HL Deb 08 July 1842 vol 64 cc1168-9

The Earl of Ripon moved the third reading of the Customs' Bill.

The Earl of Radnor

said, although he had voted for the second reading of the bill, he should say "not content," as the bill in his opinion did not go far enough; it did many things it ought not to do, and omitted many things which ought to be done.

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 9: Majority 43.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
DUKES Stanhope
Richmond Beaumont
Buckingham LORDS.
Cleveland Kinnaird
EARLS Boston
Radnor De Freyne

Bill passed.

The following Protest was entered. DISSENTIENT.—

  1. 1. Because, fully admitting the necessity of a revision of the Customs' duties, and the soundness of the principles on which, in most respects, that revision is professed to have been made, I find that this bill carries out those principles very imperfectly, and falls lamentably short of what the necessities of the times require.
  2. 1169
  3. 2. Because it expressly excepts from its operation the duties on the importation of corn, grain, meal or flour, sugar, and molasses, and omits all modification of the duties on butter and cheese imported from foreign countries, and thus will fail to afford, with respect to these essential articles, any alleviation to the present sufferings of the people.
  4. 3. Because, in consequence of these omissions, the distress of many persons, who will he thrown out of employment by the alteration of the duties on certain manufactured articles, will be greatly increased.
  5. 4. Because I believe that by this bill no one differential duty, now existing, is removed; but I find several new ones imposed, and the difference in many old ones increased; and it was argued in debate, by Ministers, that the principle of differential duties as applied to colonies was a fair one, and admitted, by them, that the new schedule of duties imposed by this bill was in many respects framed in conformity with that opinion; whereas I hold all differential duties to be both inconsistent with every sound principle of financial legislation, (whether enacted for the purpose of revenue, or with the view of giving aid or showing favour to colonies or foreign states,) and injurious both to the state which imposes them, (as thus laying burdens on its own subjects, without any advantage to its exchequer, for the benefit of foreigners,) and to the country supposed to be favoured, by holding out to its people inducements to divert capital from its natural and therefore its most useful and profitable, to other less advantageous, employment



Forward to