The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 4. 1853.

he led away by the arguments of the hon. me
m- mber fm M --...
on.
MM.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was a
odebted to the gallant colonel for his favourable
aeticipet4
tion ; the more so, as he recollected that not many ye-
a"
past the gallant colonel had exercised his wit and humour
on him (air. Gladstone) respecting free trade in a manrr
that was highly amusing. It was ou au °melee, when er
President of the Board of Trade, it was his duty to introduceasa
bill legalising the exportation of mechinery,and the Reliant
colonel said he must object to the Lill for the exportation of
machinery, but would gladly support one fur the e
spe
tation of the l'resideat of the Board of Trade.
(Laughter.) He merely mentioned this to show with
what consistency the gallant colonel held to all his opinions,
Before alluding to the motion of his hon. friend the member
fur Montrose, he must refer shortly to what had fallen from
the hon. member for Bridport. The hon. filmier was ua.
der the impression that he (tho Chancellor of the Etehe-
quer) had stated in answer to the hon member for Derby
that no bills contemplating customs reform were to be intro-
duced during the present session. Now, he had understood
the hon. memberfor Derby's question to refernot to customs
reform generally, but to the constitution of the hoard of
Customs, and he had consequently detailed what had been
done respecting that constitution. Ile stated that he wee
not prepared to say when a bill referring to that subject
would be brought in, but as to customs reform generally,
he said that a treasury minute would be prepared and Isid
on the table, and, as to the preparation of a bill, there
was no question asked, and therefore there could he no
answer. As to the motion of the hon. member for Mon.
twee, he seemed to offer the government fair terms. Tne
hon. member had stated that, if his principle were accepted,
be would not press for the adoption of his motion. New,
he (Mr. Gladstone) had objected to its adoption because he
was of opinion that the house should not touch the stand.
log revenue until it had decided what were to be the ex-
penses of the country. The hon. member said that if his
duties were repealed the money would not all be lost, and
that if it were we could well afford it. Ho v did the hon.
member know that ? If he would take the trouble of
putting the estimates together lie would lint that we were
not in a condition to lose much in the way of revenue. But
he objected more to the form of the motion than to its prin-
ciple. He did hope that the house was not going to adopt
the practice of living on the credit of fair professions. His
wish was that the people should judge of them, not
by their promisee, but by their works. (Hear.) Having
said thus much for the motion, he could not find in the
arguments by which it had been supported anything to
which he (Mr. Gladstone) could offer the slightest °him.
' tion. The hon. member was for the removal of the re-
mainder of the protective duties. Ile was not there to dis-
pute the propriety of that opinion. He should have
ventured to hope that it was now passed the stage of dis-
cussion, and had become one of the elementary truths upon
which all fiscal action should be timed. With respect to
the minor duties, it appeared from his hon. friend's figures
that there were 213 articles falling under the denomination
of foreign manufactures, of which the total annual protium
in duty was only 91,0001., and R agricultural productions
upon which the duty was only 35,001. It was for the house
to consider whether it would be desirable to retain so un-
productive a set of duties. (Hear.) It., would, if possible,
get rid of all nominal duties, and he knew it was the
opinion of other members of the government. In 184.5, the
government took the duties off a moiety of these articles
and since then his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinions had under-
gone no alteration. But, whether as regarded protective or
minor duties, he need not take up the time of the house in
canvassing the arguments of his hon. friend, because he
entirely concurred in them from first to last. (Hear, hear.)
Having stated, then, why he thought it would be inconve-
nient to pass • resolution which was something in the na-
ture of as promise, he thought he could not do better than
simply adopt all his hon. friend's et-gum/ate He looked
upon the removal of all protective duties as an act of simple
justice to agriculture, and of all duties ou food as one due
to the comfort of all classes of the people. (Cheers.) These
were the principles upon which, when the proper time
came, the government would approach the consideration of
the import duties, as well as the excise. Ile agreed with
the hon. member for Bridport in condemning the ad va-
lorem duties, and he trusted that when the governmest
came to reconsider the tariff these duties would be among
the first to be swept away.
Mr. BALL (Cambridgeshire) was as much opposed to
free trade as he had ever been, but as he felt it to be his
duty, seeing that he was powerless in his endeavours to pro-
cure a reversal of that policy, to palliate, as far as possible,
its efforts on the agricultural interest, who had suffered so
severely by it ; and as the only way, as it appeared to him,
to do that was by carrying out the tree trade principle in afi
things, he could not consistently oppose the motion.
(Cheers from the free trade benches.) He was told that
he should be opposed in this step by many of his protec-
tionist friends, because in the catalogue of commodities
enumerated In the motion there were some agricultural
products, and that the amount of import autiss gathered
upon these was double that obtained from the manufac-
turing products which would be aflicted, but the truth
was that the amount of protection on the different article,
of agricultural produce was so small, that the foreign produce
came in in spite of it, while the duty on the manufacturing
product was such as sensibly to enhance their pries
to the farmer. As parliament had made it obligatory on
the farmers of this country to compete with those of other
corntries, it was only just that they should be allowed to
purchase the articles they required for use at the cheeped
possible rate, and every measure that tended to that result
must benefit them. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest to
the Chancellor of the E:chequer one other way of bene-
fiting the farmer. The late Chancellor of the )exchequer
proposed to reduce the malt duty by one-half—let the right
hon. gentleman who now held that office go further, and
reduce that duty altogether, and he would be acknowledged
as the friend of the farmer. (Cheers, and a laugh.) By
extending the free-trade principle to everything, he was not
without hope that its evils would be so generally felt that
all parties would unite in seeking for a return of protection,
and the substitution of an ad valorem duty on all foreign
articles imported for the heavy weight of direct taxation.
(Hear, hear.) On the grounds he had stated,
he should support the motion, even if he were
the only member on that side whe went into
the same lobby with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume). He
ought, however, to observe that he approved of the first
portion of the resolution much more than he approved of
the second, but, as it would be difficult to give the one part
efficiency without the other, he should vote for it as it
stood. (Hear.)
Mr. W. BROWN inquired of the Chancellor of !the Ex-
chequer whether it was intended -to bring forward any bill
in reference to the customs regulations, so that the trade
might not be dependent, as they were now, on Treasury
orders ? With regard to the observations the right hoe.
gentleman had offered on the question before the hotter, he
generally approved of them.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not concur in the retaliatory
policy recommended by his hon. friend (Mr. Ball). He
could not reconcile It to his conscience because an injury
had been inflicted on the agricultural interest, to min
round on the manufacturers, who were protected, and say,
" I will inflict an injury upon you." The amount
of the duty on manufacturing produce which this motion
would affect was 434,0001., half of which, or about 200,0001.,
was paid by silk. Now when Sir Robert I'cel passed his
measures of financial reform he acknowledged silk stood
upon a different footing from that of the other articles to
which he applied the free trade principles, and left it pro-
tected by a duty of 15 pier cent. Therefore they had the au-
thority of Sir R. Peel for continuing protection to that
article. He was aware that a body of Manchester silk ma-
nufacturers had memorialised the late government for the

repeal of the duty ; but the silk trade-in Macclesfieici and
Spitalfields declared that while France protected its silk
manufactures by a duty varying from 4s. 6cl. to 121. per cwt.
on dyed silk, and 12s. per cwt. on the raw material, the re-
moval of the protection on British silk would expose the
trade to a most unfair and unequal competition. he rea-
son the Manchester manufacturers were favourable to the
removal of the duty was, he understood, that their trade
being confined to dark colours, they increased the weight in
the dyeing by using schumac and other ingredients, which
gave them an advantage. With regard to the duties on
agricultural produce, he could not consent to their removal,
seeing that the present government had refused to co-ope-
rate in the removal of any portion of the malt duty.

Mr. J. WILSON, in reply to the question which the hos.
member for Manchester had put to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, stated that several bills were in preparation
for consolidating. the customs duties. When: prepared
they would require the sanction of a Treasury minute,
which must precede any act on the part et the Custom
House authorities.

Mr. VANSITTART was not inclined, by removing the
duties involved in the motion, to take from the government
the power of dealing with others, the removal or reduc-
tion of which would benefit the agricultural interest.
Mr. A. PELLATT, as a manufacturer of a material
which had benefited by the principles of the tariff intro-
duced by Sir R. Peel, wished to bear his testimony to the
great increase of the consumption of glass, whether ground,
plate, or flint, and that the trade were enabled to sell
it at a lower price than any foreign glass.

Mr. HUDSON (who spoke from under the gallery and
was almost inaudible) was understood to object to dabbling
constantly with the tariff, and to advise the Chancellor of
the Exchequer not to take off duties until he was sure of
having secured the revenue he required.

MirTEWART thought that the.tariff as fixed by Sir R.
Peel was not intended to he final, but that it should from
time to time be revised on the same principle. Ile was
of opinion that numbers of the smaller duties of
the tariff should be swept away.
Mr. T. PARKER was surprised that such a motion as
this should be made after the resolution to which the house
bad come on the subject of free trade. lie should certainly
vote for the motion, as he thought, as a honest man, he
was bound to do after the adoption of the principles on
which it was founded ; but he could not see why it was
brought forward, unless the hon. gentleman had sense
doubt as to the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Ex-
aminer.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to say a few words in explanation,
after the extraordinary statement of the hon. member fer
North Warwicashire. Perhaps some persons would think
that was hardly necessary, since the hon. gentleman was f 0
much in the habit of snaking unfair and unfounded attacks
on manufacturers who lived in the town which he (Mr.
Bright) represented. The hon. gentleman appeared to wish
to emulate the course taken by a gentleman, formerly a
member of that house, and who sat for Knaresborough, and
who obtained an unenviable notoriety by his attacks on
manufacturers. (Hear, hear.) The hen. member for
Warwickshire seemed to wish it to appear that the silk
trade of Manchester had a particular interest in the ate-
'Won of the duty on that article, which was not participated
in by the silk manufacturers of Macc:estield and Spital-
fields. The honourable gentleman Wel, not aware that
a memorial on the subject, which was lately prcs,inted to

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was signed by msay of
the silk manufacturen of Manchester, pe
tition. not one of
them appehed to the objects of the pe The hon.
gentleman wenn,' to suppose that there was no silk manu-
factured in Slanchester, but only a coerce article, three-
miritis of which wee nut silk. But the fact was, that the
tills manufacture in Manchester of late years had extended
mote, mot been more prosperous than in any other district,
that at consisted of articles of every quality in the trade,
and if it was true that the article manufactured was
of inferior quality. and customers did not come to pur-
l: it he (Nit. Bright) thought that it would be
ase
jest the one that would require protection against the fo-
oigner. The him. gentleman ought to give the manufac-
turers of Manchester credit for consistency in the mainte-
nance of the principle of unrestricted competition. In the
memorial to which he had alluded it was stated that the
silk trade had suffered, because there was an opinion en-
tertained that the English silk manufacturer could not
casein te w ith the fortigucr, and that their articles were not
eo good, and they wished that opinion to Le destroyed
be the repeal of that duty. Theo manufacturers, who had
supported the anti-Corn Law League, and hod besieged
that house with petitions for the repeal of the corn
loge, were a' lenst consistent when they came and asked
that the principle of the tariff of Sir R. Peel should be car-
ried sat, ai.dstated that they were willing to accept the appli-
won et that principle to their industry. Thst principle
the silk manufacturers of Manchester bed carried out,
trusting to their own energy, activity, and pen
and tki y had fund those qualitits produced the same re-
• whether they were applied to the manufacture of
cotton or to silk. He was sorry to find that the hon. 'aeria-
l:sr fur Warwickshire still maintained what the right hots.
gentlemen the member fur Buckinghamshire had celled
obeihte opinions. but he was glad to find that the 53 bad
ow droplu il to 52 by the defection of the hon. member
for Cambreloshire. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Bright) should
not hove said a word, hut that there were persona who
sight ti, I themselves aggrieved by the unjust obeerva-
tioni upon than w'.ich were uttered in that house, unless
some one made a fair reply to such uunecessery remarks as
those of the hon. member for Warwickshire. He (Mr.
Brght) wished to ask a question of the Chancellor of the
Eichtquer. This was, perhaps, a proper time to put it. It
had been stated is the papers that negotiations were going
en between the government. of France and England for
the reduction on articles which this country could supply
to a large intent, such rs coal, iron, and earthenware, and
that the Fr. nett were willing to make reductions in the
duties nu these articles, if England would be willing
to wince the duties on wines and brandy. He should
be .lad, as they were sow on the question of free trade and
estend-il commerce, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
funk! give him an answer on that point ; and, if there were
any papers on the subject, allow the house to me what wee
doing, and whether, if the barriers of restricted trade be-
tween the twn e 'untrue. were being broken down, and if,
instead of adding to their armaments, they were thinking
of commerce and trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
seats long time ago communications had been going on
between the French and English governments on the sub.
ject. but they had not arrived at any definite end.
Mr. DISRAELI said that before going to a vote be
wished to say a few words. It was his opinion that the cul-
tivators of the boil were subjected to as undue weight of
taxation. The late government had considered the whole
system of potion, with a view to remedy what they con-
sidered to be the injustice it produced. It was their opi-
nion that the remedy could hest be found, not by taking a
liasibd or partial view with reference to any class, bat by
considering the general system of taxation. They arrived
at the conslusion that you could best benefit the producer
by consulting the interest of the consumer. Having
adopted that opinion, and considered the whole system of
titration. they thought it their duty to propose measures
which he as their organ brought forward. The house
did net sanction those measures. It was not true that
those measures were recommended to the boon
as a new commercial system ; but they were de-
sexibed only :,as the first step, as was then either
expressed or intimated. They anew that to Induce the
hems and the country to adopt that policy it was necessary
ns make great apparent sacrifices. Nothing great wee ever
achieved in this world without greet sacrifice.. (Hear,
her.) They were convinced that the time would come
when the principles of the late government would bo ad-
mitted to be sound and beneficial, and they had a like con-
fidence in the consequences that would follow if those prin-
ciples were adopted. The house declined to adopt them,
and the Lott government showed the sincerity
of their conduct by what took place after the
vote of the house. They relinquished office. He
would not say without a pang, but still with a belief, that
power was valueless unless it were exercised under the
enaction of the generous confidence of the Haus of Cum.
MOM. (Cheers.) He 011.011010‘ the vote of the Howse 01
0010010111 on the polity vommeaseded by the government
ef which he was the sew was sinnelasive. He ass not the
less confident with rewind le the palsy, but he had no wish
to intrude his spied= Is es assembly which had
in so formal a maces selbeed to adopt it. He
was equally undid's= se inventing madam to
harass those who led succeeded the lane -
went in office by premiss their opinions on gsaaeial
questions on the beme. He thought that feeling was
shown by those with whom it was his pride and pleasure to
act when a boa. gentleman opposite offered to the house
a motion which they might have consistently supported,
and by which course they might have embarrassed the
house, but he was rot willing to enaction that course. The
present was an occasion on which he was called to declare
his Vlcin on a question of the greatest interest, especially
to whom he thought had been unjustly treated.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had fond one great fault with
the motion of the hoe. member for Montrose. The
right honourable gentlemen sad that what that'
practical assembly ought to aceompiish was performance
and not promise He would read the resolution which the
Chancellor of the Ezcheqau declared to be only a promise :
"That this house will at a. early period take into its con-
sideratioe the duties that are strictly protective in the ex-
isting tariff on articles of import into this country, both of
manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of
speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly eve in-
testre in the couatry." Now, before he (Hr. Disraelry i) as-
sented to t hat resolution, let them see how the charge against
the hon. member for Montrose, of its being only premise,
was supported by the Chases/11er of the Exchequer.
It was a motion holding to the country a policy. The house
had to consider whether or not it was a sound policy, and if
it was sound, whether it was politic, to held a promise that
it would be carried out. If the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had said that it was a motion which, carried into
Jett, would so materially Mauna* the exchequer of which
he was the guardian, that he woad sot enter into argument
upon it, and asked the hones to guard him against such an
attack on the exchequer; if ha had entered into no dis-
cussion upon it, and had asked the house to enter on no
discussion on its policy, or promise of a policy, he
(Mr. Disraeli) could have understood . the position
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it might
have been the duty of every man in the house
te simport him. Bat what was the cause taken
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? Denouncing the
premise of a policy as a dangerous course, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer rose, and his speech was one long promise,
be ham the beginning te the sod of it be was promising
what the government would do on this question at the ma.
meat time. The whole question was open. The boom
led sot to consider the motion of the ion. member for
Bentrese with respect to its convenience or inconvenience
te the Treasury, but the motion was one of policy, and
Pkey elm,. Well, he (Mr. Disraeli) approved of that
pdicy. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) If the policy which the
We government recommended, and; which the house
feinted—a policy which one day or other would
he neogaised a beneficial by the country—(cheers)—be-
suss it considered the interests of industry in their proper
lase; if that policy wee not properly pursued he must look
be other means for the relief of agriculture, which he be-
lieved to be suffering. His hon. friend the member for
Berth Warwickshire, who on this as on all occasions exhi-
bited se such consistency, talent, and research, said that
this intim would not be a bad bargain fur the arrricultu-
nets, because, be raid, if you remove these duties =nonfat -
tan will be relieved to the extent of 434,0001, while *grind
tun benefits to considerably more than double that amour ..
Now he said with regard to the observation of the hi.
Member for North Warwickshire, that the interests of tLa
loutry had gone far beyond the eonsiderition of 400,0001.
sad 000,0001., and that after the resolution which bad been
eanied into operation they could not cling to the rags and
Inters of a protective system. (Loud cheers.) The mei.
ealnual class was obliged to pay for articles they wished
to Ise a coesiderahle duty, and they could not be told in
answer to that, that they levied a small rs on certain
Inidesof foreign agricultural production. Bat he denied
slaftutiodly that any of these duties levied on foreign
!Ineshull production were really of • protective Marne-
ter. They were not directly protective—they were not
Pletective at all. He would not enter into the
111•16•0 whether the duties levied on foreign manufactured
rides Weft protective and strictly protective ; he believed
"1Y wine. He protested after the vote the boys* bad
come to, after the verdict of the last general election,
'Pint the cultivators of the soil being subjected to any
Iduties that were either protective or strictly protective.
had been forced into the consideration of the policy
efts motion by ministers. If the minister had risen in
,Plaft, and, on financial considerations objected to
'""mlwon. this discussion might long ago have mused
Mt it was bemuse he had objected to the motion as a
rubs of promise, &ad then made a long speech, which was
"ly • 'Teeth of promise, that he had forced them to give
ml opinion en a policy which he seemed at a distant day to
',rill. but which be now met in a manner which he
%•••.Disestli) could not describe, nor even at the present
!moment hardly understand. But this he did know, that
"trial the course recommended was founded on those
Ca Plea which the people and the parliament of England
iconic and believing it was a policy which did
wrz str.iesilturiste, he should vote for the motion
cAitays_v
_for Montrose. (Cheery.)
*hid, WELL said, with an admirable dexterity,
those who admired the ability of the right hon.
Cirleillass:light not be unprepared to expect at a la
. tote a crowded house, the right hon. gentleman had
(77:nlsci on the speech of his right bon. friend the Chan-
Bsettequer. His right bon. friend might
h lte heard the version which his right hon.
t'it'.77;__. r gave of the speech, which at an early part of
R he was supposed to have made. The right
Wgentleman said if the Chancellor of tho Exchequer
rested his defence on the single position that he was
Cm4ian of the public Tremor), and that at the present
of the financial
rselq year it was not right to deprive the
• %um exceeding a million and a half, then the
Z▪ .me,mitthth tee come to an immediate conclusion. He
tiatr—tvovis
_to thoele who were present at the time, whether
the argument of his right hon. friend. He did

not say to the House of Commons that they should not
only not come to a fiscal resolution, but that they
should not presume and pass opinions as individuals, on
• fiscal subject. He did not object that this should
ventilate this subject in debate, but his objection was this—
that they should not commit themselves by a formal resolu-
tion to cut off any portion of the r till the time bad
arrived to carry it out. The right hon. gentleman opposite
✓id he should support the motion. Consider the tendency
of the support which the right bon. gentleman was going
to give. The right hon. gentleman said it was too late to
Cling to the rags and tatters of protection. Well, but some
hon. gentlemen sitting behind him had expressed a very
different opinion. He appealed to the friends of free trade
whether it was desirable that they should commit themselves
by a formal vote at this period .( the financial year.' When
he remembered the great services the hon. member fur
Montrose had rendered, and particularly in moving for and
presiding over the import duties committee, be thought his
perliamentery experience and sagacity would lead him to
give his principles • fair chance, not by carrying this mo-
tion to • division, hut by being satisfied by the assurance
given by his right hon. friend that he had sewn his seed is
the seed time and that in due time the harvest would bring
forth its increase.

Mr. MILES said he bad not the slightest objection to the
first part of the resolution, but he objected to that part of it
which spoke of repealing the same duties. (Laughter.) lie
hail invariably supported protection, because he conceived
it to be beneficial to all el f the community; but, at
the same time, in fairness to themselves, they should con-
sider that many of these articles of agricultural produce
were manufactured articles, and as long as they maintained
other duties he thought they should maintain these.
Mr. H UME, in reply, said it seemed they were all unani-
mous. The only question was how they were to carry out
this great principle of free-trade. He was anxious to have
a vote of the house that no one article connected with ma-
nufactures should remain in the tariff, while the agricul-
tural interest wa, subject to competition ; but he certainly
did say, that if they declared his principle, be should not
put tne house to the trouble of dividing. (. Oh!" from
the Opposition.) If hon. members wished to give an una-
nimous v.te, he hope I minister, would not object to it.
The house then divided—

Aye.
Noes 101 _

169-58
The motion was thus lost.
CROWN SOLICITORS IN IRELAND.
Mr. FITZGERALD moved for certain papers relating
to the appointment of crown solicitors in Ireland, and called
attention to the resignation of Mr. Kemmis, a crown so-
licitor, and the appointment of his son, at an increased
salary, to the office, just before the last government relin-
quished office. and titer they hod resigned.
Sir J. YOUNG said that the legality of the appointment
was under the consideration of the law officers of the crown.
Its would ba happy to produce the papers requested, with
the exception of one correspondence.
Mr. NAPIER wished to have all the papers produced.
He repudiated the "job" charged against the late govern-
ment; and explained that the resignation bad been received,
and the appointment virtually made, during the month pre-
vious to that in which the government went out.
Mr. Fl IZOERALD was not entirely satisfied, and the
papers were ordered.