The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-01 00:00:00

opposition to the principle upon which the alterations
the duties were made, which were to give the advantage
the British shipowner over the foreign shipowner. Heb°7,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would give him seine bet;
explanation upon this point than anything lie had 01;
heard him give. He did not intend to ask the Committee,:
divide uponlite proposition, nor was he then fully prePis'‘;
to go into tire whole question. lie hoped that in a e'd
time he would be able to call their attention to the pet;
state of their shipping interest, when this question I"),
be put prominently forward for discussion. He would t.f
have a better opportunity of showing how extremely
politic it was for the Government to adopt the course W
they proposed. In the meantime he wished to reek'
some explanation on the point from the Chancellor of I
Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not otel b
to enter into any question of the navigation-laws_ He
lieved that so far from any interest having suffered by
alteration in these duties, this alteration had proved most ,
neficial to the shipping interest as well as to the people !
nerally. He was glad the Right Hon. Gentleman oe"
offer no opposition on this occasion, as no opposition bad be
made on a former occasion when there had been a redact, ,
of the timber duties. It would be a hardship if persons be,
now to be called upon to pay the duty twice, as it had
suggested. He begged to say that he never considered ~
law of 1846 as a final settlement of this question ; but 'A,
whe'eever an opportunity presented itself they ()light to
duce the duties on an article of such great importance
timber for building and various other purposes. He was°
to say that the importation of colonial woods had menses' .
whilst that of foreign timber had fallen off. He referred
the circular of one of the largest timber dealers to chow tb
the consumers had received the whole of the benefit of 1•
reduction of the duty. Another, a large builder, told 131
that the reduction of the duty made to him the difference
the price of the roofing of a house.
Mr. MITCHELL was understood to say that to the e°
sumer the reduction in the prices of Baltic timber was 10°'
load, whilst the reduction of the duty was only 7s. (icl•
could say that Csnadian timber had increased in vain e sit
the reduction of the duty. He did not approve of the att
that were made to interfere with these arrangements, a,
told the Right Hun. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) that he di.
represent the shipping interest in this country on the pr'
question ; that the only persons opposed to the change ,
great shipping owners in Glasgow, who had built a g
fleet of ships in Canada.
Mr. HERRIES replied that the Hon. Gentleman was.
tirely mistaken in thinking he was connected with indi
duals in Glasgow. There was neither truth nor justice
such an imputation. Representations had come to 110,,
this subject from Ireland, great ports in England, and"'
gow amongst the rest. As to the Right Hon. Gentleman'
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had not answered at 0'„ 1
matter of objection that he had touched upon.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER exp/ailled.j,
Mr. WAWN objected that under the present system 't
could be built at Bremen duty free, and on arriving Si
port had all the advantages of a British register.
Mr. lIUME, as a supporter of the repeal of the nasq,4l
Lion-laws, complained of the heavy burdens imposed 1t.7.4
the coasting trade by the lighthouse dues. Those d';
ought to be put upon a different footing, as it had beef,
commended by two Committees of that House. The Bob
of Trade could not be got to move, and the consequence `:1,
their coasting trade was destroyed—there was not o'l
the loss of money, but there was the loss of a supPll
seamen.
The Marquis of GRANBY maintained that the colo
flfj
interest looked upon the agreement of 1846 as being fins
and he could not now allow the Bill to pass withotity,
testing against the injury inflicted by this system of leg'-
don upon their colonies.
Mr. CARDWELL observed that the principle laid ii4°l
in 1849 was to remit duties upon all the great raw mate',;
of manufactures. They had done this with cotton, silk,
wool; and now a ship was the only article which waeL
mitted duty free when manufactured, and yet had itrni
a duty on the articles of which it was composed. He "tr
very glad that in this Bill they were making a step in
vance by lowering the duties on those articles. He ed
gested that lancewood poles should be included with fa'
ture wood.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised
consider the question upon the bringing up the report. id
Mr. A. BAILLIE observed that the reduction of the tilt
duty was no advantage to the agriculture of this coon".)
There never was a time within the last 100 years in Nvl3l,
native timber was so unsaleable as the present moment,"
(Hear.) Ile had occasion lately to refer to the sale of tiO3',[4
for the last 100 years, and he found that, while almost esli
other article had risen in value, the case was different as
timber.
The resolutions were then agreed to, the schedule arneo
the preamble arranged, and the Bill was ordered to be
ported with amendments.
INHABITED HOUSE-DUTY BILL.—FINANCIAL
SOLUTION.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXC.- A
QUER that the house resolve itself into Cemmittee oa
Bill,
bef
Mr. DISRAELI said—The Hon. Gentleman the Mein
for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) has very unexpectedly made.,
very unfair attack upon me. The Hon. Gentleman OA
to suppose that it is not legitimate in a Member of this Ho;
to question the propriety of any vote at which this 101,10
may have arrived; that if once its opinion is expressed
that manner—

Mr. MITCHELL—Without opposition.
Mr. DISRAELI—Yes, without opposition—for I aOl d
aware that the explanation of the Hon. Member makes aproti
change in the question he thus raises, or in the principle 'A
which he contends.— (Hear.) Does the Hon. Gentle
mean to say that a vote of this House is equivalent W.OO
Act of Parliament? Such it is not in the contemplati.al
of the Legislature.- (Hear.) It has always been suplftlia
that when a Ministry came forward and requested °f dot
House to sanction an alteration in the tariff it did se
circumstances that had been so well matured and Colieuld be
that there was the prospect that its proposition 017 ge'
adopted with so much certainty that the country mightOtt
ncrally assume that the vote which it had called for
afterwards be ratified in the form of a Bill. No doubt w°oo
generally be entertained that such an anticipation iff,:ea
afterwards be justified by the act. Still it never has r
„,,,
supposed that a vote of this House on the tariff could b
garded as equal to a solemn decision by an Act of the 1,e,g1?
ature (Hear.) What, then, has happened in this sessV,o
What are the circumstances that have occurred? ,
House has been called upon to assent to certain alterattro
in the tariff under quite different circumstances o'o
the circumstances under which the Bill is now broqo
before the House, and which Bill is the consequence of
vote on the tariff. The circumstances of the revenue „1.,
almost entirely changed between the one period and the otlicf,„
Is there not the proof that the condition of the revenue of t,-,‘
country to a certain degree is now in a precarious poshwo
and that the surplus which was announced by the Minister,
t the commencement of the session, and which as a surplus of
distributed in the mode which seemed best to him-00°,,a
hese being the remission of the timber duties referred to vis
the Hon. Gentleman—but that since that proposition Igo
made the surplus that had been calculated upon as car ma
has become essentially provisional.—( Hear.) Under f 13751
circumstances, then, I thought I was not taking an unetio
course; but, on the contrary, that I was taking one which
in accordance with the customs of this House- that is, 1%
only actually proper, but called for. Before this House.
prorogued, and that we are sent back to our constituent'
this House, the country, and our constituents sin uld clearly
understand what is their financial position.—(Hear, hearti,
It has always been considered that that was a topic on wilt,
it was most important that we should possess the most MS
conceptions; it always was considered that that subject WS
peculiarly the care of the House of Commons. if we 1.,
turn to our constituents now we may give them, as regaf4
the exercise of our functions, a very clear, and, upon the,
whole, I hope, a very satisfactory account. When the Boer
met it announced to us that one important interest in flll t°
country was suffering great distress. As to the causes
that distress Gentlemen in this House were divided ; but a"
doubt was entertained that the subject was one of great irro
terest and importance. And no one can deny that it la°
been discussed amply this session, and that the Rouse by ear,
siderable numbers on both sides, who by their speeches or their
votes manifested an interest in that subject, has shown the
constituencies of the country that it has taken care to arril'
at a distinct and definite conclusion on the subject.—(Hear'
hear.) So, also, with that all interesting subject, the P4o',
aggression. Whatever may be the contrary opinions °
Members of this House, there is no doubt that we have per'
sued a course which has conducted us to a result which the
country can understand.—(Hear.) Government, for
stance, has brought in a Bill which they considered all
efficient Bill, but which, on this side of the House, was not
considered to be an efficient Bill; and the united efforts 0
the two parties in the House, which the country must a‘r,
knowledge, even if it does not realise that which it expected'
have at least produced a piece of legislation which is clear
in its object and definite in the results it wishes to attain.--;._
(Hear.) But if you come to the question of finance, defy
any Member of Parliament to go back to his constituent°
and tell them clearly what is the condition of our finances.'"
(Hear.) Whether we have a surplus or whether we hays
not a surplus • whether the seances of our revenue are per'
manent or whether they are fleeting; whether they are pro'
visional, and, if provisional, whether they are provided f.or
a time so brief that, before another year shall have elapsout
the principal features of our financial system may be changed,
On this topic, then—the revenue of the country, which de
pends upon the taxation of the subject—we are not in *
position at the present moment to speak with that satisfae'
tory certainty which our constituents have a right to expect
and to demand from us. Sir, it was with this visig
of, the case that I have tliought it my duty to endea'
deavour to induce the House of Commons to enter into A
discussion upon the present state of the finances of the
country—a discussion limited to that interesting and ire'
portant topic, admitting no extraneous matter; and indeed
the merits of the subject do not require any extraneous mat'
ter to be introduced to command the attention of the House-
It is a subject which I hope may be discussed in a calm, all
impartial, and an unimpassioned spirit, and I at least on re,
part have no meaning with respect to the opinions which
shall with all deference place before the House other than
that which I have attempted to express in the resolution*
which I have laid on the table of the House. I shall cer-
tainly set no example of admitting into this discussion ail-
other considerations than those which are essentiallyfinancial,
and I am persuaded, if the debate be conducted in that spirit,
that, whatever may be the conclusion we arrive at, the de'
bate will be one which will not discredit the House, but tenet
to satisfy the public.—(Hear, hear.) It is scarcely necessary
for me to call the memory of the House to the financial state'
went of the Minister which was made early this session-
The House was congratulated on the advantage of having 13'
financial statement made when the House met early in Fe-
bruary, but that financial statement, se far as its details
are concerned, and I will even say its principle, is not cow'
plated at the end of June.—(Hear, hear.) On that occa."
sion the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that a sur-
plus of about two millions sterling was at his disposition
and he stated to the House several remissions of
taxation, which, assisted by that surplus, irrespective of
maintaining a fund for the reduction of the public debt, be
contemplated to accomplish. That surplus, I need not re'
mind the House, was assumed upon the fact that the House
of Commons would renew the expiring tax upon income-
Upon the assumption that that renewal would take place,
and for no inconsiderable time, not merely for a term of three
years, but until certain results were obtained, which the
most sanguine cannot suppose are of easy or immediate etc"
cemplishment—upon the assumption of that law being re-.
new,ed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in
possession of this surplus. Now I would beg the attention Of
the House—for the consideration is important—to the cha-
racter of the tax the renewal of which was the basis of the
financial statement of the Minister. Considerable contro-
versy has often taken place as to the intentions of the emi-
nent Minister who first reintroduced the tax upon property
and income into our modern financial system—considerable
controversy has subsisted as to the real intentions of Sir B.
Peel—whether in effect it was his intention originally that
the tax upon income should be a temporary tax, or whether
that was only a Parliamentary pretence under which he
wished to introduce a permanent feature of our financial
system. Now I wish to state my belief, and to adduce the
reason for that belief, that the object of Sir k. Peel n the intro-
duction of the tas upon income was a temporary object .104