The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-05 00:00:00

lbs.
143,000,000
152,000,000

11,000,000•
nearly 8
160,000,000

Rate of increase per cent
Ia 1835

Increase per cent. on 1834
During the last year ending in January, 1836, there had
been a decrease of the sum paid into the Exchequer for
duty collected on soap from one to two per cent. ; and dur-
ing the quarter ending the sth of April following the de"'
crease had been considerably greater. This had occurred
whilst the country was in a state of unexampled prosperity
The only way, therefore, to account for it was, that the
population had been supplied with soap by the smuggle"'
The facilities for smuggling were many—lst, the con"
ceutrated nature of the alkali now used, as compare'
with that formerly employed ; 2d, the great temptation
held out to smugglers—the coast of materials heel
.57/. 55., of labour (including coals) 71. 55., duty 351.
~
—lOOl. for common brown soap ; 3d, the number of
small manufacturers who took out a license with the
sole purpose of smuggling ; 4th, the fact that there
were three thousand candlemakers, who had all the
utensils and materials, on whom there was now 110 ex'
cise survey—these could all smuggle if they chose ;
sth, the facilities of intercourse with Ireland, where there
was no duty. The report of the Commissioners showed the
system of smuggling going on there, and the annoyenef
thereby created to the owners of vessels, who were oblige":
to give large bonds, and incur heavy losses, from the frau°
of other people. So that to defraud the revenue of 35145 i:
an expenditure of 71. 10s. only in labour was require,„
Another objection to the duty on soap was the very efo
noxious nature of the Excise regulations. The loss by to
absurd mode of taking the soap from the frames, in one seeeP.
r
tnanufactory, amounted to 6001. per annum for duty ale e
Again, the duty on soap very seriously interfered with ott
foreign trade in that article. There had been a very 0'1.7,
terial progressive decrease, during the few past Yee t.,
in the amount of exportation. 't he export of soap lone°
od in
1830 to 14,657,666 lbs. During these three years there vciistb3;
1831 to 15,506,561 lbs. bounty on exportation equal t°
1832 to '22,078,000 lbs. Customs duties.
1
dell
1833 to 25,650,1168 lbs.—Year of the reduction of the duty,

1834 to 23,718,273 lbs.
1835 to 22,946,674 lbs.

the abolition of the boanty.

1836
The drawback on exportation did not cover the ex b,
duty since the withdrawal of the tenths ; besides whlucer
there was a Customs duty on the raw materials. Toget"tr
they amounted to nearly 31. per ton. The British menb,
facturers were met in'the market by the Americans' °m
being totally free from all excise restrictions, and 1118° rfor
all Custom duties on the materials imported necessarYrero
the manufacture, completely drove the British manufaetu
out of the market. The latter were also successfully e: er
peted with by the French in the manufacture of the 'Pre-
descriptions of soap. Soap formed a very material Ica
dient in many of our manufactures ; the duty, theref°rd 'the
that article was a circumstance that essentially affecte who
interest of those other branches of manufacture. 00'1.
7
drawback paid to manufacturers in 1835 was 54°000b
the amount of duty paid on the soap used was 'scop,
The manufacturers, therefore, paid 20,0001. duty on _eise
besides the increased cost of making it under our ebloa
laws. Besides this, the manufacturers were in the 11,e_ co-
order to avoid the annoyance of having their beeicsaikali
mined by excise officers, of making together Parelity Of
and oil, and this forming an imperfect soap, the quasid tic)
which was very inferior, but which at the same time Sol• for
duty. One house in the paper trade used to PY 6 004
d neY
soap, who did not now purchase a single poun •
vefittea
this, there was another interest which would be beAuty orl
to a very considerable extent by the abolition of the'

Soap • he
meant the agricultural interest. But the most
c"ortant point of view in which to put his case, in advo-
Ating the abolition of this tax, in his opinion, was to show
that it was a tax which operated with very unequal pressure
on the different portions of the population, and with the
greatest severity on the poor. The excise duty on a ton
Of soap was 14/., and the customs duty on the materials
ght be stated at 3/. more, making together a duty of 17/.
(.;:nton of soap. Now, the cost of a ton of soap used by
tile poorer classes was about 401., the duty being, as he
;said, 17/. The cost of a better kind of soap was 601. a
ton, the duty still being 17/. ; while the cost of a ton of
perfumed soap, which was consumed by the rich, was
about 1001., still bearing a duty of only 17/. ; so that
the duty of the article consumed by the poor man
amounted to not less than 45 per cent. of the .whole
price i while the duty on the article consumed by
the rich man bore only the proportion of from four-
t'dn to twenty per cent. on the whole price. He
thought he could not bring forward a stronger reason for
the abolition of this duty.—(Hear, hear.) Unlike the
duty on tobacco or on spirits, which affected only certain
Portions of the community, the duty on soap was a tax
that interestid every class. It would not be difficult to
show that the abolition of the duty was much more pre-
dferable than a reduction of it, because if any portion of the
*uty were retained the whole of the machinery for collect-
the duty and for protecting the revenue must be kept
P. The expense of re-paying the drawbacks was very great,
`and the present system gyve every facility to fraud. By
Itholishing the duty this expense would, of course, be saved.
Gross duty, 1835 £977,122
Drawbacks on Exportation........ 81,209
Manufactures
Ireland 62,538

198,009

,11 net.
It must be observed that there were two £779
descr3 iptions of
drawback—one paid by the Customs on soap exported, and
the other by Excise to manufacturers, and requiring dis-
tinct sets of officers. It had been said that the soap
duty was reduced in 1833, and therefore other trades
ought to have a preference over it in 1837. But to
this 1 e would answer, that the reduction of the duty in
:1833 was made in consequence of the proved existence of
:smuggling. But the improvements in alkalies which were
'then commencing had placed the trade in a worse situation
with respect to the smuggler than it was at that time. The
facilities for fraud were now greater than ever, which was ac-
knowledged by the Commissioners of Inquiry in their 17th
report. It was also said that glass ought to be relieved in
Preference to soap. But flint glass had been reduced to a
great degree, and sufficiently to prevent smuggling. No
'one complained of fraud in window or plate glass. The
consumption of glass was rapidly increasing. It was in
1832, 745,000/. ; in 1833, 862,000/. ; in 1834, 922,000/. ;
in 1835, 966.000/. Notwithstanding a reduction of 2s. 3d
thu duty on flint-glass in 1835 was calculated at 15.5,0001.*
The manufacturers of glass did not apply for any reduc-
tion. The cost of the materials, labour, and duty on plate
and crown glass, and on soap, stood thus :

Mate . _
Glass. _ Soap.
lurials . £l4 per cwt. £57 5 For corn-
our, including coals 53 7 5 mon brown
33 35 0 soapat 401.
- £loo £lOO 0 per ton.
lTherefore to defraud the revenue of 331. in the manufac-
ure of glass required an expenditure of seven times the
abour necessary to defraud it of 35/. on soap. The ma-
nufacture of glass required a bulky apparatus, and glass
Could only be made where coals were cheap. Soap, on the
contrary, could be made in a few hours. No doubt the
;tight Hon. Gentleman would be called upon to afford re-
lief b
y the reduction or abolition of other taxes ; but it
Was his (Mr. Gillon's) conviction that there was no tax
Whiccalled more immediately for repeal than the duty on
soap, If his Majesty's Government would consent to this
Proposition, they would thereby confer a boon on all the
productive classes of the community, and contribute mate-
rially to the health, comfort, and happiness of the popula-
iti°h• The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for
leave td bring in a Bill for the abolition of the soap tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
the Hon. Member would abstain from pressing the House
to a division on the subject until after the financial state-
ment had been made, which would be early in May. Be-
fore a decision was come to upon such questions as these,
it was essential that the House should know precisely the
amount of income and expenditure for the year. There
Was no doubt that the duties on Soap were in many re-
4Pects arbitrary, and subjected the manufacturer to great
; and the same observation was -applicable to
sban3 branches of the excise duties. With a view to ob-
viate these and other objections, it was the intention of
Government, at an early period, 'to bring forward a nice-
aure for the consolidation and simplification of the excise
duties, of the same character with that which had been so
advantageously introduced in reference to the customs du-
ties. Government was well aware of the great expense of
collecting the excise duties, and it would be their endeavour
nsiderably to lessen that expense. The Hon. Member
Would find that his notion as to the surplus revenue was
41.1tAIKEther a delusive one. He (the Chancellor of the
nilequer) did not intend on that occasion to reply to
'", c Hon. Gentleman's arguments, as he wished to leave
e"them untouched until a future occasion. He would again
Press his hope that the Hon. Member would not divide
011 the motion.
lair. HUME quite concurred in the propriety and ne-
cessity of reducing, the soap duties. He trusted the House
Would decide for the removal of this mischievous duty, with-
Out reference to the statement of income and expenditure.
hlqr. HAWES would have been better pleased had the
ksticellor of the Exchequer in his observations placed
rtater reliance on the recommendations of the Commis-
'loners of Excise inquiry. It was most desirable that this
faVortant branch of our maufactures should be relieved
1:` a
17 iutti the many difficulties under which it now laboured.
an increasing population, and with increasing wealth
dui,.B..eountry presented the striking anomaly of an actual
ee'resse in the consumption of one of the first articles of
e:essitY, soap. In his opinion, the Board of Excise (lid not
I.lhet its business in the way in which the public busi-
e ought to be conducted by a public Board. The Right
6°ll' Gentleman had urged as an objection to the motion
state it Ought not to be brought forward before the financial
ti:.ftent for the year was before the House. Hon. Gen-
°' however however, were aware that it was then too late to
hope to induce the Right- Hon. Gentleman to change his
(m''s• The proper time, therefore, as it appeared to him
Zdll% Hawes) to press the reduction of any particular tax
utY was while the financial arrangements for the en-
ver
' Ye
roent. r a were still under the consideration of the Go-
clkfter a few words from Mr. HUME and the CHAN-
tiehLLOR of the EXCHEQUER in explanation, the mo-
il was withdrawn.
to t- r' MAULE obtained leave to bring in'a Bill to secure
dolila'ts of farms in Scotland compensation for damage
,c to their farms by game.
AIL ASTL INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS.
sever., • P. YOUNG, after presenting a petition from
the efttrizinders belonging to the maritime service of
1.40‘.3, 4
tast India Company, rose to bring forward a motion
th,tille subject of which he had given notice similar to
tlt twiwed o'iseell he urged in the last session. He contended
r
officers were entitled to compensation under the
ployin charter of the Company, for the loss of their ern-
ing beenents
fore, aabolished, and the services of those officers, there-
tilittee I°';',Ter required. He merely asked for a Com-
be 031 and If that was granted, he felt confident he should
tletne t
,„o prove the justice of the claims of these gen-
Illittee They were admitted by the Finance Com-
,"
al of the India House, by the Court of Directors,
boards° by the Court of Proprietors. It was by the
Memberof Control only they were opposed. The Hon.
Selectconcluded by moving for the appointment of a
Sir Com .rni
ttee.
ht C. HOBHOUSE opposed the motion, as it
'Wit • tnPIY a doubt as to the justice of the claims set up.
frei,iltresPect to Captain Mangles, he was only in the
s
erviee, and he was entitled therefore to compensa-
-4.,,
ordUger the regulations. This case was decided by
of - nenhorough, when he was at the head of the Board
p_Uoritro
l'here
Th.. 111, and he saw no reason to alter that decision.
1v44, as no new matter here. If the Board of Controul
let not Properly constituted, let it be altered by law ; but
ease. t ,The House be called upon to interfere in a special
ablEve
if a Select Committee should report favour-
ilillts_tioi..tnhe views of the Hon. Member, he should not feel
tivr:lJustice called upon to comply.
those ROBINSONIt contended that by the Act of 1834
groan gentlemen were entitled to compensation, on the
irr..giat they had suffered in their prospective interests.
whole
01-SAGSH A W had paid the greatest attention to the
the Ri f this case, and he came to the same conclusion as
to taii.gbt Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse) It
was easy
fsvo._" of the generosity of the proprietors in deciding in
4\LT of this claim ; but the Hon. Member (Mr. Robin-
very well that the proprietors must be paid their
The
ex, and that they could lose nothing by their decision.
whf_ expense must ultimately fall upon the natives, for
,n,uscwiposrotection the Board of Controul was instituted,
_e duty it was to protect them.
Prel.r;ePllAED said that the Right Hon. Baronet the
t„ nt of the Board of Control appeared to expect him
fighhoPtiPso,,r,t the view of the case which he (Sir John
had taken, but he was at a loss to know on
/1-41,4 greund that expectation was based. When he (Mr.
,atneede.alisl attached' to the Board of Control, and these
a vr.:?!,...esr were brought before him, he treated them in
by .o;Ye(ll,!t:,,ent light from that in which they were viewed
tlba lit lion. Baronet opposite, and he would tell
re4l meritstuber for Teignmouth that his opinion on the
of the question was not changed. He thought

the House was bound to support the motion for a Commit-
tee on the case of the present petitioners.
Mr. V. SMITH considered that the Right Hon. Baro-
net had not swerved from the principle of the rule he had
found established on coming into office. The House ought
not to grant compensation out of the public money to officers
who, if they had not made fortunes, had had ample oppor-
tunity for doing so. He was at a loss to account for the
change which, on this qnestion, appeared to have taken
place in the opinions of the Hon. Member for Yarmouth.
The Hon. Gentleman had said that all the cases of those
officers who had not performed the five voyages, or served
the five years, might be explained ; but during the time the
Hon. Gentleman was in office, he had not thought fit to call
for that explanation—(Hear)—and he now changed his
opinion, because he had heard those cases were capable of
explanation.
Mr. HUME, however anxious he had been to support
the claims of these petitioners, nevertheless could not do so.
If the House opened the question at all, it ought to do so
fully, and it would then be found that at least one-half of
the compensations granted might have been saved.
Lord G. SOMERSET should vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Teignmouth.
Mr. G. PALMER should vote for the Committee.

Mr. C. PELHAM was of opinion that the claimants
were not entitled under the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON should vote for the Com-
mittee.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG replied, and the House divided,
when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said, when in the discharge of an
important public duty a Member of the Government acted
upon his own conviction of what was right, in accordance
with the recorded opinion of his predecessor in office, it was
rather hard that he should be turned round upon with so
sudden a change of opinion as had been manifested on this
occasion by the Hon. Member opposite.
Mr. PRAED said the allusion of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet to the change in his opinions was quite uncalled for.
He (Mr. Praed) was content to avow that his opinion had
undergone a change, and the reasons which had induced

that change. But if he had on an important matter
changed his opinion on coming to that (the Opposition)
side of the House, the Right Hon. Baronet had changed
some much more important opinions still on going to the
other (the Ministerial) side.
The following Committee was then appointed :
Young, G F. Labouchere, H. Praed, W.
Bagshaw, John Lynch, A. H. Reid, Sir J.
Ewart, W. Marjoribanks, S. Robinson, G. R.
Fergusson, R. C. Palmer, G. Somerset, Lori G.
Hastie, A. Thompson, W.
Mr. A. TREVOR moved for a return of the number of
schools to which grants have been made by the Board of
Education in Ireland ; specifying the sums allotted to each,
and such as are of Protestant or Roman Catholic founda-
tion.—Ordered.

Mr. BARRON moved for an account of the present
state of proceedings instituted by the Commissioners of
charitable donations or bequests in Ireland, for the reco-
very of any sums applicable to the poor or to charitable in-
stitutions ; also an account of all sums received since the
last Report ; and to move to print the last Report of the
Commissioners of Charitable Donations in Ireland.—Or-
dered.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS IN IRELAND.

Mr. BARRON also moved for the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Preroga-

Live and Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, and to consider
the Reports of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into the state of these Courts in 1826 and 1830.—Agreed
to, and the following Committee appointed :
Barron, W. 11. Jackson, J. D. O'Connell, D.
Ball, N. Lefroy, A. Stuart, W. V.
Clements, Lord Lucas, E. West, J. B.
French, F. Lushington, Dr. Woulfe, Sergeant
Hamilton, G. A. Lynch, A. IL Young, .1.
TOBACCO DUTY.

Mr. EWART, after presenting two petitions, then rose
to move, pursuant to order, for leave to bring in a Bill to
reduce the duty on tobacco from 3s. to Is. per lb. The
Hon. Member stated that the main ground on which he
moved was the great extent to which smuggling in this ar-
ticle of consumption was carried. The cause of this was
the excessive duty—l,2oo per cent. As a proof of the
extent to which the smuggling of tobacco was carried he
would state that, although the duty was 3s. per pound, the
article was to be bought in many parts of the country at
2s. per pound. Another strong reason for reducing the
duty was the vast expense of the preventive service, main-
tained in a great measure for the prevention of smuggling
in tobacco alone. He should move that the duty on to-
bacco be reduced from 3s. to Is. the pound.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and begged to draw
the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a con-
sideration of same importance on the subject, and that was
that a diminution of the duty on any article of necessary
consumption not only put an end to smuggling but operated
beneficially to the revenue. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
were to reduce the duty on tobacco to 15d. or 18d.—a
shilling, he admitted, was too low—he was satisfied that he
would obtain an increase of the revenue.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think his Hon. Friend could be serious in calling for a de-
cision on so important a matter at that hour of the night,
and in so thin a House. There were many observations
which had fallen from his Hon. Friends who had preceded
him in which he concurred ; but, although he did not think
the present amount of duty could be defended, he still wished
to call the attention of the House to what occurred in 1831,
when Lord Spencer, in bringing forward his Budget, pro-
posed a reduction of this tax. How was his Noble Friend
met on the occasion to which he referred ? Why, his pro-
position was objected to from both sides of the House, and
it was on all hands admitted that a fairer subject for taxa-
tion could not exist than the article of tobacco. He was
by no means prepared to agree to his Hon. Friend's pro-
position unless he could be convinced that the same amount
of revenue now derived from this source could be otherwise
ensured. Some stress has been laid on the extent of the
contraband trade, but he could not help thinking that the
argument with respect to smuggling had been greatly ex-
aggerated. In England' the amount of tobacco on which
the duty had been paid since 1826-27 was as follows :
In 1827
1829
1830
1831
1832 15,300,000
1833
1834 16,000,000
1835 16,400,000
1836 17,000,000
This showed a progressively increasing duty, and he sub-
mitted that the fact of such an increase having taken place,
notwithstanding the amount of the duty, went some length
to prove that smuggling did not exist to any such extent as
the Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. Ireland exhi-
bited a similar result. In that country the duty paid on to-
bacco was :
In 1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836 •
The amount of the duty collected on this article in England
was somewhere about 2,600,0001., and in Ireland 757,0001.,
or, in round numbers, he might say that the tobacco duty
yielded a revenue of 3,000,0001. annually. This would be
too great stake to try experiments upon, and, therefore, unless
he could be assured that a similar amount could be raised
by other means it would be impossible for him to adopt the
proposition of his Hon. - Friend. His Hon. Friend the
Member for Middlesex had alluded to the consumption of
tobacco in Ireland in 1782. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) could not take that year, because the records
were lost ; but he would take the year 1786, and what was
the result which he found ? Why that the duty-paid to-
bacco which was at that period in Ireland only 680,0001b5.,
bad increased by 3,400,000165. ; while in this country the
increase was from 10,000,0001b5., to 17,000,0001b5. If he
were to afford feller at all it would be to the productive in-
dustry of the country ; but at present all he would say was,
without pledging himself to anything, that he should be
prepared, when he brought forward his Budget, to state
either that he would give relief in the case of the tobacco
duty, or state his reasons for not wishing to try experiments
on 3,000,0001. of revenue which was raised, he might almost
say, by a voluntary tax.
Lord SA NDON said, as this was a subject which should
not be taken out of the hands of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he was desirous of leaving it altogether to the'
Right Hon. Gentleman's discretion.
Mr. EWART made a few observations in reply, after
which the motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. MAXWELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
give publicity to the prices of weaving by handloom labour.
After some discussion, in which Mr. HUME, Mr. THORN-
LEY, and Mr. BROTHERTON, and several other Hon. Mem-
bers took part, and during which it was intimated that
there were not forty Members present, although the
Speaker did not act on the hint,
Mr. MAXWELL withdrew his motion, and fixed it for
to-morrow (this day).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER post-
poned the Order of the Day for going into Committee of
Supply for to-morrow (this day).
Mr. HUME objected to having Government business
proceeded with on Wednesdays.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was not his intention to interfere with the Orders of
the Day. If, however, they were disposed of at an early
hour, he could see no reason why they should not go into
supply ; but if it should so happen that they were not, of
course the Government business would not be brought on.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that, on going into

Committee of Ways and Means, he should submit to the
House a resolution for the reduction of the duty on policies
of insurance against fire to 2s. and Is. 6d. per cent.
The other Orders of the Day haling been disposed oc,
the House adjourned at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.