The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-03 00:00:00

TITLE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,• J tINI 3, 1 853.

that his rent was under the valuation. Some provision
might be necessary to meet that case. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was postponed accordingly.
Mr. I. BUTT moved a third clause, the necessity for
which he admitted had been in great measure removed by
alterations already niade. Its object was to provide, that
wherever the special commissioners adopted the option of
assessing the tenant, the latter should only be assessed to
the amount which he would himself be entitled to deduct
from his landlord.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to
the proposed enactment. It would afford only an insignifi-
cant amount of relief, at the expense of a great deal of in-
convenience and expense.
31r. BUTT would not divide the committee, and with-
drew the clause.

Sir D. NORREYS gave notice that on tho third reading
he should call attention to the wording of the 13th and
31st clauses, with a view to render their language more in-
telligible.

Ins-answer to a question from Mr. SPOONER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the power of distress was indispensible in the case of small
holdings, but, the rents being paid at short dates, the
tenant could reimburse himself.

The preamble was then agreed to, and house resumed
CUSTOM, &c., ACTS.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. I. BUTT presented a petition from the cork-cutters
of Dublin against portions of the bill.
Mr. MITCHELL had a question to ask, the answer to
which 'nigh save some trouble. He had given notice of a
motion to reduce the duty on foreign raisins to 10s. the
cwt., according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
original proposal. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman
would now tell whether he intended to accede to that re-
duction.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
when government first published the resolution, he was
under the impression that raisins would be of great use in
mitigating tie scarcity of currants, and on that ground the
resolution was proposed. But after that period the hon.
member gave notice to reduce the duty on currants, a pro-
posal to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could
not accede. He should have been delighted to do so had
there been the slightest chance of benefit to the consumer,
or recovery to the revenue, but the accounts of the supply
were such as to put these results entirely out of the ques-
tion. There was a sort of currant famine, so that the loss
on reduction would have been sheer loss without any com-
pensation. Menacing accounts of the raisin crop had also
arrived, of frosts and flights of locusts, but better news
had come since, and it appeared that the frost, instead of
destroying the raisins, destroyed the locusts. (A laugh.)
Besides that, he understood that there was an immense
stock of low quality raisins in bond in this country, which
would be available for consumption at a low duty. For
these reasons he had determined to accede to the motion of
the hon. member for Bridport. (Cheers.)
The resolutions remitting the duty on foreign cables and
cordage being put,
Mr. MITCHELL said he did not intend to oppose this
resolution, but trusted it would be followed next year by
the remission of the duty on wood.
Lord J. MANNERS said that this duty protected a
branch of domestic manufacture, and its repeal was not
called for by any interest. He should, therefore, oppose
the remission.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the duty, although light, involved heavy customs regula-
tions, the operation of which prevented freedom of trade.
When goods were entirely free, there was nothing neces7
sary but a search to ascertain that they were really what
they were described to be, but when a duty was paid there
were various stages expensive to the revenue and obstruc-
tive to the traffic. The remission of these small duties had
prevented that increase of expense in collection which
might have been expected from the vast increase in our
commerce.

Mr. NEWDEGATE considered it a great waste of
revenue to take off duties on articles when the duties were
not oppressive.
Lord J. MANNERS said when they remitted an excise
duty, they were enabled to dispense with the services of
the collectors, and thus to save the cost of collection,
whereas when they repealed Customs duties they could not
dispense with the services of Custom House officers, and
consequently could not effect a saving in the cost of col
lection. With a view of testing the opinion of the com.
mittee he should take a division.
The committee then divided—
For the proposal
Against it

68
194

Majority for the Government 126
On the article "pictures," on which it was proposed to
remit the duty.
Lord J. MANNERS said he thought the remission
would be absurd, and that maritime constituencies would
have great reason to complain if this duty were taken off
and the tax on marine insurance retained. As the only
effect would be to diminish the revenue of the country, he
should take a division the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
but express his surprise and regret at this opposition.
(Hear, hear.) The greatest danger of the present age was,
perhaps, utilitarianism, and parliament was expending
large sums of money with the view of cultivating the taste
of the people. (" Oh, oh," from the opposition.) He was
surprised to find that remark received with jeers. (Hear,
hear.) The question was not simply whether they should
part with two or three thousand pounds a year, but whe-
ther it was desirable to make the people familiar with the
works of the great masters in art. It was because he be-
lieved the culture of the eye to be valuable to a nation
that he proposed this remission. Statues were already
exempt from duty, and be should have thought that the
noble lord, who had set himself manfully against the utili-
tarianism of the age, would have been the last man to
oppose the placing of pictures on the same level. (Hear,
bear.) He was convinced that there never was a propo-
sition more in unison with the House of Commons.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the remission far more
likely to benefit the epicure than the labouring man. It
was the last glimmer of an ignis fatuus.
Lord J. MANNERS said after the eloquent appeal of
the right hon. gentleman hon. members might be surprised
to learn that the great inducement which he offered to the
people of this country to study the works of the great
masters was the removal of a duty of ls. 6d. on a Cor-
reggio, or a Titian, and of an additional duty of 8-10ths of
a penny per foot. (Laughter.) When ten or eleven thou-
sand pounds had been recently offered for a picture for
the National Gallery, he woulc leave the committee to
judge what effect this remission was likely to have on the
taste of the people. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided.
For the item
Against it .
On the article of raw apples,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE advocated an equalisation of the
duties on all foreign fruits.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it would be a very good thing if all these fruits were
entirely free, but there were certain necessities in regard
to raising revenue. The principle upon which a variable
duty had been imposed was this—upon the more perish-
able fruits the smaller duties were placed.
Mr. VANSITTART moved that the Chairman report
progress.
After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFEE,
The CHAIRMAN. put the question, which was nega-
tived without a division.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE protested against the alterations
proposed to be made in the duty upon cheese. He moved
that butter and cheese be excluded from the list of articles
to be dealt with.
Mr. A. PELLATT thought that the present duty upon
butter and cheese would bear alteration better than that
upon any other article in the list.
Mr. GEORGE observed that since the introduction of
free trade, the farmers of Ireland had turned their atten-
tion to pasture, and he could not therefore but look upon
it as unfoi Lunate than the present time had been selected
for reducing the duty on butter by one half. (Hear.)
In reply to Mr. SPOONER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
when Sir Robert Peel fixed the duty on butter at its pre-
sent amount, he apprehended he did so with the intention
of its being unfixed at a proper time. (Hear, and
laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER said that the result of their legislation
would be to destroy the whole productive power of the
country.

The Marquis of GRANBY hoped that the right hon.
gentleman, like Sir Robert Peel, was only unsettling the
present duties in order to reimpose them again. He could
tell the right hon. gentleman that the people of this coun-
try would not endure to have the revenue raised by excise
duties whilst luxuries where admitted free of duty from
foreign countries. (Hear.)
After a few words from Sir W. VERNER,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that this measure would affect
injuriously the people of Ireland, and he thought it very
ungracious that this reduction should be proposed at the
present moment.
Sir A. BROOKE protested against the proposition on
the part of his constituents. He suggested that the duty
should be 7s. 6d. instead ss.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said that he would take the divi
sion on the omission of butter.
The committee divided :
For the amendment.
Against it

49
141-92

On our re-admission to the gallery,
Sir A. BROOKE was protesting against proceeding
further with the resolutions that night, and said he should
move that the Chairman do report progress.
After a conversation the resolution relating to butter
was agreed to.

On tho resolution for reducing the duty on cheese from
4s. to 2s. 6d.

Mr. COLVILLE moved to omit the resolution.
The committee divided—
For the amendment 4O
Against it 135-95
Another motion for reporting progress having been
made,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that he should not object to postpone any resolution if
hon. members wished it ; but he wished the committee
to go through those resoulutions that were not opposed.
After a conversation,
The committee divided on the motion for reporting pro-
gress :

Ayes
Noes 125-114
The committee then went through several of the other
unopposed items in the tariff, and confirmed the proposed
duties.

On the article of some preparation of cotton,
Mr. HINDLEY objected to any protective huty on any
article of cotton.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no protective duty as far as the manufacturers were
concerned ; the duty was on a half made-up article, which
was used by a certain class of artisans, and it was intended
for their benefit.

After some conversation the consideration of that article
was postponed.
Mr. MITCHELL thought that the officers of the cus-
toms ought to be relieved from the necessity of judging of
the value of watches. A duty upon all watches of ss. each
would be a better plan than the present.
In reply to a question from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no objection had been made to the -proposed duties on
watches by the trade.

After same further conversation it ama agreed that the
consideration of watches should be poal;poned.
The list of articles having been gone through,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, al id received leave to
sit again.

BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Upon the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE this bill was
read a second time.

WHITTLEBURY FOREST BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
HACKNEY CARRIAGES ( METROPOLIS) BILL.
The bill was then read a thirOL time and passed.
The house adjourned at a quiater to three o'clock.