§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
1224§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. ECROYD,in rising to move, as an Amendment —
That, in view of the growing injury inflicted upon our industries by Foreign tariffs, and the consequent importance of more rapidly developing the resources of India and the Colonies, it is expedient to free ourselves as early as possible from the restraints of Commercial Treaties; to abolish the Duties upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits imported from British possessions; to levy specific Duties (in no case equal to more than ten per cent, upon ordinary average values) upon the like articles, as well as upon wheat, flour, and sugar imported from Foreign Countries; and also to impose an Import Duty upon Foreign manufactures, with the notification that it should cease to operate, as against each Nation, from the day on which such Nation should admit British manufactures duty free,said, he occupied the time of the House on that occasion with very considerable regret, because he could not but feel that, to some extent, he was impeding a measure which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to expedite. He would, however, endeavour to confine himself to that which bore directly and closely upon the question before the House. Had he taken the opportunity of introducing the Motion which stood in his name on a Tuesday or a Friday evening, he should have laid himself open to the charge of seeking to introduce a merely academical discussion. He had chosen, therefore, to do so upon the second reading of this Bill, because the most important question he desired to examine was the wisdom and desirability of raising so much revenue from tea as they did at the present time. He should not examine at any length the effect of foreign tariffs upon the manufactures and trade of this county. That question was debated last year upon a different Motion, brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), and he (Mr. Ecroyd) should, therefore, confine himself to saying that those engaged in the manufactures of the country had found that the pressure of such tariffs had been in no way relieved during the past year, and that the outlook, as regarded future openings for the export of the productions of our industries, was regarded as gloomy in the extreme by those who were most competent to form an opinion. He could not apologize for 1225 occupying the time of the House on a matter so closely connected with the agriculture and industries of this country, because it must be admitted that, during the present Session, very little time had been devoted to questions of that character. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had introduced a measure of great interest to those who were engaged in commercial pursuits; but it was somewhat ominous that that measure was a Bankruptcy Bill. If they regarded the present position of the cultivators of the soil, and the condition of many of outmost important industries, they would only be too ready to fear that a Bankruptcy Bill might, indeed, be the measure most urgently required. He should, no doubt, be attacked upon the ground of political economy. He (Mr. Ecroyd) thought, however, that he had more occasion to fear the adverse criticisms of right hon. Gentlemen upon his own side of the House than of those who sat on the Benches opposite, since that important but somewhat loosely defined science had been solemnly banished by a high authority to two distant planets. He could not conceive that anything he might have to propose ought to be regarded as infringing the true principles of political economy. After all, political economy, as he had said, was a very loosely defined science, and must always be subject to the prevalence of exceptional circumstances. Political economy was made for man, and not man for political economy. Many of the arguments which had been brought forward in opposition to facts adduced to prove the somewhat insecure position of the industries of this country were such as he believed would not bear a close or even a cursory examination. He remembered that, during the debate last year, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), to whom they always listened with very much interest and attention, told them that if it were the case that we exported little to countries like the United States in return for our large imports from them, we might regard it as a fortunate circumstance, and asked if we really wished to pay them more in exchange for our imports than we did at present. He (Mr. Ecroyd) should like to ask the hon.1226 Gentleman, if he really thought that we were paying our Australian Colonies three times as much for what we imported from them, because they took from us three times as much value of our manufactures, in proportion to our imports from them, as did the United States? Such arguments as those could not be defended for one moment. Again, great stress was laid on the prosperity and continual extension of our shipping. To some extent, however, the increase in our shipping trade had been owing to the depression of our industries. For instance, if we had a failing harvest and brought more food from foreign countries, that necessarily gave employment to a great deal more shipping. Again, if manufacturers were driven abroad by hostile influences, and we received from abroad things which our own industries ought to produce, that was an employment of shipping which, as far as it went, was a proof, not of prosperity, but of adversity. What he should like to know were such points as these. What was the progress of incomes derived from the industries of this country, as compared with that of incomes derived from foreign property of various kinds? What was the income derived from foreign property of all kinds, and did it bear a fair share of the taxation of the country? What was the increase or decrease of the total amount of wages actually paid, for instance, in the textile industries of the country, compared with the amount paid seven or eight or tea years ago? What was the burden of local taxation upon land, buildings, and works in this country, compared with that borne by foreign property of similar kinds? These were questions which very closely touched the interests of our great productive classes; and he could not but see the necessity of drawing a distinct line between the prosperity of the productive industries of the country and the prosperity of the possessors of foreign incomes who only resided in England, and who might at any moment, by the simple process of going on board a steamer, take themselves and their wealth away from all responsibility for the debt, the taxation, or the interests of this country. British manufacturers had been more and more driven back upon our own Possessions, not only by adverse changes in foreign tariffs, 1227 but by the continually increasing effect of the old tariffs. The Colonies and India were our prosperous and growing markets. The French, German, Spanish, and other foreign markets had been more and more closed to us. They had not, in all cases, shown a positive falling off; but they had shown a falling off in proportion to the growth of population and the general commerce of the country. And the future, too, was extremely uncertain. He should like to know what was the prospect of our future commercial relations with such countries as Italy, Turkey, Japan, and even Switzerland, which had hitherto been regarded as almost a Free Trade country? We had also recently heard of a Convention concluded between the United States and Mexico, to the detriment of British industries. When we thus looked round, and saw one opening after another closed to British industries, and that in other directions political movements were threatening our legitimate interests, as in the case of Central Asia, the Congo region, and Madagascar, we should be very foolish people if our minds were not filled with alarm and anxiety in regard to the future. Again, Commercial Treaties had not proved the harbingers of Free Trade. Our Treaty with France could only be regarded as calculated gradually to stifle three-fourths of our export trade to that country. He agreed that Treaties were needful under the present system; but he maintained that the present system was a vicious one, which, by the force of altered circumstances, had become adverse to the prosperity of this country. The negotiations, which had to be continually repeated, and which extended over considerable periods of time, were most adverse to the interests of trade and commerce, and introduced elements of uncertainty and unsettlement which stood in the way of the steady prosecution of business. A firm and defined policy of our own would be infinitely better than a Micawber-like waiting on the caprices of other nations. The present system was most unjust to the labouring classes as compared with mere consumers, because, under a system of free imports and restricted exports, the producing class were exposed to the full competition of foreign industries, while the mere consumer reaped the advantage of that competition, and bore a 1228 very small share of the local burdens. The first had the competition of the world against them; whilst the second had the competition of the world in their favour. Then, again, the extremely heavy load of taxation which fell upon land and buildings, which were the instruments of productive industry in this country, acted as a complete protection to the foreigners who brought their products, agricultural or manufactured, into our markets. We were not by any means delivered from Protection, for we thus maintained a system of Protection for the foreigner against ourselves; and it must be observed that whatever detriment arose to our industries, whether agricultural or manufacturing, in the long run must fall upon the labouring class. It might touch profits in the first place, and rents in the second; but if anything in this world was certain, its full effect must come eventually upon the labouring class, to their detriment and prejudice. The present system was also grossly unjust to the owners of property anchored to the soil in England, as compared with the owners of other property. Therefore, we saw, as a result, an increased tendency towards foreign investments, both in arable land, in manufactories, and in other industrial undertakings which competed with us to a considerable extent in our own markets. He had said that our great and growing markets were those of our own Dependencies and Colonies. India, we had recently compelled, probably against the wish of her people, to receive our manufactures, duty free. But what had we done for India in return? Had we removed those duties upon Indian productions which were hindering the development of Indian agriculture, and of those resources the unfolding of which would bring an increase of welfare and contentment to her thrifty population? No. We still, at this moment, imposed the heaviest duty on an article of food which came into this country from India, and the growth of which constituted one of the most promising of Indian industries. He spoke of tea. Had we, holding India thus passive in our hands, adequately discharged the duty of developing her resources and her means of transport, and so enabled her to supply our corn as well as receive our manufactures? He held that we committed a grave injustice to India in the 1229 distribution of these duties which, to a large extent, formed the subject of the Bill now before the House. We had not developed the resources of India as we ought to have done. At the present moment there were perhaps 10,000 miles of railway actually in work in the Indian Peninsula. What length of railway had been made by the people of the United States during the last four or five years? They had constructed almost as much in one single year as was to be found in the whole of India. What was the reason of the rapid rate of progress in the United States and the slow rate of progress in India? Why did not English capital find its way on a larger scale to India? Why, being the richest nation in the world, and in full possession and control of India, had we not developed it more completely and at an earlier period than the United States had developed her resources? We had been in possession of much cheaper money than the United States. We had an enormous commerce with India long before the manufacturing and agricultural resources of the United States were developed at all. Why was it that the United States had made that rapid and continuous progress, whilst India in our hands moved so slowly in comparison? It was even true that India's best harvests were her misfortune. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) knew that if India was in possession of a bumper harvest the price of wheat came down to a excessively low point, and the only valuable article the poor inhabitants in certain districts had for sale wherewith to purchase clothing became almost unsaleable, so that they were absolutely unable to pay their way. Was not that an unnatural condition of things, and a condition of things that ought to be remedied? Why was it that all this corn was lying unsaleable in India at a time when we were making such enormous purchases from the United States, who, instead of, like India, receiving our manufactures duty free, tried to keep them out by excessive import duties? The reason was simply this—that the Americans had adopted a plan of giving an initial impetus to the development of their resources, which we were precluded from adopting by a pedantic adherence to the principles of Free Trade, or what we deluded ourselves by choosing to call Free Trade. We had ad- 1230 hered to the name of the thing without the substance; and that had prevented the due advancement and development of our great Indian Empire. Our policy and that of the United States had had this effect—that, instead of our own Eastern Empire and our own Possessions constituting our granaries at the present moment, we went to the United States for our chief supply of food. All this had been the consequence of the adoption by the United States of a plan for stimulating the development of her agriculture, which we had altogether foregone, and the rapid growth of the agriculture of the United States, and her means of internal communication, compared with the feebler growth of agriculture and of the means of transport in India, bore witness to the fact that we had adopted an unsuccessful policy; whereas the United States had adopted a successful one. He had no doubt, whatever, that the imposition of a small differential duty upon foreign wheat, of say, 3s. or 4s. a-quarter, whilst the wheat of India was allowed to come into this country free, would give a great impetus to the construction of railways and roads in India. He said this on a very high authority, which he thought he might quote with all the more effect, because it was an authority hostile to his own views and principles. A few weeks ago, he had read with interest in The Economist newspaper an article on the Indian wheat trade, and it was there stated that the cost of transport from the interior Provinces to the sea board per quarter per mile was so much higher than it was in the United States as to constitute a real obstacle to the development of the corn-growing power of India. The remedy that was recommended by the writer of that article was the reduction of freights on the Indian railway lines; but it must be borne in mind that the condition of the two countries was by no means similar. In the United States they had great centres like Chicago, connected by two or three lines of railway with the ports of shipping; and the traffic over long distances, and on a very large scale between two definite points, was such as could be conducted at a much cheaper rate than a traffic over a network of railways like that which gathered up the different products from the interior Provinces of India. We should, therefore, not attain this end by 1231 any practicable reduction of the freights on the Indian lines; not indeed without such a reduction as would seriously check the further devotion of English capital towards the construction of railways in India. We could, perhaps, by such a sacrifice as that bring down the cost of transport to the necessary point; but we might very seriously interfere with the future construction of railways in India. What would be gained by affording a stimulus to the growth of corn in India for the English market? In the first place, the Indian cultivator would be thereby assured, of a steady and increasing market for his wheat in this country, with which he was already connected by the closest commercial ties; and, in the next place, the flow of capital into India for the next 10 or 20 years, for the construction of railways and public works, would be on so largo a scale that it would relieve, to a considerable extent, the rate of exchange. Again, they would gain a new means of remittance from India to this country, in the shape of a largo export of wheat which at that moment, either rotted in the internal Provinces, or could not be grown for the want of means of transport. If they wished to hasten the development of the resources of India, and to place her in her proper position as an integral portion of the greatest and wealthiest Empire in the world, just as completely under the control of this country as the Western States of America were under the control of the American Government—if they wished to accomplish this great work, they must for a time impose some disadvantage upon American wheat growers as compared with wheat growers in India. He was not wishful for a moment to conceal the fact that such a step, if it were the only one taken, must impose some slight burden upon the people of this country; but he hoped to show that, taken in conjunction with the rest of the policy he had to propose, it would bring no increased expense whatever upon consumers of the working class. He believed they went upon an entirely wrong system when they abolished the last remains of the differential duties on sugar, as between the produce of our own dominions and that of foreign nations. He believed that our earlier movements in the direction of Free Trade were perfectly sound and conducive to the advantage of this country; but he felt 1232 confident that we made a fatal mistake when we took away the last remains of those differential duties. But if we had entered upon a wrong course, depend upon it it was never too late to change; and if he could show that the change of which he spoke would not disturb the finances of this country, that it would impose no additional burden on the great body of the consumers of food, whilst it would have the effect of opening out, at a much more rapid rate, the resources of India and the Colonies, he thought he should have made out at least a fair case for examination by that House. He did not propose to deal in mere generalities. Those who thought as he did had been accused of finding fault with the present system, which they called one-sided Free Trade, but of proposing nothing definite in place of it. At all events, he did not intend to err that evening in that respect. He would endeavour to give a clear and definite view of the changes he advocated. He did not pretend to an exact acquaintance with every detail which had to be considered in regard to each article of import. He would, for example, be very presumptuous if he pretended to say what would be a fair and just proportion between the duties which ought to be levied on foreign raw sugar and the various classes of foreign refined sugar; but it was not necessary, for the purpose of his argument, that he should enter into details of that kind. The revenue which we at present derived from what might be called "breakfast-table articles," amounted lo about £4,850,000. The broad principle upon which he went was this. That they were to levy duties producing an equivalent amount of revenue on those articles, but that they were to alter the distribution of the duties. At the present moment the duties were so imposed as to operate greatly to the disadvantage of the productions of our own Empire as compared with those of foreign countries. Excluding altogether spirits, wines, and tobacco, which had nothing to do with the matter, and dealing with food products only, he found that, dividing our imports into two classes—taxed and untaxed—of the taxed products, 60 per cent came from foreign countries, and 40 per cent from British Possessions. Of the untaxed imports, however, 84.5 were from foreign countries, and only 15.5 from our own Possessions; so that it would be 1233 seen that of taxed imports, our Colonies sent us 40 per cent, while of untaxed imports they only sent us 15.5 per cent. Now, it appeared to him altogether unwise and unjust and impolitic, when we had a certain revenue to raise from articles of food which appeared on the tables of all classes in this country, that we should levy it in such a manner as to press with extreme severity on our own Colonies and India, and to prevent their development, whilst, on the other hand, we dealt very favourably with the United States, Russia, and other foreign countries, who crushed our manufactures out of their markets by the enormous duties they levied upon them. It was no increase of taxation that he had to propose. What he wanted was simply a re-distribution of this amount of £4,850,000, which we already raised by taxes on food. He had taken some pains to ascertain what would be the effect of such a re-distribution as he desired upon an ordinary family of factory workers in Lancashire. He had got, through the kindness of a great many heads of families of factory workers, men of considerable intelligence and observation, who had been in the habit of keeping an account of their weekly expenditure—exact details of the way in which their weekly wages were spent. He found that if they were to abolish the duties upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits now received from all parts of our own Empire, and to impose a very small duty upon those articles when received from foreign countries, a duty to the extent only of 1d. per lb. upon tea, and duties, amounting in no case to more than 8 or 10 per cent on the ordinary value of the article, upon coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits; and if they were to impose a duty of 10d. per cwt. upon foreign wheat, and of 1s. 3d. per cwt. upon foreign flour, but none upon wheat or flour imported from British Possessions; a duty of 1s. 8d. per cwt. on raw sugar, and 3s. 4d. per cwt. on refined sugar, from foreign countries, and none on that received from our own Possessions—the effect of these changes on the breakfast table of the working man would be so small as scarcely to be perceptible. He found that, taking an average family—and he confined himself to families in narrow circumstances, who really spent the whole of their income upon necessaries—the income was 1234 £1 11s. 8d. per week, for a family averaging six persons—the man, his wife, and four children averaging nine years of age. Of this sum of £1 11s. 8d., 15s. was spent in other ways than food, and the remaining 16s. 8d. in food. Four shillings was spent in bread, flour, and oatmeal; 5s. 9½d. in butter, eggs, milk, and cheese; 2s. 10d. in meat and fish; 1s. 2d. in sugar; 11d. in dried fruits; 10½d. in potatoes, vegetables, and fresh fruits; 8½d. in tea; and 4½d. in coffee and cocoa. He would not trouble the House by giving in detail the change which would be effected in the taxation levied upon each of these various items by the alteration he proposed; but he might say that the reduction of the duty upon tea from 6d. to 1d. per lb. and the admission of Indian tea duty free would alone almost compensate such a family for the proposed duty on foreign wheat and flour, whilst, upon the whole, he believed there would actually be a small fraction less charged in the shape of taxation on the 16s. 8d. the working man now spent weekly upon food than at the present time. And even were he to make important concessions for the sake of argument which he could not make in fact; were he to admit that duties such as he had described—of 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat, 1s. 3d. per cwt. on foreign flour, 1s. 8d. per cwt. on raw sugar, and 3s. 4d. on refined sugar—would raise the price on Colonial and home-grown articles to exactly the same extent; and, in the next place, that there would be no increase in the proportion of Colonial produce, which would come in absolutely free as compared with that from foreign countries, which would be subject to taxation—even in that case the fractional increase of charge to such a family would not, he was confident, amount to 1d. a-week. He might just say, in passing, that he had never, in the whole of his life, been engaged in a more interesting task than the examination and analysis of the statistics which had been so kindly given to him; and he thought that no Member of the House could go through those statistics, which were in the handwriting of the men themselves, without feeling the deepest sympathy with people in that condition, on obtaining an insight into the minute economy which had to be practised in all their household arrangements. He would instance one 1235 case, and he did it in order to show the confidence which might be placed in the statistics of which he had been speaking. He would take an instance—No. 7—a husband and five children; the wife died recently, so that this poor man had to watch over his weekly expenditure with the most anxious care, and to act both as father and mother to his little family. He (Mr. Ecroyd) confessed he was unable to look through this account of weekly expenditure without being deeply touched. He saw that the man expended 1s. 5d. for education, and 3d. for books and stationery, and all the personal indulgence he allowed himself was 3d. for tobacco. He had been accused, and those who thought with him on this question had been accused, of disregarding the interests of people in this condition of life. It was his good fortune to have been brought up amongst them, and to have spent his life amongst them. He knew their daily habits, he thought, as well as any hon. Member of that House, and he should deem it an utterly unpardonable crime to put forth any proposal which would trench in the smallest degree upon their little comforts and indulgences; and if he had not believed that the policy he advocated would have an almost immediate effect in increasing the demand for the productions of their industries, and enlarging the markets for them—in making those markets more secure at present, and more certain of extension in future—he would never have devoted a single hour to this question. The result of the changes he had described would be to leave the Revenue in exactly the same condition as at present, and to leave the position of this class of consumers also the same as at present. No doubt, he might turn to other classes of society who would not reap so great an indirect advantage as the class of which he had been speaking. It was perfectly clear that the mere consumer, who was not engaged or interested in any of the industries of the country, who produced nothing, but only ate and drank and wore, or the person who derived an income from foreign property, would reap no advantage, and might indeed incur some slight disadvantage, from such a change of policy. But he (Mr. Ecroyd) held that the vital interests of the country were best promoted by maintaining 1236 the interests of the industrious producer. We were not at all concerned in making this the easiest country in the world for idle people to live in. The only other change he had to propose was that we should levy a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on foreign manufactures imported into this country. In doing this, he would be prepared to exclude every article that could fairly be reckoned as only half-manufactured. Some people believed that what might be properly classed as foreign manufactures imported into this country amounted to some £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 sterling, per annum. He had no sympathy with these extreme and exaggerated estimates; he would not try to stretch the net too widely, and would content himself with taking articles completely manufactured, and levying a duty on them of 10 per cent. He would impose such a duty, for one reason, as a means of making a better bargain in our commercial negotiations with such countries as France. He believed if we were to put an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on French manufactures when we next come to negotiate with France, we should have something to offer on our part, and thus there would be a prospect of increasing the future freedom of trade between that country and England. He estimated that, taking the most restricted list of completely manufactured foreign articles, a 10 per cent duty would produce a revenue of about £2,500,000, and he thought this would be the most unobjectionable and acceptable way of providing a fund for the relief of local taxation. He knew that there was in the minds of many hon. Gentlemen a sort of holy horror of Protection in any form, as a thing of which our hands were at present absolutely clean. But our hands were not clean of the principle of Protection. It had a place in our existing system, as he thought he could very easily prove. What was Protection? Protection was the artificial shielding, by law, of some class of the community from the full and natural pressure of competition, internal or external. That was what he understood by Protection. Now, the Irish Land Act was a distinctly protective law, enacted on behalf of one class in Ireland—and that not the poorest, for the labourers were excluded—and completely shielding that class 1237 from the pressure of competition in the matter of rent. The Radical Party were continually demanding the wider application of this principle, and the further limitation in various directions of the freedom of contract. He wished to point out that whatever might be the merits of such proposals, they were every one of them of the full and complete nature of Protection. He might give another notable instance of the prevalence of the principle of Protection in this country. The whole system of the Factory Acts, so far as they limited the freedom of contract in regard to hours of labour, was protective. He would give the testimony of a Member of that House, contained in a speech delivered on the 10th of February, 1847. An important debate took place upon the proposal to limit the hours of labour in factories by law, from 69 to 63; and an hon. Gentleman of great authority in that House, at the present time, said in the course of the debate—
For his part, he regarded it as a question of as great importance as that which had been settled last year under the auspices of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel)." [He was referring to the Repeal of the Corn Laws.] "That was a question of protection; and in this case the protection was to raise wages at the expense of capital. It was precisely the same principle that was involved in both cases.Those words were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright.) He therefore had the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman, clearly and distinctly expressed, that it was precisely the same principle that was involved in the Corn Laws, and in the limitation of freedom of contract as regarded the hours of labour. It appeared to him (Mr. Ecroyd)—and it always had appeared to him—grossly unjust to the British manufacturer, to impose this restriction upon his freedom of contract, unless they balanced it by an absolutely equivalent tax on foreign goods, the manufacture of which was in many cases practically free from such restrictions. There were some instances in which the cost of labour amounted to three-fourths of the cost of the production of manufactures; and could they call that freedom of trade which, whilst leaving the manufacturer at liberty to purchase in the lowest market his raw material, his stores, his coal, his oil, and other articles which entered into the 1238 working of the factory, still placed an absolute and protective restriction upon free competition for the sale to him of that labour which might well constitute three-fourths of the value of his production? That was a distinct act of Protection. If they were left free to fix the question of wages, but not to make the best bargain they could with regard to the length of hours of working, the cost of their production was still clearly raised by law. Now, when they had done that—he admitted for the most humane object, which he approved as strongly as any man in the Kingdom—when they had raised the cost artificially by law, was it not an act of grave injustice to allow to come into London from France, from a distance no greater than Lancashire and Yorkshire, goods produced by that more rapid wear and tear of women and children which was forbidden in this country by a wise and humane law? The fact that our policy had not been followed by our neighbours across the Channel, had made that policy no longer conducive to the best interests of the British workmen, but positively destructive of their industries. There were two alternatives in regard to this question, one of which they would at no distant period be driven to adopt. They could either take away the whole fabric of the Factory Acts, and leave the hours of labour open to free competition—if there were any hon. Member in that House who dared to propose such a course—or, if they could not do that, the second alternative was to impose upon the foreign manufactured goods, which were brought into competition with our own in this country, a duty equivalent to the increased cost of production which they had artificially imposed by law on the English manufacturer. He proposed an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on foreign manufactures; and he thought that would fairly compensate manufacturers in this country for the disadvantage under which they were suffering. But it was said that we should thereby raise the cost of all articles of clothing to the people of this country. Now, he wanted to examine that assertion. He wanted to know, if they were to impose a duty of 20 per cent upon the calicoes imported into this country, how much they would raise the price of English shirtings in the Manchester market? And he 1239 believed his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) would acknowledge that it would not raise the cost of those shirtings a single farthing, because the internal competition would suffice to keep it down. But there were articles of which the market price would be raised to the extent of the whole amount of duty imposed upon them. These were articles of pure luxury, such as French millinery and fashionable goods which were brought into the Metropolis and other great towns, articles not used by the working classes, by the country farmers, nor by the small shopkeepers in the country districts; they were articles used by that class of persons who did not care what they spent. He thought such articles of luxury, perhaps, formed the most legitimate objects of taxation which any Chancellor of the Exchequer could pitch upon. He believed that, by the imposition of this duty on foreign manufactures, the cost of clothing to the lower and middle classes in the country would be in no respect raised; but the cost of articles of luxury required by the upper classes would make up the £2,500,000 increased revenue. He would now speak of some of the effects which might be expected to follow from the adoption by this country of the policy which he advocated. In the first place, it would furnish a means of controlling foreign tariffs, and of insisting on our right to bargain for free exchange of manufactures; and if it did not afford us access to the markets of France and other such countries, it would al least have the effect of reserving to our own industries the manufacture of many articles which we now imported from them. In the next place, it would check, to some extent, the rapid decline of the wheat-growing industry, and the consequent depopulation of our rural districts. As a manufacturer, connected not only with the export, but the home trade, he looked with the gravest apprehension on the present condition of affairs in the agricultural districts. He had spoken with many gentlemen on the subject of the decline of our wheat-growing industry, who treated the matter very flippantly, and spoke of the change from arable to pasture and meadow land as an easy operation. But he (Mr. Ecroyd) thought these gentlemen knew little of the difficulties of that change; and, further, 1240 that they did not understand the effect which it would produce in the country. One effect would be that for every 1,000 acres of arable converted into pasture and meadow land, at least 30 families would be displaced, and that displaced population must cither emigrate or be driven into the large towns, where their presence would seriously lower the rate of wages, and add to the distress of the inhabitants. But, again, a change of this kind, which would depopulate the rural districts of the country, could not take place without producing, in the end, an injurious effect upon the stamina and physical and moral soundness of the English people; for it was well known to how large an extent the town population was strengthened by the existence of a large rural population. For these reasons, he was unable to look upon a change of this nature without very great apprehension as to its future effects. Another effect of the operation of this policy would be to divert capital and enterprize to our own Colonies and to India, instead of allowing them to flow so much as they did at present towards the United States of America, Russia, and other foreign countries. It would give India a vastly increased market for her products in England, and would equally enlarge our market for manufactures in India. Then it would provide a large fund for the relief of local taxation, which was pressing with great severity on our overborne agriculture and manufactures; and it would inspire new hope and enthusiasm amongst our manufacturing population. But it was not only on economical, but on political and social grounds that he believed its effects would be unspeakably good; and they had already had a foretaste of what those effects would be. The principles he had been endeavouring to explain and advocate had already penetrated the minds of scores of thousands of our working people; they had been discussed in their homes and workshops; and, wherever these ideas had entered, they had given to the people a more vivid impression of the extent and resources of their own Empire, and of the importance of its strength and unity to themselves. Moreover, they had inspired them with confidence in place of that despondency which had been caused by the effects of foreign tariffs in many 1241 important manufacturing districts of the country. It had taught them that the prosperity of the owners of land and other fixed property in these Islands was an inseparable accompaniment of the prosperity and growth of our industries; that if rents declined, it was because profits had begun already to decline; and that although wages might be sustained for a brief period, they must from the same cause inevitably fall. By the entrance of these convictions into their minds, thousands of working men in this country bad been delivered completely and for ever from the possibility of becoming victims to the demagogues who set class against class, and whose only idea of fiscal reform was the lowering of rent. These men were unfriendly to no class; but if they saw injustice or danger to their own interests in the position of any, it was in that of owners and mortgagees of foreign property, lands, and factories resident hero and competing severely with, our farmers and manufacturers, and consequently with their workmen, but not contributing a tenth part of their fair share towards the great national object provided for—that of local taxation, which was overweighting the farmer, the manufacturer, and the workman in his cottage. Finally, he said that the entrance of these ideas into many a working man's home had quickened and deepened the loyalty of that class to their Sovereign, and to those long-tried institutions of their country, which made her in days long past great and famous, and gave her the wide dominions she possessed. Perhaps, in doing that, it had made some of them Conservatives. Who could tell? He did not profess to say, but he rejoiced to have been able to take any part in this movement; and he trusted it would live and grow under the guidance of abler and stronger advocates than himself, not only because he believed that in its future success was bound up the prosperity, comfort, and social well-being of the people, but because he was well assured that the effect of it, so far as it had gone, had been to knit together all classes in that bond of sympathy, the absence of which in any country always constituted a great danger. He begged to move the Amendment 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 "in view of the growing injury inflicted upon our industries by Foreign tariffs, and the consequent importance of more rapidly developing the resources of India and the Colonies, it is expedient to free ourselves as early as possible from the restraints of Commercial Treaties to abolish the Duties upon tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits imported from British possessions; to levy specific Duties (in no case equal to more than 10 per cent upon ordinary average values) upon the like articles, as well as upon wheat, flour, and sugar imported from Foreign Countreis; and also to impose an Import Duty upon Foreign manufactures, with the notification that it should cease to operate, as against each Nation, from the day on which such Nation should admit British manufactures Duty free,"—(Mr. Ecroyd,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, with reference to the proposal of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Ecroyd) to levy a tax upon manufactured articles, as distinguished from partially manufactured articles, he did not think that, in practice, any such distinction could be applied; and that, even if his proposal were adopted, only a very small amount of duty could be so levied. With regard to the proposal to reimpose a duty on wheat and flour introduced into this country, he pointed out that that subject had often been discussed in the House. It had been debated at considerable length last Session, and he (Sir John Lubbock) remembered that even from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House the suggestion had met with very little support. The propositions put forward by the hon. Member were of such a character that anyone of them would require a whole evening's discussion, and it would, therefore, be impossible to do justice to them at that hour (12.35). But there was a point in the Bill on which he should like to say a few words. If he understood it correctly, the proposal was to make a very important alteration in the mode of collection of the Income Tax, and one with reference to which scarcely any notice had been given to the country. Hitherto, it had been a vital principle in the system of collection that it should be, to a great extent, intrusted to independent 1243 officials and their agents; and that, he believed, had, on the whole, worked very much to the satisfaction of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to abolish the system, so far as concerned Schedules D and E, with reference to which the officers were, in future, to be appointed directly under the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but to leave it in force as regarded Schedules A and B, in which the appointments were much less remunerative. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of setting up two separate bodies of collectors, which seemed to be undesirable; and it should be born in mind that the present collectors had, in many instances, given up other occupations in order to undertake their present duties. He was not aware that the present system of collection had given rise to any dissatisfaction in the country, or that any representation had been made upon the subject to Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, although he did not wish to express any decided opinion on the point, he ventured to hope that, on going into Committee, or upon some other occasion, the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House the reasons which had induced him to make a proposal for which at present he saw no efficient reason.
§ MR. SLAGGsaid, he wished also to give his reasons for objecting to the proposal relating to the change in the system of the collection of Income Tax. In the first place, it was of so sweeping a character that, when introduced, it should be supported by very substantial arguments. It had been mentioned in the Budget speech, but merely incidentally, as a proposed change of an administrative nature; but it was, in his opinion, one of a very serious character, involving the interests of a large class of respectable and hard-working public officers. As yet he had not been made acquainted with any economic reason for this change; and, so far as the public were concerned, he believed they were wholly without evidence that any dislike existed to the present system of Income Tax collection. The tax itself was, no doubt, objected to as obnoxious and inquisitive; and he looked with hope upon the hint given by the Prime Minister, that one day or another it might be got rid of altogether. One of the allegations, 1244 however, in favour of the present system had always been that it was collected by men who knew the people whom they lived amongst, and, being conversant with their cases, could therefore exercise great discernment and discrimination in the collection of the tax. But it seemed that that idea was about to be thrown to the winds; and they were now introduced to a new system of taxation, which on the face of it appeared decidedly objectionable. He had taken pains to inquire amongst persons in his own constituency, who contributed largely to the Income Tax, as to their views on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He found that no support whatever was given to it; on the contrary, the evidence he had obtained was entirely in favour of the existing system. But he objected to it from an economical point of view. He had not yet met with any reasons of an economical nature which would justify the course proposed by the Government. On the contrary, it appeared to him, judging from past experience, that the change would involve the country in a very serious augmentation of expense. With regard to the question of pensions and compensation, it appeared to him also that we should be confronted shortly not only with a very augmented expense, but with a fresh army of pensioners. Then there was another feature of the proposal, which to him was distasteful; it was the effort on the part of the Government to secure in this matter centralization. Any steps in that direction certainly did not commend themselves at first sight to him, and more sufficient reason ought to be given for the present step than had as yet been afforded. The Department seemed to be animated by a sudden ambition to acquire for itself a vast accession of power and patronage, and he did not see any reason to satisfy them. But there was another strong argument against the change. It was intended to put the collection of the tax into the hands of a number of permanent officials receiving fixed salaries. The expense of doing so would be augmented considerably by the fact that, for the convenience of the new staff, new offices, and new appurtenances of every kind would have to be provided; and by the fact also, that pensions would have to be granted to the officers when their term of duty 1245 had expired. At present, a per centage was only paid on the collection, so that the cost fluctuated with the amount realized, and they received no pensions. He should move an Amendment upon the point in Committee on the Bill; and he thought he should be able to show that the cost of collection by the present collectors was very much smaller than it would be under the system now proposed. He should not trouble the House with any further details on the subject, but reserve them until the Bill reached Committee.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the question of the collection of the Income Tax had been brought prominently under his notice by people at Birmingham, and in the populous district he represented; and he could assure the hon. Member for the City of Manchester (Mr. Slagg) that when his Amondment came forward, he (Mr. Newdegate) should be very happy to support it. The change was objectionable upon all the grounds stated by the hon. Gentleman. The House, however, was losing sight of the Amendment which was really before them—namely, that proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). Without delaying the House unnecessarily, he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to say that he agreed in the substance of that Amendment. But he agreed also with the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the Amendment contained matter which deserved much more attention than it was likely to receive from the House at the present moment. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered the time when even to venture to look at the sources of Revenue in the sense in which the hon. Member for Preston had treated them, or to venture to mention the commercial connections of the Empire as worth preserving, was treated as an indication of mental blindness. He remembered, too, that when he supported the "Ten Hours Bill" he was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright); and he remembered the speech—the eloquent but violent speech—in which that right hon. Gentleman resisted that which he called a Protectionist measure. He had since heard the right hon. Gentleman retract the expressions he used in his opposition to the "Ten 1246 Hours Bill." Nay, more than this, he had seen a Member of the present Government carry the system of protecting juvenile labour further than it was carried in 1847. He (Mr. Newdegate) was asked to propose to the House the "Nine Hours Bill;" but he replied that he dare not in the face of the bigotry by which the then novel system of modern economy was assailed. It had since been carried by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he (Mr. Newdegate) rejoiced that it had been adopted. He voted silently with the right hon. Gentleman when he carried the protective measure further than he (Mr. Newdegate) dared to propose. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) was before his time. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered being told, in 1847, that 40 years must elapse before the commercial policy of the country would be reconsidered. There were only three years to expire before the 40 would have expired; and, if he was not blind to the signs of the times, this question of Fair Trade, of Reciprocity, of Moderate Import Duties would shortly have to be considered. If this nation did not pay in manufactures, or in produce of some kind, they must pay in gold; and in proportion as the production of gold diminished, they would find the pressure increase. As he said before, however, it was idle to press upon the House at present the reconsideration of a system which was founded on the bigoted and one-sided view of international exchange which had been carefully fostered for years. Too many of the population had been deceived into believing that it had been from the commercial measures of 1846, 1847, and 1860 only, that they had derived prosperity, no allowance whatever having been made for the increase of the circulating medium of the world, which had been caused by the discoveries of gold.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the debate, which had been proceeding for some little time, might be divided into two parts. The larger question was raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), and the smaller one by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would deal with the smaller 1247 point first. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London said that in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill there were certain provisions respecting the collection of Income Tax under Schedules D and E to which he took exception, and he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had said the changes proposed in the Bill were not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Manchester said the Government recommended very sweeping changes, and wished to get in their hand vast power and patronage. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would state to the House, in a very few sentences, what it was the Government proposed to do. At present, in Scotland and in Ireland, and in some districts of England, the Income Tax under Schedules U and E was collected by public officers on a very economical system. Under an old Act, the collection in some places, not of the Income Tax, but of the Laud Tax and other taxes, had been made, not by public officers, but by persons who were merely collectors of taxes. The Income Tax under Schedules D and E had been collected by tradespeople—tailors, hairdressers, auctioneers, grocers, stationers, brushmakers, and the like—who were appointed by the Local Commissioners. These people had collected the tax from their brother tradespeople; and he was bound to say that, as far as the Revenue was concerned, the tax had by no moans been collected as expeditiously as it ought to have been. It was also held to be objectionable that one tradesman should know the income of his neighbours; and he had received, during the time that had elapsed since the change was proposed, many very strong and urgent requests that the reform would be carried out, simply because it was obnoxious to men of business that their rivals in business should know what their income was. It must be borne in mind that the Bill provided that no change in the mode of collection should be made, unless in each individual case the Treasury was satisfied it would result in economy. He believed the proposed change would lead to economy. He would not, however, say more about the matter at the present moment, because when his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) moved the rejection of the clause in 1248 Committee, he should have a good deal more to say, and he should be able to show the House how entirely justified the late Government were in their proposal on this head. He must now pass to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). He listened with great attention to every word the hon. Gentleman said, and he must say there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. Gentleman which appeared to him to be of much interest to the House. The most interesting part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, if the hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, was the detail which he had collected as to the expenditure of the working classes upon dress, food, and other necessaries of life, and upon amusement. The House ought to be extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having devoted so much time and attention to a matter which was of so much interest to them. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted, however, that, so far as his proposal was concerned, the inquiries he had made had no particular bearing; that the changes he proposed would only result in a fractional advantage to the class about whom he had made the inquiries.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, his remarks went to show that, according to the best information he had been able to obtain, the alterations he proposed in the mode of raising revenue, would only affect their expenditure in quite a fractional degree.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that was exactly what he stated. The hon. Gentleman said, for he took his words down, that whatever effect his proposal might have on other charges, the effect would be extremely small—the precise words were "the advantage would be fractional"—in regard to the expenditure of the working classes concerning which he gave such very interesting details. The question raised by the hon. Member, of course, had a very much wider bearing than the mere result upon the expendidure of the particular class of people he referred to. The object of the hon. Member was perfectly plain. Parliament was engaged between 1842 and 1866 in an entire reversal of the former systems which were known either as the Commercial, or as the Colonial, or as the Protectionist systems, and in a substitu- 1249 tion for those systems of taxation of what was called Free Trade. The hon. Member's proposal, practically, was to return to those systems. The hon. Member had stated his objections to what was commonly understood as Free Trade; he had given his reasons for giving advantages to the Colonies, by means of differential duties, and he had given his reasons for wishing to enforce Reciprocity with respect to foreign produce. He had explained his reasons with great clearness; and no one could mistake his object, which was simply to go back from all that had been done in getting rid of the old commercial or Colonial system to a system of Reciprocity or Protection. He proposed, in a mitigated degree, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted—not nearly to the extent to which those systems were formerly carried out—to land the country once more in the difficulties of those systems. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think anyone would expect him to discuss the abstract question of Free Trade. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he firmly believed the great majority of the House would not feel prepared to reverse the policy which had now been pursued with great success for a quarter of a century. But there were one or two points in the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he thought he ought to refer. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great vigour as to the prospects of India, should Free Trade, so far as that country was concerned, be reversed, and Indian trade with us encouraged. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the fact as to India would show that during the last few years trade there had been by no means stationary. On the contrary, under the system of Free Trade, India had advanced with rapid strides, particularly during the last 10 or 12 years. The hon. Member wished to protect Indian tea, by putting a differential duty on China tea; and perhaps he did not know that the export of tea from India since 1872 had increased threefold. Probably, also, the hon. Member was not aware that under the Free Trade system the exportation of wheat had increased during the period he mentioned tenfold, the exports of seeds twofold, and that, in other respects, the export trade had doubled, and even trebled. It was, therefore, the fact that under Free Trade 1250 England was most flourishing as to her exports. There was no stagnation in trade so far as Indian produce was concerned; therefore the hon. Member's statement was entirely unfounded, as the figures he had quoted showed. But that was not the question they were discussing now, and he would come to the hon. Member's proposal, rather than dilate upon the grounds upon which he had based it. The hon. Member, first of all, proposed in his Amendment that this country should give up all Commercial Treaties. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was surprised to read those words. He had taken down the hon. Gentleman's proposal afterwards from his speech; and it seemed that he wished to enforce a new plan of taxing the exports coming to us from foreign countries in order that we might be able to make Commercial Treaties with those countries. It was hard to see, therefore, how, when Commercial Treaties were abolished, the hon. Member's object could be carried out in taxing manufactures in such a way that Commercial Treaties might be entered into with foreign countries. Then the hon. Member proposed that there should be no duty on tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits, and that British wheat, flour, and sugar should be protected by a 10 per cent duty upon the like articles coming from foreign countries. The hon. Member had not used a single figure to justify his conclusion that the change he proposed would produce a Revenue equal to the present.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, that he had spared the House a great array of figures in consequence of the lateness of the hour. He should be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman statistics which he held in his hand fully justifying this assertion, if he desired to have them.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that when an hon. Member spoke for an hour and a quarter on a subject of that kind, it was a singular thing that the very figures he should leave out were those of the first importance. The hon. Member made this proposal as an Amendment to the Budget Bill; and he asked them to accept, in lieu of the present duty on tea, coffee, cocoa, and dried fruits, Free Trade with our own Possessions, and increased imposts upon the produce of foreign countries. He (the 1251 Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it would be impossible to produce the duty, raised under the existing rates, by the process alluded to, let the articles come from wherever they might. The first necessity was that the hon. Member should show that there would be no reduction of Revenue by following out his plan. He had failed altogether to make out that point in his speech, which was very full of detail upon other matters. Then the hon. Member proposed—after suggesting that they should abolish Commercial Treaties—that they should have a series of Treaties with all countries who were willing to admit our manufactures free; the conditions of those Treaties being that we should also receive their goods free. Well, he would point out to the hon. Member that his proposal would bring about a very curious anomaly. The hon. Member said that all articles coming from the Colonies were to be froe. There were many of the Colonies where the tariffs were based upon Protectionist principles, where the duties were as high as those in any foreign country—where, in fact, they were from 25 even up to 30 per cent of the value of the goods. There were some foreign countries whore the tariffs were very much lower at the present time than they were in some of the Colonies; and the hon. Member proposed, as a weapon to induce foreign countries to admit our manufactures free, that we should put a duty upon their produce, whilst he would not use any force at all against the Colonies. Surely, if that principle was to be applied at all, it should be equally applied in all quarters. If we were to endeavour to bring about a system under which other countries would accept our manufactures free, we undertaking to accept theirs free, surely our Colonies, with whom our relations were much more easy than they were with foreign countries, should be put in the same category. Yet the hon. Member, in spite of the fact that the Colonies might be Protectionists, proposed to give them a great boon and advantage over other countries. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed to that as an illustration of the inconsistency of the hon. Member's proposal. It was not the only objection to the hon. Member's Motion. He would refer to another. He objected to that plan, as did 1252 all hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, because they were attached to Free Trade, and did not believe it right to go back to Protection, Reciprocity, Colonial, or any other system of that sort. Under the system of Free Trade this country had become the greatest exporting country in the world; and they believed that the adoption of Protection, in order to increase our exports to a certain extent, would have precisely the opposite effect. Believing thoroughly as they did in Free Trade, he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he did not discuss the abstract question at great length. He trusted the House would reject the proposal.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he regretted that this discussion had not taken place at an earlier hour, when more justice could have been done to the able and admirable speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). So far as he could gather from the speech of the hon. Baronet who sat on the other side of the House (Sir John Lubbock), and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Childers), neither of them had been able, or if they had been able they had not attempted, to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston in any detail. That fact in itself, together with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the hon. Member's speech was interesting in the highest degree, and especially in regard to some details to which the right hon. Gentleman particularly alluded, showed that the speech was one that, to do justice to which, under ordinary circumstances, at such an hour as that, they should have an adjournment of the debate. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought it was a most important subject to discuss—indeed, it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that was the case. They had endeavoured, on more than one occasion, to press the Motion on at an inconvenient hour of the night, and it had been left over until tonight, in order that it might be taken at an hour when it could be discussed. There had not been, however, a full opportunity to debate the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had taken some exceptions to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, because he had omitted some details; 1253 and the hon. Member had explained that the reason he had done so was, that the hour was too late for him to give the House all the special particulars as to the mode in which he proposed that the Revenue, which would be lost in the changes he suggested, could be made up to the Exchequer. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought he could supply the deficiency on the part of the hon. Member. The hon. Member, so far as could be gathered from his speech, proposed to abolish certain duties, which would result in a loss of something over £4,000,000 to the Revenue. That might be supplied by levying a duty of 1s. 8d. per cwt. on foreign unrefined sugar, which would produce £1,165,000, by levying 3s. 4d. per cwt. on refined sugar from foreign countries, which would produce £439,000, by a duty of 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat. [Ironical cheering from the Ministerial Benches.] He could quite understand that cheer from hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House, and he should be ready to reply to it in due time; he should be ready to submit why he, for one, was perfectly prepared to support such a Motion as that. Well, 10d. per cwt. on foreign wheat would produce £1,853,000; and, in addition to that, 5d. per cwt. on foreign barley would bring in £670,000, making £4,130,000. The duty on dried fruit, &c. would realize £820,000, makinginallnearly£5,000,000 sterling, which would be more than a substitute for the reduction which the hon. Member proposed to bring about. As a Member representing an agricultural constituency, he (Mr. Chaplin) received, with great satisfaction, a Motion of that kind, coming from an hon. Member representing an urban constituency. He had long entertained the opinion that agriculture was in an extremely critical position; and he was one of those who believed that the prosperity of our commerce and our trade depended to an enormous degree upon the prosperity of agriculture, and that it would be hopeless to expect agriculture really to prosper unless it were possible to grow corn at a profit. That being his view, when it was proposed by a Representative of the working classes of the country—by a Gentleman coming from a large urban constituency—that that change should be made, he welcomed the suggestion most heartily. He doubted whether any hon. 1254 Member sitting on that (the Conservative) side of the House was better able to judge of the interests of the working classes than the hon. Member for Preston; and he supposed that no one had devoted more thought and more care to the collection of details on the subject than that hon. Member. When he (Mr. Chaplin) met a proposal of that kind, it clearly became his duty, and also the duty of hon. Members who were placed in a similar position, to give all the support in their power to it. He did not know what course the hon. Member proposed to pursue with regard to his Amendment. He did not know whether it would be desirable, at such an hour of the night, when the supporters of the policy advocated in it were not numerous, and the Conservative side of the House was thinly attended, to take a division, as it would give a false impression in the country. He did not know whether the hon. Member meant to go to a division or not; but, if he did, he (Mr. Chaplin), for one, should certainly go into the Lobby with him.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that if to vote for the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill meant the expression of an opinion that it should pass in its present shape, he should be unable to vote for it, for the reason, as explained by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), that a portion of the Bill differed from its general tenour, and was most objectionable. It was intended to make a most serious change in the collection of taxation. The administration of the Income Tax was full of imperfections and inequalities, which were avowedly the result of its hasty imposition for a limited period, and the language of the Act might be interpreted as claiming a right to tax every imaginable kind of property. The Act referred not only to property and incomes in that country, but to property in other countries, where manufactures were carried on under the encouragement and protection of other Governments, who taxed the profits with their own Income Tax, and with all the charges legally leviable. Such incongruities as those were most grotesque; and, knowing the exceeding hardship that would ensue from the literal application of the stringent clauses of the Act, the original compilers of the measure took care that there should be 1255 between the Inland Revenue Department and the taxpayer an administrative body, partly unofficial Commissioners, partly collectors of their appointment, who should mitigate, in some degree, the inequalities of the Act, and the hardships attendant upon the collection of the tax by purely official collectors. It was through this unofficial administration that the Act had hitherto been applied with far less friction and difficulty than might have attended it. He (Mr. Hubbard) must protest against that mitigation being removed before the Act itself was subjected to the adjustment which was so desirable. When the Act was reformed its administration might be left to the officials of the Inland Revenue; but, until it was reformed, he must object to the proposed alteration, which would do away with all the mitigating circumstances of the collection.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI only desire to say a few words with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, at this hour of the night, and under these circumstances, it is impossible to discuss such a proposal as this in all its bearings; and I think my hon. Friend himself will feel that it is quite out of the question for us to give it anything like a serious consideration to-night. But he is at liberty—and I am extremely glad that he is—to state at full length the plan which he himself wishes to adopt. He has, for a considerable time, paid great attention to this question. I cannot say that I myself altogether share his views; but I greatly respect the energy and intelligence with which he has studied the question, and I am quite prepared to admit that the proposals he has made are of an ingenious character, and so arranged as to afford ground for discussion and examination; but that discussion and examination it is quite impossible for us to give to-night. As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, he proposes to us to refer to the effect of these changes on the expenditure of the working men, and also to that argument which he has only given shortly, but which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has given more fully, with regard to their 1256 effect on the Revenue. His object, as I understand, was to show that if, according to his proposal and theory, import duties were imposed to the extent he contemplates, they would not bear heavily on the working men; but, on the contrary, would leave them in the same position—or, if anything, in a better position—as regards the actual taxation on the articles taxed at this moment. According to his theory, the working men, not being damnified by the imposition of the duties, are to be benefited by an increase of work and employment which, he contemplates, would result from his system. And so with regard to the Revenue. All that he considered he was bound to do was to make out a primâ facie case that this change of taxation would not injure, but rather advantage, the Revenue; but, of course, it is impossible for any private Member to enter into any such matters with any confidence or certainty, without having the advantage of consulting those who are exports and officially connected with the management of these Departments. Then my hon. Friend has made an important and ingenious proposal for the development of a sort of Zollveroin between England and her Colonies; but his proposal is not complete, because he does not provide for securing the admission into the Colonial markets of English goods on corresponding terms with those upon which Colonial goods are to be admitted into the English market. That is a matter which I think my hon. Friend will see requires careful consideration. There are other points, upon which I cannot enter at the present moment; but which, in the same way, require much fuller development and examination than we could give to-night. I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a division. He has had an opportunity of making his statement. He has made his statement carefully, and in an interesting manner, and I recognize the spirit of his proposal; but I am unable to agree with the proposal, and I hope he will not think it advisable to bring about a division on the subject.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, he was satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and he had never been so presumptuous as to expect to obtain a majority on this question. He was fully aware of the disadvantage under which 1257 any private Member must lie, in such a case, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had pointed out; and he should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.