The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-28 00:00:00

TOBACCO DUTIES BILL.

The debate on the second reading of this bill, adjourned
from the 23d of February, was then resumed.
The CHANCELLOR of the E XCII E QUER said that the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets having stated at great
length his objection to this bill, he should be compelled to
trouble the house with a few observations in reply. He
should first wish to advert to two'objection, of a general cha-
racter. One was that this bill ought to have been considered
in connexion with the financial arrangements of the year.
He thought, on the other hand, that it was more convenient
and advantageous to bring in this bill at a period of the ses-
sion when the house could give greater attention to its de-
tails. The period when the financial measures of the year
were submitted to the house was a period of great pressure,
and if this bill had been mixed up with the questions ot far
greater interest which were usually connected with the Bud-
get its details could not have been so carefully examined. An-
other objection was that this bill cheapened the commodity to
the rich man and took no cognisance of the commodity con-
sumed by the poor man. This objection was very wide of the
truth. No doubt this bill tended to cheapen tobacco and cigars
of the highest quality, but it also applied alike to every kind
of manufactured tobacco. It had been argued by a
portion of the press as if there were a difference between the
poor and rich in this respect, that while the rich man con-
sumed manufactured tobacco the poor man consumed
tobacco in leaf. But the poor man did no such thing, for
even the sale of the tobacco in the leaf was illegal. The
leaf was unfit for consumption as imported, and the effect
of the bill was not to cheapen the high priced cigar of the
rich man, but to open the door of a fair and healthy com-
petition in a commodity which had been excluded from our
imports, not by an absolute prohibition, but by a duty so
extravagant as practically to amount to a prohibition. So
far as the poor consumer was concerned, the present sys-
tem was as complete a monopoly as if bonded or an entire
prohibition, while in the case of the rich man the grievance
involved was of so trifling a character, if, indeed, one ex-
isted at all, as to be hardly worth the consideration of the
house. Having made those observations he should proceed
to deal with the motion of the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets, which he hoped the house would not be disposed
seriously to entertain, for if they should do so they would
be setting a course at variance with established practice.
The case at. issue, it should be remembered, was one in
which the Executive Government proposed to the represen-
tatives of the people a reduction of taxes levied on the peo-
ple, and in the history of the last 20 years, during which
period more than 1,000 proposals of a similar character had
been made by different Governments, he was aware of no in-
stance in which one bad been met by a motion similar to
that which the hon. member had brought forward, although
on several occasions particular propositions had been cha-
racterised as unwise, or of such a nature that they ought
not to receive the sanction of Parliament. The motion of
the hon. gentleman, in effect, went the length of saying
that the Executive Government, which was responsible for
the taxation of the country, having laid before the House
ot Commons a bill, the object of which was the reduction
of certain duties—a private member was justified in rising
in his place, and while declining to take the sense of the
house as to whether the measure was or was not a wise
or a good one —seeking to postpone it for an indefinite
period. Now, the universal practice of the house, which,
he ventured to contend, was founded on wisdom, was alto-
gether opposed to such a mode of proceeding—a mode of
proceeding which, if it had been pursued in former years,
would have rendered progress in our commercial legisla-
tion almost impossible. The minute examination of details
which it was the duty of the Government to institute with
regard to such questions as the present, and which they
submitted to the consideration of hon. members on the
floor of that house when making the proposals which they
deemed it to be their duty to lay before Parliament, had
hitherto, he might add, been found the practical mode of
carrying out great commercial reforms ; but if the whole
of those details were, because some timid interest or ano-
ther happened to be the victim of imaginary danger, in-
stead of being taken on the responsibility of the Govern-
ment, to be sent upstairs to a committee, to be dealt with by
a system of examination and cross-examination, the pro-
gress by which our legislation had of late years been dis-
tinguished would never have been made. He should, there-
fore, without hesitation appeal to hon. members to Say whe-
ther they would abandon the wholesome practice, and lend
themselves to sanction a course which amounted to nothing
more than an evasion of the question at issue. Be would not
in the course of the observations which he was about to make
trouble the house by entering into a lengthened explana-
tion of those details of the bill which might more conve-
niently be discussed at a future stage, but would enter at
once into the general merits of the subject, premising that
he was at a loss, after having heard the speech of the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets, to know why he had
adopted the particular course which he had taken. The
hon. gentleman had stated that he stood out as the sup-
porter of the existing law, which he seemed to regard as
one of a perfect character—a law which had been devised, as
ho would have it, in 1823, for the purpose of benefiting the
revenue and to suppress smuggling, in both of which ob-
jects the hon. gentleman maintained it had succeeded.
Why was it, then, that, entertaining that view, the hon.
gentleman had not moved the rejection of the bill before
the house ?—a bill which he appeared to think would have
the effect of introducing innumerable horrors into our com-
mercial system. Indeed, the hon. gentleman had gone so
far in his opposition to it as to picture the foreigner gloat-
ing over the deserted dwellings of the great manufacturers
in this country; and to conjure up images of starving opera-
tives which were quite harrowing. (A laugh.) He had
even gone further, and talked of slaveowners and a Royal
monopolist in Manilla deriving incalculable advantages at
the expense of the ruined British workman. Those, how-
ever, were but old stories after all, and required something
in the nature of proof before they could be implicitly relied
upon, for the prophecies of the hon. gentleman had been
discredited by uniform experience. The hon. gentleman
seemed to think that by the proposal he had made he was
giving effect to the wishes of the tobacco trade, but the jus-
tice of that supposition he for one disputed. A statement
on behalf of two respectable members of the trade had, in-
deed, been circulated, which might be said to be on the
hon, gentleman's side, but their share in the matter was,
after all, but infinitesimal, and he himself, who had daily
communications either directly or indirectly with the
largest manufacturers in the three kingdoms, could safely
say that not one of them had made of him the requirement
which the hon. gentleman had made of the House of Contr
mons. On the contrary, they had approached the question
like practical men, and while submitting that the duty en
a particular description of tobacco was fixed at too high a
rate, or that certain regulations ought to be relaxed—
points which were perfectly legitimate subjects for dis-
cussion—never advocated the relegation of the question to
a committee—a course which could lead to no other re-
sult than an indefinite waste of time. Now, passing by
the minute details connected with the question, it became
his duty to show good grounds for introducing the bill,
and for seeking to disturb the present state of things.
Those grounds were four, and any one of them would,
in his opinion, be sufficient to justify the step which
he asked the house to take, while combined they were per-
fectly irresistible as arguments in, its favour. The fact was
notorious that smuggling existed to a great extent. It was
proposed to give to the British trader the power of manu-
facturing cavendish tobacco in bonded warehouses, and to
make an allowance to him of 4d. a lb. for the loss entailed
in the disposal of the stalks of the tobacco, and for the ad-
ditional expense of the premises in which the manufacture
would have to be carried on. He would be allowed to de-
liver out the cavendish so manufactured at 3S, Bd, a lb., the

foreigner being permitted to introduce it into this country
at 4s. a lb. Though not introducing the bill as a fiscal
measure, he hal great confidence that the revenue would be
benefited by the alteration. As regarded the question of
the interests of the manufacturer, so far from their being
injured, he hoped it would be in the power of the house by
judicious legislation materially to improve the position of
the trader. Having been asked whether he could extend
the system of manufacturing in bond to cigars and ether
kinds of tobacco, he had, after due consideration, come to'
the conclusion that he could not do so, on account of the
manufacture being carried on by so many persons and re-
quiring so little capital ; but he did not despair of being
eventually able to submit a proposition to the house, under
which, without any working in bond, it might be practi
cable for the British manufacturer to carry on the export
trade in tobacco. This would be effected by readjusting the
present impracticable system of drawbacks. The object of
the Government was to make the measure as favourable as
possible to the British manufacturer. Th 3 export trade
was very defective as regarded the duty, but the Govern-
ment were ready to propose a means whereby the difficulties
would be got rid of.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the timber duties were referred to
a committee, and he saw no reason why the tobacco duties
should not be also. Ho denied that the proposition for a
committee was an innovation. There were 10,000 persons
emplcyed in this country in the cigar trade, and they com-
plained that the bill would place them at a disadvantage in
comparison with the foreign manufacturer,
Mr. LOCKE supported the motion for a committee.
Mr. T. BARING disapproved of the bill unless the home
manufacturer were placed on equal terms with his foreign
competitors.

After some further discussion,
Dr. BRADY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. MAGUIRE seconded tha motion, and insisted that
tke whole question ought to be referred to a select con'
mittee.
The house divided.
Ayes 7l
Noes
Majority - 66
Sir H. CAIRNS then moved the adjournment of the
house, and a division was taken ; the result being.—

Fo'• the motion
Against it
Majority — 64
Colonel DUNNE moved the adjournment of the debate,
which was then assented •to by the Chancellor of the Ev
chequer.