The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

1;

the two Houses. Now, my Lords, your Lordships have
been pleased, in your late discussions in the Committee
on the Corn Bill 'o adhere strictly to th;s question. Your
Lordships refused to agree to amendments on the Corn Bill.
No doubt, had you agreed to those amendments, you would
have lost the Bill. 11Iy Lords, it is not only the losing of the
Bill you are to consider, but what would be the consequence of
Making alterations in the Committees in the clauses of money
Bills, Excise Bills, and Customs Bills. Your Lordships would,
In point of fact, find afterwards that the proceeding' in Parlia-
ment would be entirely paralysed. These are the inconveniences
Which I am desirous to bet, of your Lordships not to incur ; in-
conveniences which the publicn will feel most severely and most
particularly ; and I conclude that your Lordships will have
the same feeling upon this Bill as you had upon the other Bills.
That whatever may be the effect upon your opinions by the ar-
guments of counsel, you will not consent to make any altera-
tions in the details contained in this Bill, and in the schedule
of the duties upon silk, but that you will persevere in voting for
the Bill. You will establish a precedent by hearing counsel in
Committee against the details of that Bill which must be at-
tended with the greatest possible inconveniences, not only to
your Lordships. by impeding public business, but alto by in-
ducing you to listen to arguments for a considerable time to
Which you were sensible at the time you would give
no attention.—( Hear, hear.) And thus you will
have established a precedent which most b.. useless as to your-
selves, but most dangerous to those who will feel the evil
effects of this precedent, by emplo)ing counsel to come her to
plead their cause, which your Lordships must know can have
no avail in inducing you o make any alteration in the details
01 the Bill. What 1 am particularly anxious to call your
Lordship? attention to is, that the motion is to induce you to
listen to counsel in the Committee on the Bill, of which the
object is to levy duties or customs or. different branches of
trade.
The Duke of RICHMOND—My Lords, I did not intend
to rise again on this subject, but for the speech of my Noble
Friend the Noble and Gallant Duke, and I must say that I
rise to protest against it. —( Great cheering.) If this is to be
the constitution of Parliament--( Cheers)—l will ask your
Lordships whether it is not a mere farce upon legislation—
( Vehement and long-continued cheering from the p otection-
ist Peers)—to call on us, night after night, to speak upon a
Bill? and then, forsooth, we are to be told that it roust be
passed because the House of Commons have said so.—( Great
cheering.) My Lords, I contend that these petitioners have a
right to be heard.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I will not deadn
you by saying more than that, it this is to be the
future course which is to be pursued by the
Government, I hope you will alter your standing orders—
(Cheers)—and that they will say that the Queen's consent
and that of the Commons is sufficient. —( Cheers.) That must
be the result of this argument as ventured to be made in this
House.—( Hear, hear.) If it had been made by a young man
who had just run away from school, I should not have noticed
it—(Laughter)—but when it comes from my Noble Friend,
the Noble and Gallant Duke, I am bound to protest against it,
and I shall certainly feel it my duty to take the sense of your
Lerdships' House on the motion.—( Cheers. )
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion—Present

Proxies

_ _
—74
Against the motion—Present
Proxies 36
—7B

Majority against the motion. 4
On our return to the gallery we found
Lord BROUGHAM on his legs, protesting against proxies
being used in such a question as that just under consideration.
Those who represented the proxies could not have heard the
arguments brought forward on behalf of petitioners, and, there-
fore, could not be supposed capable of forming any judgment
on the point whatever.
A desultory conversation then ensued from a question put by
the Earl of Charleville to tht Duke of Buceleuch, as to whe-
ther the Noble Duke had heard the question put from the
Chair, in which the Earl of Home, Earl of Haddington, and the
Rail of Dalhousie took part.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that in these reforming
times proxies ought to be disallowed. At any rate, in the
question before them, he considered the privilege of using them
ought to have been waved.
Earl GREY concurred with the Noble Earl ( Wicklow) that
Proxies should be abolished, and if the Noble Earl would make
l motion for their abolition, he would support him; but as
it
2ng as proxies were allowed, he thought the present subject
was one in which they could be legitimately exercised. He
agreed with the Noble Earl, however, that in these reforming
times they ought no longer to be permitted.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought the discussion ought
t ot to be protracted, as it was an inconvenient one. For his
10 part he was always ready to submit to a majority, but he
thought that the decision just come to was a very injudicious
One, and that the privilege of using the proxies on such a sub-
mt. where a majority present were in favour of the motion,
aught not to have been exercised.
Lord STANLEY thought that if ever there was a case
where the votes of those who were present should have over-
ruled the votes of those who were absent, the present was one.
They who were called upon to decide in Committee had de-
cided that they would hear the petitioners by counsel at the bar
of the House, but their verdict was overruled by those who
were absent, and who, without hearing any of the arguments
which had been advanced, virtually pronounced that hose
Present should not hear the statements of the petitioners. A
stranger case could not have been made out. It was not,
however, for the purpose of entering into this question that
but rose, nor to interpose any delay into going into Committee ;
out he thought he should save the time of their Lordships if he
made a few observations then, rather than unnecessarily oc-
cupying their time on the individual articles. If he were de-
Pus of finding fault with her Majesty's Government, he
should have no difficulty in showing that that Bill was incon-
sistent with the other Bill they had brought forward in refe-
tenee to corn, and which a Noble Lord pronounced,ex cathedra,
to,,_be a perfect exemplification of the principles of free trade.
,ner should have treated the subject to which this measure ap-
plied in the same way as they proposed to do with agriculture.
They would, if they continued in this principle, find the land-
°7roers calling for the removal of other restrictions. He hoped
they would not so stultify themselves by asking for the same
initlyi:tion of injury on others as was to be inflicted on them-
ses—he hoped not, for though the measure might for the
present
succeed, they would find that the landed interest would
Still continue their opposition to this measure. He would
warn the Government that they would find themselves in the
theit:se of twelve months in a very dangerous position. Now
e was a reduction of revenue of 2,326,C00/., and on corn
alone there had been a reduction of 357,0001. alone, and it was
with such a falling off they proposed to take away protection
from agriculture. This reduction of the revenue would be
much greater in the course of another year, and it will then be
seen how politic the measure proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment was, and how well it will have worked for the
advantage of the country. Now the importation of
silk since the reduction of duty on that article
was, very great, and it was at this moment they proposed to re-
mice the duty still further. There was also to be a reduction
an timber. Again there was to be a reduction on boots and
shoes; and what would be the result if the benefit would not be
to the humbler classes, for it was well known that boots were
all article of luxury, and the advantage would be to persons
who, like their Lordships, could atlord to purchase them. In
1841 there was a duty of 21. 14s. per dozen pair, and in 1842
!,1,111 duty was reduced to I/. 9s. 4d. The increase of importa-
'Pm was from 4,891 dozen to 8,350, 12,220, 13,261, and
44'387 Was it at so increased an importation that they should
tow reduce this duty from IL. 9s. 4d. to 16s. This was a
duty which would materially affect the workmen of this
.
they
The items he had given applied to mens' boots, but
would apply in like manner to women's shoes. He
thought the duty was quite low enough as it
4t present stood to enable their Lordships to pur-
t;(se that article of luxury.—( Hear, hear.) He
:;Ouse
it right to make these few observations before the
went into Committee, for he considered that, according
IT the arguments of her Majesty's Ministers, it had been
._e ol(Tta that the import trade was most prosperous, and that
frevenue was good. That with such a state of things a
Feat
reduction should be proposed required some explanation
from the Government, and he hoped it would be given.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that in rising to answer
e question put by the Noble Lord ( Stanley) he would en-
deavour to follow him as closely as possible. The Noble Lord
measure
stated that her Majesty's Government had introduced this
because they were favourable to free trade—because
they were willing to adopt the measure as a frea trade question.
Lord STANLEY explained what he had said was that the
Government had not introduced it a.s a free trade measure,
but that they
had on the contrary introduced it as a measure
favourable to protection—they had professedly introduced it
as a protective measure, whereas in reality its effects would be
the reverse.
Earl DALHOUSIE—There certainly were in the Bill
Which be had submitted to the House many anomalies which
he would have wished removed. What her Majesty's Govern-
ment wished to do was, as they were about to remove all
restrictions on fo id, to reduce also the duties on all other neces-
sary articles which pressed heavily on the poorer c'asses of the
Community. The duties on woollen clothing were such as
pressed heavily on the poorer classes, and it was with a view
to their benefit that they proposed such reductions.
-Upon articles partially or wholly. manufactured, it was but
right that there must be duties levied, and he was decidedly of
opinion that a duty of 10 per cent. on manufactured articles,
was not to be regarded as a protective duty, but simply for the
Purposes of revenue. His Noble Friend had asked him what
might be the loss of revenue from the repeal of the duties now
proposed ? On this point he would accept the amount of lose
stated by the Noble Lord. The Chancellor of the ' xchequer,
in the other House of Parliament, had stated the probable
foss
at about 700,0001. per annum, which was, thought, a fair
estimate. If that were so, they should be guided by what had
was
taken place after the last alteration in the tariff, when there
a large reduction the first year after the change, which
gradually became less till it righted itself The following re-
turns would show how the tariff of 1842 had operated :
In 1842, the reduction in the Customs were 1,350,0001 ; in
1843, the Customs were 2 0
0,2000/. against 19,600,0001.,
the receipts of the year betore. In 1844, the duty was
21,400,0001., instead of 20,200,0001.; thus showing that the
Customs had gradually recovered the loss occasioned by the re•
duction of 1842. The total reduction in Excise and Customs
thus afforded was 2,400.0001.; and the following was the result
in 1845, independent of the great benefit that had been con-
ferred on the country. In 1845, the total receipts for Excise
and Customs were 33,400,0001. against 32,100,000/. in 1842.
This showed that the revenue was gradually improved year by
year, while it had given a great stimulus to production. and
operated as a powerful incentive to trade and commerce.—
(Hear, hear) The Government had not the slightest doubt
but that gradually the amount lost won d be replaced by increased
consumption. The experience of the past was a guarantee for
the
future. His Noble Friend
to referred to several other arti-
cles in which reductions were be made, and asked what
good result would come from these. With regard to butter and
cheese, it would have been inconsistent to duties
in other articles of a similar kind, and
hence it was proposed to reduce the duty on butter from 1/. to
10s., and on cheese from 10s. to ss. The Noble Lord had
talked as if these duties were of astanding, or instituted
for protective purposes; whereas,
change
imposed till
the end of the war.—( Hear.) The present an
long
wwere
wres; but to as_
similate the duties to what they were before the p
bad been imposed. The reduction
of duty an buenttenduti29
and
cheese was made because these were articles that entered ex-
ex-
tensively into the consumption of the people. The same argil-
ment applied to the article of foreign cattle, which the Noble
Lord had likewise referred to. The next point the Noble Lord
dwelt on was the silk trade. He said, truly the imports of
silks had been yearly increased, but he (Lon). Dalhousie) did
hot think the proposed alteration would much affect. those im-
ports. The duties under the old law ranged from 30 per cent.
to as much as 300 per cent., thus often defeating the saving in
any revenue from these articles, and it was to get rid of this
anomaly, and to raise a regular revenue from this branch of
trade that the present duty of 15 per cent was proposed.
While dwelling on this head, he would show the exports from
France to this country, in variou years, from 1827 to 1843,
with the amount cleated out here for consumption :
Exported from France Cleared out in England
to England. for Conumption.
1827
1828 ...... . ...... 335,000 lbs. ............ 156,0001b5.
1834 ............. 317,000 lbs.
1840 ......... 625,000 lbs.
11a43 ........ 484,000 lbs.
and the total exported from Franc- to England from .1527 to
1843 was 6,332.0001b5., and cleared out for consumption in
the country 3,10,4000 lbs. ; showing that the amount of that
cleared out for consumption didnot extend to more than 50 per
eat. vf the whole imported. Apart altogether, therefore,

from the question of whether the home manufacturers will be
able to stand up against the competition or not, it appeared
clear that the old 1a :v had not operated to increase the revenue,
seeing so little 14. d been cleared out for consumption compared
with the amount that had entered from France.—( Hear, hear.)
The Government, therefore, would not have been justified ire
doing otherwise than they have done, •so as to increase the
revenue of the country and the imposition of a moderate duty.
The next matter to which the Noble Lord referred was that of
timber. Here also the same principle had been observed thet
had been in the other branches of the tariff. The
object was to impose a moderate, not a protective
duty, and the result of the tariff of 1,342 was to show that the
principle had been most successful. Of foreign timber there
was imported as follows : —1842, 108,000 loads ; 1845, 282,000
loads ; of deals there had been imported, in 1842, 229,000
loads ; 1845, 342,000 loads. A similar increase had also taken
place in colonial timber-255. a load. He did not thick it
necessary to protect the colonies, and hence the
.Government
troposed to reduce the duty to 15s. a load; trusting, as ex-
perience had already shown, that the increase in consumption
in this article, which entered so largely into the comforts of
the people, would soon more than eq'ialise any temporary loss
of revenne. In boots and shoes the Government had acted
on
the same principle as was applied to the other articles, be-
lieving that a reduction of ten per cent. would be a source of
revenue, while those engaged in those trades would have but
little occasion to complain, having that amount of revenue
duty in their favour. Having, as a general principle, reduced
the duty on all articles of manufactured produce, they could
not consistently have passed by manufactured leather.
The next point adverted to was the matter of stained parer.
He thought, that of all the things sought to be introduc d,
this was one where there was the least ground of complaint.
The present duty was ls. a square yard—a most monstrous
thine. The excise duty on the article manufactured was, at
home, not more than half a farthing; the proposed Bill
limited the amount of duty to 2d. a square yard. The paper-
stainers were a Ci-3S who were less worked than any class in
the country; they none of them worked full hours. There
was no reason why .hose engaged in arts and designs for the
paper should not be able to compete with foreigners if they set
themselves to werk. Government had done all they could to
promote the success of the arts, by the establishing of schools
of design, which were already very successful. Another article
which was sought to ne reduced was that of pillow lace. The
present duty was 121. 103. ad valorem; it was proposed to re-
duce it to 101 It had been urged as an objection to the Bill that
the duties were sought to be removed from the poorer classes,
H 2 would say, th t the me :sure w. s construe eti for no such
put poses. The measure was n t proposed as a perfect mea-
sure. The measure was meant only to cart y Jut further the
principle which had been acted upon for the last our years, in
making reductions in the articles of general consumption, and
reducing the amount of duty on manufactures to as near as
possible the ad valorem duty of ten per cent. It rested with
their Lordships, therefore, to express their opinion on the mea-
sure, which, :se contended would be of great ben fit to the i- -
terests of all classes of the empire.
Earl STANHOPE thought the parties caltal3le of giv'ng
informationtn the real working of th las tariff should I e
allowed to be he. rd by counsel at the bar at their Lordships'
Hcuse. Nothing could al er the opinions he had express don this
tceasure, and nothing could invalidate his arguments. He
should, therefore, feel it his duty to ask the Noble Earl the
question of which he t ad given notice, with reference to the
remonstrances which had been received by the Board of Trade
and the First Lord of the Treasury against this measure.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE would lay on the table of their
Lordships' House, in a few days, the remonstrances which had
been received by the Board of Trade.
Earl STANHOPE—If no regard were to be paid to such
remonstrances and petitions from the people, he thought it
would be entirely useless to petition against any measure, and
he was borne out in that opinion by the statement of the Noble
Duke on the Treasury benches.

The Duke of WELLINGTON—What I said was, that
your Lordships were no, in Ihe habit of altering, and con!d not
alter, any clause or money Bill which was brought up from
the other +touse.
Earl STAN HOPE wished to know why the great
autocrat of the Cabinet did not carry out his measures fully in
every other article, instead of taking the protection from the
labouring classes and poorer people, and driving them like
victims to the slaughter-house ? He believed there could not
be a single class of the country who would not be injured by
the passing of this Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON considered that their Lord-
ships had always recognised the principle of not altering the
money clauses in a Bill of supply. In the late Bill which had
been under discus.ion—

Earl STANHOPE—What Bill?
The Duke of WELLINGTON—The Corn Bill—their
Lordships hail acted upon this principle. For 200 years they
had always recognised this mode of doing busineas between the
two Houses of Parliament. It would tend greatly to the in-
convenience of public business if their Lordships were to exer-
cise this power.
The Duke of RICHMOND—The Noble Duke has per-
haps forgotten that I voted with him against Mr. Huskisson's
Corn Bill, and it was thrown out.
Earl STANHOPE— he fact of discussing the Corn Bill
by their Lordships was, he thought, a sufficient refutation of
the Noble Duke's opinions on the subject of money clauses.
He would then ask the Noble Lord the President of the
Board of Trade whether he was willing to lay upon their
Lordships' table any information as to who were the parti-s,
ether thanthose connected with the Goverment. who had fur-
nished the information upon which her Majesty's Minister had
though proper to act.
Earl of DALHOUSIE thought the present mode of pro-
ceeding a little comical. He had often felt the difficulty of
his situation in their Lordships' ouse, but he hail never felt it
so much as he had done this evening, at being called up so often
to repeat his catechism. He had answered the first question
of the Noble Earl because it was a question connected with a
public office, and he always felt it both a duty and a pleasure
to give every information on that subject. But the second
question of the Nohe Lord he must decline to answer, as it
would have the effect of throwing the responsibility from off
. .