The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-10 00:00:00

•
the committee to postpone the consideration of this
particular matter, to which suggestion lie (tbe Chan-
cellor of the Esehequer) had made no objection. Passing
however, to a more important point—(hear)—the proposi-
tion of ate hon. member for Muntrosa (Mr. Hume), he con-
fessed that that hon. gentleman had given several most ex-
cadent reasons in support of his opinion. The misfortune
was that thew reasons would apply to so many other
articles in the tariff. [" No," from Mr. Hume.) He cer-
WO thought that if tea, for instance, were introduced
into his hon. friend', argument, instead of oranges and
lemons, it would De equally logical. But the answer to all
such reasoning was to be found in the very homely es-
pre soon—'• You must cut your cloth according to your mea-
sure." Did the lion. member (Mr. Hume) think that, in
the financial statement for the year, too large a
surplus had been left ? In a financial point of view, this
was not as insignificant question. The reduction of duty,
as nearly as could be estimated, was in effect to about oue-
h ilf—in round numbers about 40,0001. It was, ho sever,
thought that a considerable increase in consumption would
take place, which would bring the revenue upon this head up
to about 56,0001. ; so that the actual loss would not be more
than 25,000!. But if the duty were to be abolished euirely,
there would at once arise a dead loss of 64,000 f. The sur-
pine, small at the commencement, had already been further
reduced by alterations in one or two items, and he must,
therefore, beg his hon. friends to he content with the reduc-
tion as he had proposed it.
Sir C. BURRELL concurred with the hon. member for
Montrose in his view of this item.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought that the Chancellor of the I
Exchequer, although he had answered the hon. gentleman
'oup*si a (Mr. Hume), had not given any reason why his
(Sir W. Jolliffe's) proposition should not bo accepted.
The amendment of Sir W. Jolliffe was lost, and the item
as proposed adopted by the committee without a division.
Upon the item " currants"—
Mr. MOFFATT objected to the distinction which it was
now proposed to introduce between currants and raisins. It
had been settled long sines that these fruits ought to bear
the same duties, and now it was proposed that oae should
be rated much higher than the other. This would give
great offence to the lonian Islands, the chief produce of
which was currants, and would furnish them with a valid
ground for complaint.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER differed
entirely from the conclusions to which his hon. friend (Mr.
Moffatt) had come upon this question. For the same rea-
sons as he had advanced 'upon the question of the duties
upon oranges and lemons be must object to any alteration
in the duty upon currants. It was true that
the argument of the hon. member as to the effect
upon the lonian Islands was not without weight,
but in a question like that before the committee it was IM-
possible for the government to look at one element alone ;
they must not make the welfare of countries is which they
were interested their exclusive consideration. The first
question to be considered was the comfort of the consumer,
after which, the next question was, what would be the effect
I of the reduction in a fiscal point of view ? Would the duty re-
cover itself, or if not, could the MU be otherwise covered ?
All of these questions should be taken into consideration
before making any actual step, and it would nut
be just to reduce a duty until the effect of the'
reduction upon the finances was considered. His
hon. friend said they were going to lay • differentiall
duty on currants, as against raisins. How was it a differ-
ential duty ? Not because the articles were the same, be.
cause they were different; not because the price was the
same, because the price of currants was double the price of
raisins. When the price was lower he should agree with
his hon. friend in reducing the duty on currants. At pre-
sent the state of things was exceptional, there being a
blight on currants. If his hon. friend were to persuade
the committee to reduce the duty on currants by Is. or os.
a cwt., the benefit would net accrue to the consumer, and
the revenue would not gain, and the only parties who
would benefit would be the importers. The revenue from
cuirants averaged near 400,0001. In 1&51 it was,
3.58,9001., and even last year, with a greatly reduced
einsumption, it was 285,0001., and they could not
afford to give away 100,000/. on an article of this kind in
the present fiscal state of affairs. At the same time he was
disposed to re-open the question when the state of the
revenue would permit, and there was a prospect of such a
supply as to induce a reasonable expectation that the revenue
would recover the lose.

Mr. MOFFATT said after the statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer he would not trouble the house to
divide. 1 • le,*
Mr. HUME suggested that the3cluty should be 9e. 4d.
instead of 10s. a cwt., which would:greatly facilitate calcu-
lations.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that it might be a convenience if the mode in which the
duties were charged was exactly in accordance with the
minute division of coins; but if they were to make a change
now they might have to make another change next jeer,
seeing that the question of a decimal coinage, on which he
gave no opinion, was under consideration.
The item was then agreed to.
Oa the item of books,
Mr. COWAN observed that the duty on foreign books
ought not to be less than the excise duty on paper, other-
wise great injustice would be done to publishers and
printers at home.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
this Question should not be mixed up with the article of
paper. It would not be worthy of this country, or any
intelligent and enlightened body of men like the paper
manufacturers, to contend forjestricting the trade in books.
Mr. COWAN said he had not any interest in it, or a very
remote one. The object was to impose the excise duty on
paper used for foreign books, which might be, and often
were, in the English language. One great source of the
expense of publishing books and pamphlets was the neces-
sity of destroying a portion of the impression on which the
duty had been paid.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question, that a duty of
30s. per cwt. be levied on foreign books, and of 15s. on
books published in countries with which we have a treaty
of copyright.
Mr. COWAN moved that the latter duty be 11. 3s. 4d.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
effect of carrying that amendment would be that we must
have no treaties with other countries for international
copyright.
The item, as originally proposed, was then agreed to.
The remaining articles were then agreed to, and the
house resumed.

EXCISE DUTIES AND SPIRITS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN appealed to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer not to proceed. Many Irish members bad left the
house, expecting the India debate to have lasted the whole
of the evening.
Mr. BOWYER enforced the same argument, and moved
that the chairman do repot progress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
this' was not merely a bill imposing duties, but one of
regulation. Its provisions had been referred to the prin-
cipal distillers of the three kingdoms, and been for the
most part acquiesced in. He hoped, therefore, that the
hon. gentlemen would suffer it to pass through committee,
and take the discussion as to the question of duty, at an-
other stage.
Atter some conversation, however,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER consented
not to contest the point.
Sir J. WALIIESLY hoped the right hon. gentleman
would take into consideration the equalisation of the dif-
ferences of duty between foreign and colonial spirits. The
duty on British spirits wu now 7s. 10d. per gallon ; and
that on West Indian rum, Bs. 4d. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
on important committee wu now sitting on the subject of
licenses, which might materially affect the spirit duties :
and he, therefore, thoufht it better to reserve the question
until the result of that inquiry should be before the house.
(Hew, hut.)
Mr. HUMS bad given notice of a motion respecting the
refining of sugar, the object of which was to prevent the
uecessity for exportingi sugar to Jersey, and bringing it
hack again. When would the right hon. gentleman take
the discussion on that motion ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
give a satisfactory answer. With the maw of public busi-
ness before them, if he attempted to be explicit, he was
afraid he should only mislead the hon. gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.

BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill, and the
several clauses were agreed to.

COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS REPEAL BILL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL postponed the second
reading of this bill till Thursday next.

COPYIIOLD'S BILL.

This bill was readatiiiitimeanTlpaaied.
SAVINGS BANKS.
The report on this subject was received.
TOWER HAMLETS IMPROVEMENTS.

..... .
Sir W. DIOLESWORTH obtained leave to bring in, a bill
to amend the acts and extend the time for eonstnicting a
a new street from Spitaltields to Shoreditch.
The bill was brought in and read a Stat time.
REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES.

Mr. WILSON moved for leave to bring in a bill for alter-
ing the mode of repayment of advances by the public works
loan commissioners, &c. He briefly stated the object of the
bill, which was to remedy some anomalies existing in the
present mode of repaying advances.
Leave was given, and the bill was brought in and read a
first time.