputation which waited some time ago upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which set forth the desires of 300 Members of that House and 100 Members of the Upper House. He was not surprised that that number of Peers and Commoners signed the Memorial, 1586 and it would have been no matter of surprise to him if the number had been larger. What they very reasonably wished was that, if the Government could do it without loss to the revenue, the very desirable boon which was asked should be granted. The duty of the Government, however, was to ascertain whether there was any risk or not to the revenue. It was not from any "red-tapeism" that the Government had been prevented from granting the request. The papers which had been presented showed that the Government had considered the question with great care and minuteness, and he hoped it would be seen that it was not consistent with their duty for the Government to allow of the right of search being done away with. They were told that the French Government were prepared to meet them half-way, but statements subsequently made did not lend a warrant to that belief, but rather led to one of a contrary character; for though the French Government were ready to give every facility consistent with the right of search, they had refused to abandon it. He would ask whether it was England or France that was most interested in promoting this traffic? If even those whose desire and whose interest it was to bring foreigners to their capital would not abandon their rights, was it reasonable to suppose that this country which was not so much interested should be the first to abandon them? His hon. Friend had gone into the question of the weight of the articles, and if smugglers took such a clumsy mode of proceeding as that indicated by his hon. Friend there would be little risk run, but unfortunately some persons were as ingenious in defrauding the revenue as his hon. Friend was in preparing arguments for the House. In the opinion of authorities at the Custom House, who were the best judges in such a question, there would be a great deal of petty smuggling going on among a certain class of travellers, not for the wilful purpose of defrauding the revenue, but for the amusement of the thing. That, however, was not the main reason which influenced the Government. Further than that, they had no doubt that during the seven months during which the Exhibition was to continue there would be, were this application granted, an organized system of smuggling spirits and tobacco. He had requested to be furnished with calculations of the proceeds of a single journey, if a traveller were to bring the weight of luggage which 1587 he was entitled to have registered between Dover and Calais, or Folkestone and Boulogne, in contraband goods. A traveller from this country to Paris during the Exhibition would be allowed to have without extra payment 56 lb. of luggage, and also to take with him in the carriage a portmanteau or bag weighing 40 lb., making together 96 lb. of luggage. Deducting the weight of the packages holding the luggage, the weight of the contents would be 80 lb. The present Customs tariff of this country consisted of a very small number of articles, but on those the duty was very high, affording an inducement to unscrupulous persons to smuggle. The Customs duty on spirits amounted to £4,000,000, the duty on tobacco to £6,500,000, and, of course, it would be obvious that it was obligatory on the Government to take precautions that the revenue should not suffer by the smuggling into this country of foreign spirits and tobacco. As the hon. Member had said, the manufacture and sale of tobacco, or the giving of licenses, was a Government monopoly in Franco, but it so happened that there was a deputed agent of the French Government in this country; and the first class of cigars, which in Paris were sold retail for £1 5s. the pound of 100 cigars, were sold by the agent in London at £2 1s. 8d., showing a profit on their sale in London of 16s. 8d. Suppose that a traveller brought over 80 pounds weight there would be a profit of £66 3s. 4d. on a single venture. Then take the case of small common cigars, 150 to the pound; these were 8s. 4d. per pound in Paris and 11s. 6d. in London, showing a profit of 3s. 2d.; on these a profit might be made on the single journey of £19. The price of manufactured tobacco was 5s. per pound in Paris and 9s. per pound in London, so that the profit on a single journey might be £16. A person had been sent out to Paris to make purchases at retail shops, and 5s. per pound was found to be the average price there of the tobacco in ordinary use; the same steps were taken in London, and striking the average, the price per lb. was found to be 9s. With respect to spirits, suppose that 10 gallons of brandy were brought over in the luggage, as might well be, the price in Paris would be 7s. 1d. per gallon, while in London it would be £1 10s. showing a profit of £1 2s. 11d, per gallon, or of £11 9s. 2d. on the ten gallons. Such was the profit upon spirits, while, as he had shown, the profit upon good cigars would be £66 3s. 4d., upon common cigars 1588 £19, and upon manufactured tobacco £16 on a single venture. His hon. Friend said that they must deduct the expense of the journey. That would be insignificant in proportion, but allow for that. Suppose that 84 journeys could be made during the seven months, the profit on the best cigars would be £5,390; on common cigars £1,428; and on manufactured tobacco £1,176; while the profit on the spirits would be £794. After reading these figures he thought the House would see that it was rather a serious question that the Government had been called upon to consider. It might be said that any single person going backwards and forwards so frequently would be discovered, but unscrupulous persons would without difficulty secure agents to carry out by different routes their policy of fraud. He hoped, then, that the House would think the Government justified in declining to accede to the proposal made to them. The Government were ready to do whatever might be in their power to meet the increased traffic by providing additional hands at the different stations of arrival, and they would also take the greatest care in their selection, so that all unavoidable trouble might be prevented. But delay was likely to occur elsewhere than with the Government, and if the railway companies would, by a little judicious expenditure, extend their accommodation, very great facilities would be given to travellers who were called upon to have their luggage searched. Bearing in mind the large increase of traffic which certain of the railway companies would command, he thought this might fairly be expected of them. If they would do their part, the Government would render all the aid that could be expected from them, and so travellers might secure the minimum of disadvantage.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that after the clear statement of his hon. Friend who had just sat down the House would not agree to the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. The preamble of that Resolution either had some connection with the Resolution or not; if it had not, it ought to be struck out; if it had, it stated what was not founded in fact, for it affirmed that there need be no apprehension of smuggling from any difference in the price of articles in Paris as compared with London; but some of the figures which his hon. Friend had laid before the House on this subject were incontrovertible, and they showed that on tobacco of precisely the 1589 same quality there was a difference of between 4s. and 5s. a pound between London and Paris, while the difference in spirits was from 5s. to 7s. per gallon. If, then, there were no restrictions put upon the travellers in the way of searching their baggage the revenue would suffer considerably. He therefore trusted, after the Ministers responsible for collecting the revenue had stated in their place that they could not consent to the suspension proposed, the House would pause before passing a Resolution of this kind. At the same time, he had a suggestion to propose to the Government, and to those who came down to support this Resolution, as to steps which might be taken by which the inconvenience of search would be greatly diminished, while the revenue would also be protected. Calculations had been made as to the exact amount of delay caused by the searching baggage at the London termini of the railways. It was very true, as stated in the Customs report, that the mere act of search did not occupy many minutes; but the preparations for that search greatly affected the arrangements of the companies for the delivery of luggage. On one occasion he remembered having been kept more than half an hour, not in consequence of the time employed in the search itself, but in consequence of the company being compelled to take out every article of luggage and place it on the table before the search commenced. What he proposed was this. In the salle de bagage at Paris it was necessary that all luggage should be received several minutes before the starting of every train. It appeared to him that by an arrangement with the French Government an officer of the British Government might be stationed in the salle de bagage, who should see all the luggage as brought in, and on observing any parcel that appeared suspicious, or that ought to be searched, he might mark it, so as to keep it under surveillance during transit, and with a view to its examination on arrival in London, the remainder being allowed to go free. All that was now done was to examine about one package in ten, selecting the most suspicious; and he thought the arrangement he suggested would be equally effective and more expeditious. He did not make this suggestion oil any mean authority—he made it on the very highest authority on such questions, and he was enabled to say that the arrangement was exactly similar to one which had been agreed 1590 to between Holland and Prussia, and which, though now superseded, had been found perfectly satisfactory both to the Customs authorities and the railways. If the Government would take that suggestion into consideration, he hoped those who had brought forward this Resolution would withdraw it. If not, he should vote with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hunt.)
§ MR. WATKINsaid, he hoped the practical suggestion which had just been made by the hon. Member would meet with due attention from the Government. It was no new suggestion; for it had been pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the interview already referred to, so that the Government could not say they were taken by surprise. Let him now say a word or two in answer to what he might call the hobgoblin argument of the Secretary for the Treasury. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had given the weight of his authority to these calculations, which were really of no value whatever. They rested on a comparison of things which were not equal. He compared the wholesale prices in one case to the retail prices in the other. If hon. Gentlemen would go into the tea-room they would find samples of these articles the smuggling of which was so much dreaded, all labelled and the prices marked, and they would find from these that it was the exception where the retail prices of these articles were cheaper in Paris than in London. But how had the House been treated with regard to these papers, which were filled with calculations and statements? The most important paper was prepared as early as the 9th of February, by the Custom House authorities, but it was only yesterday issued to the House, so that no opportunity was allowed to answer the memorandum, which might easily have been done. But the question rested on higher grounds than the mere difference of retail prices. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury came to the House with calculations to show the enormous trade to be done in smuggling cigars and tobacco, by which £5,000 a year, he said, could be made. The hon. Gentleman based his calculation, not on the mere difference of duty, assuming the cost and quality to be the same—say 7s. per 1b.—but he said that the difference of selling price was 16s. 6d.; and, assuming that every one could sell as much as he liked at that price, he said £5,000 was to be made. Now, as to spirits, they might be cheaper 1591 or dearer in Paris, as the case might be. Let them take what the poor man drank in Paris, and it would be found somewhat higher in price than what the poor man drank in London. Taking spirits of the very best and finest quality, they were to some extent cheaper in Paris than in London. But were the people who travelled across to be considered smugglers or not? In several places in the Customs documents Her Majesty's subjects had been abused by the persons in authority as being so base and vile that nothing but the intervention of Custom House officers could make them honest. The law generally treated every man as honest till he became delinquent. Here every lady and gentleman was assumed to be delinquent in advance. Surely it was even more important to protect the coinage than the Customs. The coinage was protected by the ordinary law and the ordinary police. If he went into questions of artificial gold, he might go on to show that a man in that line of business might make £50,000 instead of £5,000 a year. Coinage was more easy than smuggling and more profitable, and inflicted greater injury on the State, but men were not stopped to inquire whether they had base shillings in their pockets. The system of prevention was known not to be perfect, and sometimes crime was committed. And why? Because the thing could not be entirely stopped without dealing unfairly with the liberty of the subject. It was known that, as a rule, the people of this and other countries were honest. They ran a certain risk of danger rather than inflict the inconvenience and loss which an espionage like that of the Custom House would occasion. If it was a fact that the people who travelled for pleasure were not smugglers, what was the reason, when the number of articles on which duty was payable had been reduced from 360 to something like a dozen, of which spirits and tobacco were the only two where smuggling was feared, that some system could not be adopted which, without injuring the revenue, would not inconvenience the travelling public? Why could not the revenue be protected in the same way as base coinage was guarded against? He would ask the Government whether they really thought the thousands of people who would go to Paris this year would go for the purpose of smuggling and not for pleasure, and whether, this being the 8th of March, and the Exhibition being announced to open on the 1st of April, there 1592 would be time, even if the Resolution passed, for any number of persons to organize systematic smuggling?
MR GLADSTONESir, I wish to make one or two remarks upon the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin.) My hon. Friend has stated with great force and clearness the case of which he is, very naturally, under the circumstances, the advocate. This is a matter in which I take a great interest, as I think it involves a question of importance in relation to the connection between this House and the Executive Government. My hon. Friend says that it would be impossible to organize a system of smuggling in the time allowed, or to take advantage of facilities which are only to last for six months. But I wish to point out to the House that, as far as I can form an opinion, the system which we observe during the Exhibition we must be prepared to continue after the Exhibition. It would be totally impossible to draw a distinction between the period of the Exhibition and the period following. If there would be serious injury to the revenue, we ought not to give facilities; if there would be no serious injury, we ought to continue them. Then, as to the price of articles in London and Paris, my hon. Friend pits a list which he recommends for our consideration against the prices produced by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt.) I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's prices have been brought forward in perfect good faith, but who is responsible for their presentation? Supposing it turned out, after all these facilities had been given, that damage arose to the revenue; we could not call upon those who had placed the specimens in the tea-room and make them responsible. On the other hand, the Government comes down to this House, being bound to take securities for the due collection of the revenue, bound to obtain the most ample and accurate calculation as to the effect of these relaxations, and to take security that the revenue should receive no damage. The credit of the Government is involved, as well as their duty to the House of Commons, in the accuracy of the information which they lay before us. It does appear to me that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is open to criticism as regards the amount of profits. I have no doubt that a strict calculation would considerably reduce that amount; but I have no doubt, on the other hand, after every 1593 fair deduction had been made, a margin would remain sufficient to show a very high probability of such profits as would justify the apprehension which he entertains. But then my hot). Friend says, "Why not protect the revenue as you protect the coinage?" But, does not my hon. Friend know that in the protection of the coinage every member of the community is the ally of the Government? The Government does not need to depend on its own officers alone; it is the interest of A, B, C, and D, and of every human being, except the coiner himself, to protect it. But the revenue from our Customs meets with very little sympathy on the part of the community, and must depend upon its own officers for its protection. To talk of the smallness of the number of articles upon which the duty is levied is quite irrelevant; it is the amount of duty that is the question. Here is a matter of some £11,000,000, one half of our Customs duty—I do not mean that all this money is in question, but the interests of the revenue are in question and the interests of justice, because we owe it to the traders in those articles, upon which we levy high duties, to defend them to the best of our power against illicit competition. But though the case made out by the Government is a strong one, the main consideration is this: The question raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. B. Hope) is, Who are the guardians of the public revenue? Are we to hold the Government responsible year after year for the faithful collection of the public revenue, and for the suppression of contraband trade? Or is this House to take the duty into its own hands of directly superintending the revenue? If you say, "We will take charge of it," then you ought to appoint a Committee of your own, and place it in direct communication with those Departments with whom the Government has immediate relations on the subject, so as to enable you to efficiently discharge the duty. But in our present arrangements, we have no intimate knowledge on the subject. We have, indeed, knowledge of a vague and general character, which no doubt furnished the materials of a most interesting speech to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), who was so shocked with the conduct of the Government in this matter that he transferred himself to this side of the House, where no doubt, if he remains, he will be exceedingly welcome. But the responsibility of the Government must remain 1594 there. I, for one, am not prepared to assume it. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not take it for granted that it is the remains of old official habit which induce me to play what they may think the part of an obstructor; because, in the first place, the whole course of modern administration has been steadily directed towards the relaxation of every official rule that could interfere with private comfort; and, in the second place, I look with sanguine expectation to the reply which I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give to the question put to him by my hon. Friend (Mr. Childers.) I am far from thinking that we have yet arrived at the ne plus ultra of concession. There is much, as I have already intimated, in the documents on the table in which I do not agree; and I especially dissent from one remark made by the Customs authorities, that the Customs search does not restrict or discourage travelling. Every restriction must discourage travelling, and as such it ought to be reduced to its minimum. I think a very practicable mode of diminishing the inconvenience has been pointed out by my hon. Friend. It may require communications between the two Governments. At other times it would probably have been impracticable; but the spirit of modern legislation tends to promote and encourage these facilities. I hope some plan will be devised, by means of arrangements between the two Governments, such as at other times would be found impracticable, but which in our modern relations may be safely carried out.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, with regard to the suggestion which has been thrown out by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), of course, anything emanating from such a quarter will be received by us with the deference to which it is entitled. Schemes of a similar character have occurred to the Government, and have been mentioned in some quarters, but have not yet been received in a manner which gives me at this moment any very encouraging hope that we may succeed in an arrangement at all satisfactory. The identical plan of the hon. Gentleman has certainly not been considered, but it shall be. With every wish to remove difficulty out of the way of Her Majesty's subjects, I cannot at the present moment make any engagement which should at all influence the decision of the House, which ought to be 1595 arrived at on principles quite distinct. I do not think the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) has any ground of complaint with respect to the conduct of the Government in this matter. He complained of the papers not being produced. But the hon. Gentleman was aware of the existence of those papers, and, according to Parliamentary practice, he might have moved for them if he required them, and they would have been produced. What we did was to produce the papers when notice was given. With regard to the general argument of the hon. Member for Stockport, I must say now what I had the pleasure of saying to him under a more private roof, that the general tone of his objections really go altogether against the whole system of levying duties and searching baggage, and we are not quite in a position to agree with him. I listened with much amusement to the quaint rhetoric of my hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) who represents the interests of the Potteries. He did full justice to his case and his clients; but his case is not a good one, and his clients are somewhat unreasonable. There has been every disposition on the part of the Government to comply with the wishes of their fellow-countrymen on this question as far as possible. No doubt it would be very agreeable to the Government if they could entirely study the convenience of travellers to the Exhibition without reference to any other consideration. But that is not possible; and I think the statements which have been made by the Secretary to the Treasury this evening must have produced a due effect upon the House. They really have not been impugned by the tea-room criticisms and the tea-room illustrations of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Stockport must remember that in the matter of the calculations with which he favoured me in another place he really founded his arguments, as regards brandy, upon an error in assuming that the pure alcohol of the French brandy was similar to our proof strength in England, because I believe, as he himself now admits, there is a difference of 70 per cent between the two articles. If we are to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon this matter we must first of all study perfect accuracy. I am sure it is the inclination, and I cannot doubt that it is the duty, of the Government to do all they can to meet the wishes of those who propose to visit the Paris Exhibition, and, if they possibly can, to 1596 prevent them from being subjected to the inconvenience which necessarily results from the interference of Custom House officers. But the real question before the House is a simple on—is the House of Commons prepared to support Her Majesty's Government in their attempt to defend the revenue of the country? This is really the only consideration on which we ought to decide.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the question of copyright should not be forgotten. Numerous cheap editions of our best authors were re-produced on the Continent as fast as they appeared here. At present heavy penalties attached to their importation; but if the request of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent were acceded to, the authors and publishers of this country would be defrauded of their rights. If for no other reason the Motion should be rejected.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would accept what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a promise to do whatever was possible for intending visitors to the Paris Exhibition, and therefore would beg to withdraw his Motion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.