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

free trade, it should be fully and fairly carried out. (Hear.)
He considered that the agricultural interest had been badly
treated, inasmuch as these duties onght to have been re-
moved simultaneously with the tax on corn. (Hear.)
The effect of this reduction would be to sow the seed of
increased consumption, and therefore of increased produc-
tion. The farmer was a manufacturer as much as any other
manufacturer ; and it was his interest to have a fair scale
of prices for food. At present the average of England in
point of price was the average of Europe ; and he hoped
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not refuse to do
justice to the agriculturist by carrying out free trade to its
fullest extent in every particular. With that view he pro-
posed his resolution, intending to take the sense of the
house only on the last clause.
Mr. MITCHELL seconded the motion.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that old birds were not to
be caught with chaff. (A laugh.) He had listened atten-
tively to the hon. member for Montrose, and was not in-
clined to trust an enemy in the camp. The hon. member
had remarked in, as he thought, a rather low tone of voice,
" I am a Freetrader.": Now, he (Colonel Sibthorp) would
more distinctly and more openly say, he was no Free-
trader ; and then the hon. member, now for the first time
since he had had the honour of his acquaintance, talked
about the injury done to the farmer; he thought that when
you had almost killed a man and cut him up it was too late to
call in a physician. (Laughter.) The British farmer would
have none of the hon. member's black draughts, because
they were nothing more than poison—most deadly poison.
He had no doubt the hon. member remembered the fable of
the wolf and the lamb. Now, the hon. member might
be the wolf, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) was not going to be
the lamb. He was not to be caught by bolding out
this sort of bait. It would not do. (A laugh) He
knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather a
Freetracter, but he did not believe he would agree to this
motion. It was a " cross"—(a laugh)--soinething thrown
out to catch unwary fish ; but he was not one of that class
—(a laugh)—and would not swallow the bait of the hon.
member for Montrose. He would trust him with his purse
in private life, but he would not trust him in public, and
he should certainly oppose the present motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt grateful
to the gallant colonel for the not unfavourable anticipa-
tions he had expressed as to him. In 1843 the gallant
colonel had exercised his powers of humour upon himself
when he had introduced a bill to legalise the exportation of
machinery. The gallant colonel had then said, " I object
to the exportation of machinery, but I should not object to
the exportation of the President of the Board. of Trade."
(Laughter.) Both the gallant colonel and himself retained
the opinions they had then held; and he feared, however
they might agree—he hoped they often might—on ques-
tions of general policy, on commercial subjects they would
continue to differ. (Hear.) In reference to the question
addreSsed to him on a former occasion, he had understood
it to allude to the constitution of the Board of Customs, as
to which he was not prepared to state that a bill would be
introduced ; but on the general question there had been no
inquiry and no answer. With respect to the motion before
the house, the hon. member (Mr. Hume) had asked him
only to assent to the principle ; but he objected to its prin-
ciple. (Hear.) The house ought not to part with the
revenue of the country until it had ascertained the amount
of the expenditure. (Hear.) That was sound constitu-
tional doctrine, and not mere matter of form. The hon.
member admitted that the carrying out of his resolution
would entail an immediate loss to the revenue of not less
than 1,300,0004, ; and then the hon. member said that
ultimately thir conld be afforded. But how could the hon.
member be assured of this, when the estimates had not yet
been completed, and our expenditure was, as to the next
year, unascertained. The subject of such a motion should
be considered in connection with our general financial
arrangements. It would be for the house to consider when
due provision had been made for the public serviee—whe-
ther there would be a surplus, and if so, how it should be
applied. But it would be most objectionable, independent
o f any consideration of the expenditure, to vote away large
sums of our income. (Hear, hear.) The form of the mo-
tion was even more objectionable than the direct sacrifice
of revenue which it involved. It was unwise to adopt
the practice of living upon credit, and putting forward
promises instead of performances. The hon. member asked
the house to affirm that it would, at an early period, con-
sider these duties, with a view to their speedy repeal. He
hoped the house would not adopt such a resolution, hold-
ing out promises as to its future course, instead of rather
relying upon the confidence of the country in its character
and in its disposition to do all in its power, consistently
with the due consideration of the revenue to relieve the
public burdens. (Hear.) Although objecting to the terms
,of the motion he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not dispute his facts or his arguments, especially as to the
wisdom of removing protective duties. The question as to
minor duties, however, was different. " There were 213 ar-
ticles, falling under the denomination of foreign mannfac-
tured articles, charged with import duties, which did not
produce above 91,y. a year ; and 48 more producing only
35,000/.• making altogether 261 articles, producing only
125,0001., or on an average not above 5001., a year each.
It was certainly material to consider whether it were wise
to retain such duties. He thought it was not—(hear)—
and that it was desirable to get rid of nominal duties, ex-
cept in a case like that of corn, wherd the article was one
of great bulk and large quantity, and the amount of the
duty was important to the revenue. It would be in gene-
ral a most economical measure to repeal unproductive
duties. And in 1845, by the act Bth and 9th Viet., esp.
12, not less than half of the then existing duties had been
repealed. He was glad that the subject had been brought
forward ; and in the observations of the hon. member,
made for instance as respects glass, he cordially concurred,
illustrative as they were of the caution with which cus-
toms duties reforms ought to be carried on—(hear)--on ac-
count of the exaggerated apprehensions of manufacturers
as to the results of competition. He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) regarded the removal of duties on imports
of manufactures as an act of justice to the agriculturists—
(hear)—and the removal of duties on articles of foot

,
such as butter, cheese, and eggs, would be of most mate:
rial importance to the community at large. He shoulc
_ _ _

always be anxious to give full effect to freedom of trade, so
far as was compatible with a due provision for the public
service, and he was desirous especially of removing duties
burdensome to trade, and the remission of which would be
attended with the greatest benefits to the consumer.

These were the principles upon which the Governmen

would be prepared at the proper time to approach the con-
sideration of our import duties. And he quite agreed
with the member for Bridport as to the propriety of re-
pealing ad valorem dufies, except in some special cases—
(hear, hear)—believing'such duties, as he did, to be highly
inconvenient, and tending to the demoralisation of trade.
(Hear.) _ _

Mr. BALL, as a farmer's friend, came to a different con-
clusion. The only relief now possible to the agricultural
interest was in the development of free trade principles to
their utmost extent, and on these grounds he supported the
motion.

Mr. BROWN contributed a few remarks in approval of
the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
NEWDEGATE, who caused some amusement on
rising by solemnly announcing himself a protectionist,
threw a new light, as he believed, upon the motion, by
urging the case of the silk manufacturers, who would be
utterly unable to compete with France, and by pointing to
the small amount of the duty proposed to be removed from
manufactured articles compared to that upon agricultural
produce. Under such circumstances, he should certainly
oppose the motion.

Mr. VANSITTAIIT urged similar reasons for giving a
similar vote.

Mr. A. PELLATT supported the motion, and entering,
into the general question, spoke particularly of the bene-
fits which he had derived from Sir Robelt Peel's legisla-
tion upon glass.
After a few words from Mr. HUDSON,
Mr. EWART spoke of the importance of our commerce
with France, and the benefits to be derived from the re-
moval of every barrier to its development—however slight.
He gave his support to the motion.
Mr. T. PARKER expressed similar views.
Mr. BRIGHT made some explanations in reference to
Manchester and the silk trade, adverted to by Mr. Newde-
gate, with whom he differed entirely.
Mr. DISRAELI said, before the house came to a vote
upon the question, he wished to make some observations.

It was hiss opinion that the cultivators of the soil of this
country were subjected to an undue weight of taxation.

(Cheers from the opposition.) The late Government enter-
taining that opinion, had considered the whole system of
taxation, with &view to affording a remedy to"injustice, or
at least to that which they conceived to be injustice. It
was their opinion that that remedy was best to be found,
not by taking a limited and partial view, or by looking to

the immecliaiite interests of any class, but rather by con

siderink the principles upon which our general system of
taxation were founded. They arrived at the conclusion
that they would best benefit the producer by consulting
the interests of the consumer. Adopting that opinion, and
considering the whole system of our taxation, they thought
it their duty to propose certain measures to the house (and
he was the organ of the Government upon that occasion),
which the-house did not think proper to sanction. It was
not true that those measures were recommended to the
adoption .of the house as a new commercial
system. They
were d i atm' ctly described to the House of Commons as only
first step. Other steps, and as important ones, were ex
a -
pressed or intended. 'ey knew that to induce the house
and the country to adopt the policy which they wished
thorn to adopt, it was oe
to make, apparently, some
sacrifice. , Nothing in theies3sarY
that was great couldnothing in this world,
) Butacbieve,lthey
without making some sa-
be co"try'
crifice. (Hear, hear.
geneeyzere convinced that in
time there would be such a
great community that the pri„i l sentiment among this
been recommended
cial policy of the late GovernmZsh'ipon which the finan-
erd beneficial, that
to the House of Commons were sound
oprces of that
they looked with confidence to the
hear.) The
policy, if it should have been adopted,
adopt that
House of Commons did not think it proper(' ti,;,
that
policy. The late Government had shown the
say
w;;I:lrhout
their conduct, he hoped, by what had taken PlacemnarLitY of
vote. They relinquished power—he would not
a pang—but because they were of opinion that
useless unless it were exercised with the fair and generwo"
confidence of the House of Commons. (Cheers.) He corn
sidered, at least as far as he was concerned, that vote of
the House of Commons upon the financial policy reeom:
mended by the Government of which he was the organ to
be conclusive. He had not less confidence in the princi-
ples which he had recommended, or the policy which ho
had liop_.l the house might adopt ; hut as far as he was in-
dividually concerned, he had no wish to intrude those opi-
nions upon an assembly which he had in so formal a man-
ner resolved pot to adopt the policy which he had recom-
mended. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, he was equally
undesirous of inventing occasions to harass those *ho had
succeeded them in office with opinions upon financial

questions. That, he thought, those with whom he had the
honour and happiness to act showed the other night, when
the hon. member for Montrose offered to the consideration

of the house a motion which they might very consistently
have supported, and which, if carried, might have very
much embairassed. the Government, but which, especially
as they had been accused of political faction, he was not
willing in any way to sanction. (Hear, hear.) But here
was an occasion on which he was called on to give an opinion
upon a subject of the greatest importance as concerned the
principle of our fiscal system, and especially as it affected
those of their constituents whom they thought to be un-
justly treated, and for whose interests they were bound to
act. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had found one great fault with the motion of the
hon. member for Montrose. The • ht hon, gentleman
said, that what this practical cotonntnrygrequire.d, and what
yHogia twat,.
that practical assembly
aaccomplish, was perfor-
mance, not promise.
proposition which he
would now recall to the recollecti on of the house in its
precise language, and which the Chancellor of the Ex-
.