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

TEIR SUN, LONDON TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH. 1846.

troduction of the question of copyright into the debate
led him to believe that those who had done so
lad not ' given the question mature consitiera-
- (Rear, hear.) He should like to know
vhat arguments could be adduced in favour of the
-ontinuance of this duty? The ab lition of it did not
!evolve an interference with any branch of native in-
!teary, and therefore he would look upon any argument
el fay ur of it as really a curiosity of literature.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
very happy to hear that the Honourable Member who
lead just sat down, had in this instance not adhered to
iis support of reciprocity treaties.
Mr. DISRAELI said he was always ready to defend
he principle of reciprocity, but again he would repeat
that he could not see why the question of international
-opywright should have been introduced into this dis-
tussion.
Mr. BORTHWICK understood that the revenue to
he derived from the duty, would not exceed 10,000/. a-
year. Now, he wished to keow if it was fair to tax the
eddition of knowledge, because contributed by other
:•countries ? (Hear, hear.) Could the addition of 10.000/.
, year to the. Exchequer be put in comparison with the
emount of ben .fit likely to be confer!, d en the public 13,‘
he fair and free admission of foreign literature?—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him (Mr. Borthwick) that the
juestion was distinct from copyright, and that it was
simply this—whether, for the sake of 10.0001 a-year they
you'd admit or refuse that amount of knowledge which
.ertainly should be derived from the free admission of fo-
•eign literature.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. CLERKE said it was desirable for the cause of
'iterature that this country should secure for its authors
he copyright of their works.—(Hear.) In this coun-
:ry it was not the custom to publish piratical editions of
lie works of any author, and if such a principle
.vere adopted generally, he thought it would be much
to the good of the authors of Prussia and Germany.
Mr. HOPE said that nothing could be more fair or
'List than the observations made by the Right Hon.
;entleman, and no Gentleman in the House had a
greater wish to see piratical publications put an end to
:,han he had ; nevertheless he should support, on a divi-
sion, the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. flekoVES made a few observations, which did
lot reach the gallery.
Mr. CARDWELL was of opinion that it was per-
-'ectly true that the duty on bucks and the question of
iopyright were separate and distinct ones. Yet, owing
o the number of English travellers in foreign countries,
he thought it only right that there should be a fair ex-
change of literature.
Mr. AGLIONBY had come to the conclusion, that
t was right and desireable for what he called the
mnsutner, who wished for foreign literature, that he
.hould have the opportunity of indulging his taste ; and
thould the question go to a division, he decidedly
.hould vote with the Hon, Member for Dumfries.
Mr. DISRAELI thought that nothing could be
nore just than that the English author should have a
:egitimate protection in his own country for the produc-
ion of his own mind, the same as Hon. gentlemen en-
joyed in the case of their own estates.—(Hear, hear.)
\Tow, in his opinion, the author was entitled to the en-
;oyment of such as fairly as the man who built a house
n• planted a wood. All the English author required
vas a fair protection ; and for the remainder, he relied
us the good taste and sympathy of his fellow-country-
nen. Now he looked on it that the great question was
this—should the great body of the English nation be
irevented from receiving at a moderate rate the works
)f foreign authors ?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli)
lid not think the question of copyright could be mixed
with the matter at all.—(Hear, hear.) The question
vas this, were the people of England to be allowed to
receive the works of foreign authors duty free, or were
hey not ?—(Hear, hear.) To meet that question, there
lad been a rigmarole Act of Parliament brought for-
vard—an Act repugnant -to common sense and justice.
—(Hear, hear)—and he should say that he would feel
eirnself bound, as he doubted not every Hon. Gentleman
vho had the welfare of literature at heart would, in
giving his opposition to the Ministerial Gentlemen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXC:IEQUER said
:hat it might be remarked, with respect to the duty OR
'oreign books, that it only produced 10,0001. per annum,
met if the House would consider the amount of duty
levied, it would see that it had been brought to the
.oweet possible point to which it was possible to carry it.
Dr. BOWRING said that it would be better for the
4:nglish nation to attend to their own interest than to
that of foreign countries. It was certainly desirable
hat we should get our foreign books in the cheapest
end best forms.
Mr. WODEHOUSE said that he would advise his
Friend not to divide upon this question. He admitted
the principle upon which the motion was founded, but he
lid not think that a very small duty would give any
cry great discouragement to the introduction of foreign
hooks into this country, as it was almost exclusively the
ichest class of persons that purchased them.
Mr. CURTIS said that he entirely concurred in the
pinion given by the Hon. Member who had just sat
down. If he were in the place of tie Right Hon. Baronet
nd failed in this question, he would throw up the whole
concern sooner than be harrassed by such vexatious di-
visions as had been proposed.
Sir R. PEEL said that there were certainly many
'Acuities in the introduction of such a measure as he
lad introduced, but he could not throw it up so easily.
rhe Hon. Member might depend on it that he would he
ery little influenced by this decision. It was no small
lifficulty that could induce him to relax his exertions
b:it:g this question to an issue, as that was the
main object at present. At the same time, he did
cope that no gentleman who concurred in the general
rinciple of the policy pursued by the Government,
could wish to see this measure carried. Amongst 300
erticles mentioned in the tariff, many persons would be
)f opinion that in one case too much was done, and that
n another case too little had been done ; but if they ap-
)roved of the vt hole comprehensively, he did hope that
arguments adduced in favor of one particular article
emongst the 300, would not be attended to so much as
'he measure on the whole. The consideration of revenue
vas important, but at the same time the measures he
could propose in the course of the present Session would
nest materially reduce the revenue. The duty on butter
end cheese alone produced 300,000/. per year, and in
such cases as that it was impossible to avoid all conside-
Ationsof revenue before any interference was made with
he duty, and the statement that the duty on the article
,nly yielded 10,000/ per year, was no reason why that
hould be remitted. With regard to literature, the case
vas different, but he was at present unable to entertain
,ny proposition, as there were treaties pending with
France on this subject, but there was no inclination to
nake any concession with regard to our works. He
lid not wish the concession to be all on one side, but he
tad not as yet been enabled to gain,the double advantage
,f reciprocal concession. The Hon. Gentleman who ob-
jected to the proposal did not surely wish the duty on
looks shonld cease, for if a German grammar were
printed in England, the English production would be
iable to an excise duty of 155., while the foreigner could
bring in his work without paying anything.
Mr. EWART said they could not come in com-
octition.
Sir R. PEEL said that in England, if a man were to
publish a work he would be liable to the excise duty,
.vhilc the foreigner could produce the same work without
my such burden. If an Englishman published a work
in a foreign language in this country, he would be
iable to the excise duty ; but under the measure pro-
iosed by the Hon. Gentleman, the foreigner would be
able to compete with him. He had, however, the probe-
hility of effecting a reduction of the kind proposed on a
more beneficial scale, and he did hope the House would
take that into consiCeration, and not give any opinion
.en this measure.
Mr. GISBORNE said that his Hon. Friend, de-
served great credit for the way in w ich he had brought
'orward this question. He had brought the matter under
he attention of the House, and he should be satisfied
with the great success which he had obtained without
pressing for a division.
Mr. WYSE said he could not agree with the Right
Hon. Baronet on this question, as the case before the
House was a very peculiar one. So far from allowing a
tax on foreign works, he thought it was the duty of the
House to give every inducement for their introduction
into this country. He was sure, however, that sufficient
had already been done to bring this measure under the
ittention of the Government. He therefore hoped that
his Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion.
Mr. EWART said that he had not been fairly dealt
with on this subject. If the Right Hon. Baronet said
he would at once take the subject into his consideration,
and look to the reduction of this duty, instead of making
himself dependent on treaties, he (Mr. Ewart) would
feel satisfied that the Right Hon. Baronet had said that
the whole subject should be taken into consideration.
lie had taken the whole subject into consideration, and
:he result of the investigation was, that he felt it his
duty to bring forward this motion. Now, however, that
this question must come under the consideration of the.
Government. he would consent to postpone his measure.
Mr. DISRAELI said that her Majesty's Government
were aware that they would have never been in a mino-
rity until the great and comprehensive question was
tried. This was more the question of private discussion
than national interest, therefore this sort' of guerilla
practice could have little effect on the ultimate settle-
meet of the question,
After a fow words from Colonel SIBTHORP the
amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to.
That portion of the schedule respecting foreign butter
and cheese, after a few remarks from Messrs. Eweerr
and HuME, complaining of the present mode of landing,
and suggesting the consideration of some improvement
in this respect, was also agreed to.
On that portion of the tariff respecting the duty to be
imposed on copper ore being read from the Chair,
Mr. TRELAWNEY remarked that the duty now
proposed on this article would operate injuriously to
those engaged in this branch of mining.
Sir ROBERT PEEL replied that the proposition on
this subject now submitted had been under consideration
since 1842, and was made without any reference to
individual interests.
Mr. PARKER thought that, as the revenue raised
from this article was very trifling, it ought to be aban-
doned. He hoped that at some future period it would
come under the general principle, which the Government
was making with respect to other foreign articles.
Mr. SPOONER said he presented a petition the other
evening on this subject, from perties engaged in several
branches of trade in Birmingham. They considered
they would be most seriously affected if the present reso-
lution was carried into effect.
This and the other articles in the schedule, up to that
of foreign fruit, were then agreed to.
On the latter article being read,
Mr. COLLETT asked why the Right Hon. Baronet
had excluded salmon from the present tariff? The pre-
sent rata of 10s. was very high.
Sir R. PEEL said, that a considerable reduction was
made in this article in 1842 ; the proposing of which
had occasioned great alarm in the Highlands of Scot-
land. Though on this, as on other alterations then
neadel the fears had turned out to have been groundless,

still, under existing circumstances, he did not consider
it advisable to make any further reduction.
Mr. P. SCROPE complained of the duty on foreirn
fruits, especially currants, figs, oranges, and lemons ;
they were articles consiuned by the poor, aol 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.
The 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, wl:ile it was not met with a cot.-
respondintr reduction in the excise duties. They con-
sitiered.it but fair that if half the dnty on hops was done
away with, the excise duty should be reduced in an
equal proportion. It had 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, eft( ct that
a taxation should be made to the home-grower, equal in
proportion to that which the Right Hon. Baronet in-
tend,d to take off the foreign planter, but at least he
thought that the claim he had advanced for the hop-
growers of this country should meet the Right Hon.
Baronet's b'st 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 B. Peel's)
desire to redeem the excise duties as far a, 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 argurwmti advanced by the Hon. Mem-
ber had been stated fully, and as fully answered, on the
proposition to reduce the protective duties from 8L 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
foreign grower.
This item was then agreed to.
The separate articles in the schedule up to foreign
spirits were then ogre ,c 1 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 lion. 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 he 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 in this country was not greater
than it was in the time of Charles I.

Col. SIBTHORP hoped that if the Hon. .11ember
Succeeded in introducing French wines at a lower
duty, he would not propose the introduction of French
women, as he (Col. Sibthorp) was too much of a John
Bull fer that.--(Laughter, and cries of `• Order.")
Sir H. 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
millior s 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 question of the
corn-laws was discussed in 1815. Lord Grenville made
his memorable speech, and entered his memorable pro-
test against the propositions 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
reasonable. 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 be maintained. He could understand
Gentlemen who supported protection advocating the
continuance of this duty, but with respect to the Right
Hon. G ntleman, he was at a loss to know how he could
advocate the continuance of such a duty.
Sir R. I'EEL spoke a few words in reply to the Noble
L•trd, but in so low a tone of voice as to be quite inau-
dible in the gallery. lie was understood however to say.
that he thought his proposition was strictly a fair one,
for the duty on commo❑ artic'es of manufacture of
every-clay 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 particular
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—pr, hibitory duties (4.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 stig,r ? He thought., if they
wished to see the system of indirect taxation by means
of customs' duties succeed, they must spread it over ali
articles of produce or consumption, and not allow it to
full only upon a few._

Lord J. RUSSELL said the system propounded by
the Honourable Member might be a good one, or it might
be a bad one, but it had nothing to do with the vestion
to which he had directed the attention of the Howe.
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 d etrines 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, he considered that one of the chief merits
was that they brought direct taxation upon the capital
acountry,—(Hear, ar
and , hear) He did
not an
lofl u
mean
nx thee(lt c f oosay
n he
thatre believed that if the mea-
sures capitaly
property
introduced by the Right Honourable Baronet
were adopted by the House, taxation would be de-
w Ipbdryo be property
moreatyt n of
et
de-
creased because the expense of collection would be less.
—(Bear, hear.) He did not 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 Han. 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,
the Right Hon. Baronet would only have to transfer
e would conclude by repeating his opinion
taxation to capital and property in a more complete
manner.that the Rilight Hon. 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
leneth 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 woul:: be
given.—(llear, hear.) As he said before, if Hon. Mem-
bers referred t) 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 V e following night
were deemed incomplete, or any lion. Gentleman witthed
fir 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 58,600/.
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 rednetion of taxation during the

last year which had been described by the Right lion.
Baronet.

Mr. HUDSON said that no one could doubt that there
had been a large increase in the consumption of glass
since the duty had been reduced. There was no doubt,
if they cheapened an article they would have an increasd
consumption of that article, if it were in general use, and
demanded by the people of this country. No one could
•or five minutes doubt the troth of this statement, but if
they proposed tq take all protection from agriculture,
they were bound in justice to Ole all protection from
manufacture.—(Hear, hear.)—The Right Honourable
Baronet had said that he did not propose to take off pro-
tection from agriculture until three years, but he (Mr.
Hudson) thought that the country, notwithstanding that
ingenious argument, would demand that justice should
be done, by completely removing all protection from the
manufacturing interest. He had not the slightest objec-
tion to go with the Right Hon. Baronet in his principles
of direct taxation for the purposes of revenue, but he
could not conceive that the manufacturers could with any
face ask for protection for 10 per cent., when they were
the very parties by whose agitation this great measure
had been brought about.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
they ought to carry these principles out.
Dr. BOWRING was glad to agree in the opinions of
the Hon. Member who had just sat down. He would
lend his aid to the manufacturers, who, he was sure,
would be glad to have removed from them the odious
system miscalled protection. He was surprised that the
lion. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Copeland), one of
the largest merchants in London, should have come
down to the House and ask for protection.—(The Hon.
Member raised much laughter by the impassioned man-
ner in which he spoke upon the subject.)
Mr. P. BORTHWICK said that the opinion of the
lion. Member fur Huntingdon had great weight with
him.

Mr. DUNCAN said that the manufacturers would be
glad to be rid of the protection, and he (Mr. Duncan)
would be ashamed to stand up in that House and advo-
cate the removal of protection to the agriculturist, if he
was not perfectly willing to have it removed from the
manufacturers.
Captain HARRIS said that in forming the tariff,
there should have been some compensation made to the
farmer, more than that proposed by her Majesty's
Government.
Mr. FULLER made some remarks, which were in-
audible in the gallery.
On the article clover seed being read,
Sir W. JAMES said that he considered that the re-
moval of the duty ought to be immediate.
Sir G. CLERK said that it would be of no benefit to
the farmer to take the duty off immediately, as they had
already purchased that quantity of clover seed.
On the article of poultry b_inr named,
Mr. POULETT SCROPE rose, and said he wished to
know whether there was any duty on poultry, a, d that
he thought the duty on eggs should he entirely a►,olished.
tlr. M.CARTHY (Cork) on the subject of prints being
mentioned, said that very great inconvenience was felt
on their importation, and hoped that the subject would
be felt worthy of notice—he had himself felt much in-
convenience on one occasion when he had to import some

prints.
The remaining resolutions were then agreed to, and
the report ordered to be brought up on Friday.
The house then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply ; the formal votes were then taken, among which
were the following :-
108,608 men.
3.000,0001. on account, for charge of land forces.
300,0001., on account, h a If-pay.
100,000 L, on accoun', pensions, widows.
1,000.000/. on account, out-pensioners, Chelsea Hos-
pital, &c.
40,000 men, sea service.
900,000/., on account, wages.
400,0001.. on account, victuals.
1,200,0001., on account, naval stores.
400,0001., on account, new works.
350,000/., on account, ordnance.
200,000/„ on account, commissariat.
100,000/., on account, salaries.
250,0001., on account, ordnance stores.
400,0001., on account, ordnance works.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported pro-
gres4, and obtained leave to sit again.
Sir R. PEEL moved that the petition of the ship-
owners of Sunderland be printed.
Mr. HUDSON brought up the report on the Sunder
land Dock Bills.
CORN AND CUSTOMS IMPORTATION BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
up the Corn and Customs Importation Bill, and it was
read a first time. Monday next was fixed for the second

reading.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Town
Council and Burghers of Lanark, in favour of the
Government measure on the protective duties.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

MONDAY, MARCH 9.

The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members :
Newcastle and Darlington Junction (Pontop and South Shields Rail-

way Purchase)—Mr. Hutt and Mr. Hudson.
South Wales (No. 2)—Viscount Villiers and Mr. J. H. Vivian.
Nottingham, Mansfield, and Midland Junction—Mr. Houletsworth
and Mr. J. Stuart.