The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-10 00:00:00

still, under existing circumstances, he did not consider
it advisable to make any further reduction.
Mr. P. SCROPE complained of the duty on foreign
fruits, especially currants, figs, oranges, and lemons ;
they were articles consumed by the poor, and essential
to the health. Though the duty on these articles in
1844 produced upwards of 300,0001., still he thought
some reduction should be made, as in some instances it
was 1001. per cent. The Right Hon. Baronet reduced
the•duty on preserved fruits in 1842. It was, therefore,
inconsistent to impose a light duty on this kind of fruit
and a heavy one on the other. The duty ought to be
placed on a sound and uniform footing.
Sir R. PEEL replied that he could defend the duty
on no other ground than that it was required for revenue
purposes, and brought in a considerable sum.
Tho several articles in the schedule, up to that of hops,
were then agreed to.

Mr. CURTEIS complained, in the name of the hop-
growers, of the great reduction which was made in their
amount of protection, while it was not met with a cor-
responding. reduction in the excise duties. They con-
sidered it but fair that if half the dnty on hops was done
away with, the excise duty should be reduced in ar.
equal proportion. It bad been stated that he (Mr.
Curteis) had said that the hop-planters in 'the county
of Kent were anxious to get rid of all excise duties and
all protection. What he had said was, that they were will-
ing to forego protection duties if they got rid of the
excise duties. He was quite aware that it would be
useless for him to move an amendment to the effect that
a taxation should be made to the home-grower, equal in
proportion to that which the Right lion. Baronet in-
tended to take off the foreign planter, but at least he
thought that the claim he bad advanced for the hop-
growers of this country should meet the Right Hon.
Baronet's best attention.
Sir R. PEEL said that an unreasonable apprehension
seemed to pervade the minds of the Hon. Member and
the gentlemen he represented.. It was his (Sir R. Peel's)
desire to redeem the excise duties as far as might be,
and if it were possible to reduce the duty on hops to
one-half he should certainly have done so. It was in-
tended to give the home-growers a protection duty of
21. ss. per cwt., and he was certain therefore that they
did not require to press for a reduction of the Excise
duties to enable them to compete with the foreign hop-
planter. The arguments advanced by the Hon. Mem-
ber had been stated fully, and as fully answered, on the
proposition to reduce the protective duties from 81. 10s.
to 41. 10s. Where were the foreign hops to come from?
Some had been imported from America, but they were
of so inferior a description that they could not for a mo-
ment be admitted into the market against British hops.
There were some grown in Bavaria and Bohemia, and
he believed also in some of the central portions of Ger-
many, but the expense of cultivation in those countries
equalled their own. The climate was not more favour-
able. They had the expenses of land carriage and the
transit by sea, and he did not therefore see that any
alarm ought 'to exist in the minds of the home-
growers. •
_ _

An HON. MEMBER recommended that one-half of the
duty should be taken off the home and placed upon the
foreizn grower.
This item was then agreed to.

The separate articles in the schedule up to foreign
spirits were then agre,,cl to without discussion.
Dr. BOWRING said that every body knew that in
the south of France a response had been given to the
proposals of the English Government, altogether of the
most encouraging character. He had no doubt that these
proposals would cause very great and important changes
to take place in the legislation of France. He would
therefore suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the pro-
priety of reducing the duty on French wines. A duty
of ss. 6d. a gallon on French wines was quite enor-
mous. In the south of France good wine could be
be obtained for 4d. or sd. a bottle. He thought that
2s. 6d. a gallon of duty would be ample, and he believed
that the revenue would be augmented by the reduction.
Although the population had so largely increased, yet
the consumption of wine iu•this country was not greater
than it was in the time of Charles I.
Col. SIBTHORP hoped that if the Hon. Member
succeeded in introducing French wines at a lower
duty, he would not propose the introduction of French
women, as he (Cel. Sibthorp) was too much of a John
Bull for that.—(Laughter, and cries of" Order.")
Sir R. PEEL said that a reduction in the wine duties
would cause a reduction in the malt-tax. It must be
recollected that the wine duties amounted to two
millions annually, and some limit must be put to the
reductions. They had already made very large experi-
ments, and they should be cautious how they proceeded
further. He was glad to say that the principles of in-
terchange were progressing in France, and he did hope
that the time was not far distant when they would
prevail.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that when the questibn of the
corn-laws was discussed in 1815, Lord Grenville made
his memorable speech, and entered his memorable pro-
test against the propozitions then submitted. Lord Grey
said on that occasion that if the manufacturer was to
have his corn cheap, the farmer ought to have his coat
cheap. Lord Grenville in reply to that said that was quite
reasonab'e. He was against all protection. It was now
proposed to lay a duty of 10 per cent. on a great number
of manufactured articles. Now he had no objection to
that duty continuing during the time the Corn Bill was
to last. But when 1849 arrived, when the nominal duty
was to be established on corn, he could not see why the
10 per cent. should he maintained. He could understand
Gentlemen who supported protection advocating the
continuance of this duty, but with respect to the Right
Hon. th-ntleman, he was at a loss to know how he could
' advocate the continuance of such a duty.
Sir R. PEEL spoke a few words in reply to the Noble
I,,rd, but in so low a tone of voice as to be quite inau-
dible in the gallery. He was understood however to say,
that he thought his proposition was strictly a fair one,
for the duty on common artic'es of manufacture of
every-day use was instantaneously removed, and the
duty of 10 per cent. was only placed upon manufactured
articles of the higher order.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the duty produced little or
no revenue, and as they were loth to do away with the
protective system in regard to agriculture, they ought
to extend the same principle to manufactures of every
description.
Mr. T. BARING said it appeared to be the policy of
the House to abandon the system of direct for indirect
taxation. Now, to carry out this policy, they ought
to spread direct taxation over as many articles as possi-
ble. The duty of 10 per cent would afford no particulqr
protection to manufactures, nor -would it press at all
upon the consumer, but it would add something to the
revenue. There were many duties which they could
take off without benefiting the consumer, and those
duties were of this class—prohibitory duties of a merely
nominal character, for the purposes of revenue.
The revenue derived from Customs' duties, upon
some twelve or eighteen articles was insignificant
in amount, but if they placed the duties upon a large
number of articles, it would not injure the consumer,
while it would serve for the purpose of revenue. Why
did not the Government adopt this plan, and reduce
the heavy duties upon important articles of consumption,
such as tea, coffee, and sugar ? He thought, if they
wished to see the system of indirect taxation by means
of customs' duties succeed, they must spread it over all
articles of produce or consumption, and not allow it to
fall only upon a few.

Lord- J. RUSSELL said the system propounded by
the Honourable Member might be a good one, or it might
bo a bad one, but it had nothing to do with the question
to which he had directed the attention of the House.
He had objected to duties being placed on certain ar-
ticles not for the purposes of revenue, but for the
purposes of protection.
After a few words from Mr. T. BARING, in explana-
tion, and from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. HUME said he was perfectly surprised to hear
such doctrines advocated by an Hon. Member who had
all his life been engaged in mercantile pursuits.
He felt satisfied that if the duties were removed from
the articles named, they would save at least 100,0001.,
which was expended in the collection of those duties.
If the Hon. Gentleman would refer to the schedule, he
would find that 22,000,000/. had been collected on
twenty-one articles per annum, and out of that sum was
expended 200,0001. for collection. He would, therefore,
suggest that the duties on all those articles should be
swept away, and the system- of taxation would be sim-
plified, and the public would derive great advantages
therefrom, by obtaining the luxuries and enjoyment of a
great number of articles, of which they were now
almost deprived, and which, as he had shown, did not,
from the great expense in the collection, yield much to
the revenue. With regard to the measure of the Right
Hon. Baronet, ho considered that one of the chief merits
was that they brought direct taxation upon the capital
and prOperty of the country.—(Hear, hear) He did
not by. that mean to say that capital and property
would be more taxed, for he believed that if the mea-
sures introduced by the Right Honourable Baronet
were adopted by the House, .taxation would be de-
creased because the expense of collection would be less.
—(tiear, hear.) He did sot wish to take up any more
time of the House, further than protesting against the
doctrines of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sure
that if the Right Hon. Baronet would only reduce the
duty upon three more articles—soap, bricks, and paper—
he would confer very great advantages upon the coun-
try. To meet the consequent decrease of the revenue,
capital and .property in a more complete
the Right Hon. Baronet would only have transfer
e would conclude by repeating his opinion
taxation tHo
that the Right lion. Baronet had in these matters pur-
sued a fair course, and he must again protest against
the absolute doctrines of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite;
doctrines which truly belonged to ages gone by—
to the times of the barbarians, the Goths and Vandals.
—(Laughter.) He hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet
would continue in his policy in simplifying the system
of taxation, as he felt that such a system would not only
increase the revenue but also the happiness and satis-
faction of the people of this country.
Sir R. PEEL said he should be sorry- to enter at
length into the subject of effecting the reduction of public
taxes, because he was about to present to the House on
the following evening, a great number of returns, to
which he hoped the attention of the House would be
given.—(Hear, hear.) As he said before, if Hon. Mem-
bers referred t 3 the amount of revenue received on the
articles of wool, linen, and some other articles, they
would find that the principles to which the Noble Lord
referred were founded upon truth. If the returns
which he should bring forward on ti .c following night
were deemed incomplete, or any lion. Gentleman wished
for information on the subject, he would be happy to afford
it. He might, however, at present state a few facts in regard
to the effect of the reduction of taxation on glass and
auctions last year. There had been a reduction in the
officers' expenses on these two articles alone of 58,6001.
Mr. NEWDEGATE having made a few observations
which did not reach us,
Mr. Alderman COPELAND said that he knew from
practical experience that the public had not derived those
advantages from the reduction of taxation during the