The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

ford were correct, I might have to reduce materially the
ieeeipts from the income-tax of the present year; or, if
I am to credit the prophecy of the Noble Lord at the
head of the protectionist party, I should not look for-
ward to the next year as one of even ordinary prosperity.
—(Elear. hear.) Nevertheless, under all the circum-
stances, I cannot say I would be justified in altering the
estimate I made of the probable income and probable
expenditure of the year.—(Flear, bear,) The probable
expenditure is contained in the estimates laid on the
table, the principle items of which have been already
voted by the House.—(oh, oh, and laughter). lam not
saying that any argument can be founded on that; for I
think it would be unfair, after the conduct of the House
two or three nights ago, to argue that the estimates had
been voted, and that nothing more could be said respect-
ing them. We believe that they have been framed with
a due regard to economy, and to the demands of the ser-
vice. The probable amount of the surplus we estimate
at 1,892,000/. lam told that, even with this surplus, I
ought to have done something striking—something that
would have produced an effect in the country. I differ
altogether from those who think so. When I was con-
sidering what I should propose I. did not take into ac-
count whether the proposals would produce an effect in
the country. I sat down and considered what were the
taxes most objectionable and productive of the most
mischief, and came to the conclusion that these were the
taxes which ought to be reduced. But Hon. Gentle-
men should recollect, when they wished for something
great and striking, that the great protective duties have
already been removed. The Government of Sir R.
Peel reduced the duties on corn and timber. The present
Government reduced the protective duty on sugar, and
repealed the navigation-laws. It is net reasonable,
therefore, to complain of us for not doing something
great and striking. No doubt there are still outies ob-
noxious in principle and which ought to be removed;
but we are now within a restricted circle. • In strict
accordance with the principle upon which larger duties
were repealed, so ought we to act with those that are
equally mischievous, though within a narrower circle.
There is one duty for the continuance of which in its
present shape I have been reproached by many people,
and that is the duty on t,4. But though tea is subjected to
a high duty it is not a protective W hatever sup-
plies of tea may come from China there is no other
country from which supplies can come, and by compe-
tition, reduce the price of the article in this country.
Though I have on former occasions expressed an
opinion that it was highly desirable to reduce the duty
on tea—an opinion I still entertain—yet I think there
are other duties that have a prior claim. If I had pro-
posed to reduce the duty on tea, in all probability I
should have been found fault with, and, perhaps, not
without reason, for not dealing at the same time with
the duty on an article which comes into competition
with tea—l mean the duty on tnalt.—(Hear, hear.) I
I know the Hon. Member for the North Riding of
Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) would not have been satisfied
_ _

if I had dealt with the duty on tea alone. Though
the duty on tea is 200 per cent., and the duty on malt
only 60 per cent., yet I think I might have been exposed
to attacks by the agricultural interest if I had dealt ex-
clusively with an article which competed with
another in which they were deeply interested.
—(Hear, hear.) Bat, at any rate, there were
other duties which had a prior claim to our consideration
than either the duty on tea or the duty on malt. I may
be permitted to make one remark to those Hon. Members
on both sides who call for a large reduction of taxation.

It applies equally to those who call for a reduction of
excise duties, and of duties on articles of import, and to
those who call for a large reduction in direct taxation
and the income-tax. It is this. It they expect any
large reduction of taxation they should not perpetually
clamour for minor reductions. If Hon. Gentlemen will

bear in mind the proposals that I have been called on to
entertain—the reductions I have been pressed to make,
they will remember that I have been asked to reduce
duties of one sort to the amount of 120,000/., 150,0001.
fur advertisement duty, 360,0001. for newspaper stamps,
and 100,0001. for duties on Irish spirits in bond. Now
every such reduction diminishes the power of making
a great reduction. If the modern system is to prevail
—that every surplus, however small, is to be ex-
pended in the reduction of some minor duty,
neither I, nor any one who may fill my place, can
ever do that which the country demands when it
asks us to make considerable reductions of taxes. The
House must co-operate with the Chancellor cf the Ex-
chequer to enable him to accumulate such a surplus as
may enable him to do that which they require. It does
not depend on him alone. If every surplus is to be dis-
persed the moment it is announced nothing great or sa-
tisfactory in the way of large reductions of duties can
ever be done. I have been told—l beg the attention of
the House to this—that there is no principle in the pro-
posals I made to the House. Now, the principle on
which not only the Budget was proposed, but on which
I have always acted in commercial and financial mea-
sures, has been one and the same; and it is to do that

which appear& most for the benefit of the great masses
of the population of this country.—(Cheers.) I have
never turned to the right or the left to consider the bene-
fit of one class or another. I have looked solely to what
would be best for the labouring and working Cart of the
population.—(Cheers.) They may not be—indeed the y
are not to a great extent represented in this House. They
cannot send into Parliament men to represent their
wants, and hence it is that they ought more pecu-
liarly to be the objects of our care and solicitude, Go-
vernment having been instituted for the benefit of the
many and not for the advantage of the few.—(Cheers)
It was for their sake that I always advocated the
repeal of the duty on foreign corn and on meat. The
redaction of the duty on corn and on cattle sae pro-
posed and carried by the late Sir R. Peel. I myself
proposed the reduction of the duty on foreign coffee. It
is fur their sake that I have advocated the reduction of
duties on raw material. I did not do so to put more
profit into the pockets of the merchant and the manufac-
turer, but because I believed that by the free introduc.
tion of the raw material employment would be
given to the labourer, and cheap clothing to his Equally.—
(Hear, hear.) We have given them food and clothing.
There still remains one article of vital importance to
them. You no doubt remember the reports that were
laid on the table last year, and which were quoted
by the late Sir R. Peel, as to the wretched state of
the labourers' dwellings in the Eastern counties,
and the miserable results from the crowding to-
gether of families. It was is part to remedy this that
I last year repealed the duty on bricks. It is for their
sake that I proposed to reduce the duty on foreign
timber. I know not, so far as the country labourer is
concerned, if more can he done for him by the reduction
of duties; but another class remains—l mean that large
portion of the population crowded in the narrow streets
and den k alleys of the towns. There is evidence to show
beyond dispute, the bad effects produced on them by the
dark and unwholesome houses they inhabit. There is
evidence to show, beyond dispute, the evil effects arising
from dark and crowded cellars and ill-ventilated apart-
ments. We have evidence in abundance to show that
stunted growth, deformed limbs, and weakened intellect
are attributable in too many cases to deprivation of air
and light.—(Hear, hear.) We determined as soon
as it was in our power, as far as the reduction of taxa-
tion could effect it, to do everything that might imme-
diately better the sanitary condition of the labour ng
poor—(Hear, hear)—we determined to attack that state
of things which was proved to be the cause of disease,
disfigurement, and death.—(Hear, hear.) I am not
ashamed to say that having done what could be done
and what was possible in this respect and to this ex-
tent, I have removed every serious ground of com-
plaint that might be made. There may be other
measures which would be also for the benefit of the la-
bouring classes; this was not the least one necessary
for their benefit; and this at least I hope we may be
able to.carry through the House. I shall feel than that,
having contributed to cheapen their food, having as-
sisted to cheapen their clothing, we shall have well con-
cluded oar course with one benefit for the labouring
population of towns—the unrestrained enjoyment of light
and air.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, with regard to another
proposal. It is said to contribute more to the benefit of
the population of this country to reduce duties of a par-
ticular description---such.duties are the.protecting duties!
I need not argue this point, for such duties take most
from the pocket of the consumer, and bring less to the
revenue.—(Hear, hear.) The duty ou coffee was 50 per
cent. ; that on timber 90 per cent. Now, were there
not circumstances which called for a revisal of those
duties ? I need not remind the House of the discus-
sion which took place here night after night on the sub-
ject of the adulteration of coff .e.—(Hear, and laughter.)
I am not prepared to send an army of excisemen into
every grocer's shop in the country, nor commence a
prosecution against every one in the Strand—(Elear)—
but I thought it better to meet the evil by the reduction
of the duty on imported articles.—(Hear, hear.)
Again, I hold that the reduction of the duty on timber
was a sound measure, arid consistent with all reason-
' able principles, because it was a commodity used by
all classes, from one extremity of the kingdom toanother.
—(Hear, hear.) Last year I did resist the proposal
made for a drawback on timber used in shipbuilding;
and I said then to the shipbuilders that they must wait
until they had the benefit of the reduction of the duty
on timber with the rest of the community. These two
articles I selected to give a preference to, as having the
premier claim. Did I deal with these duties in what
might be called a peddling spirit?—(Hear, hear.) Those
who know best are aware that it would have been un-
wise to reduce the duty further in the latter case for the
present year. I have said teat the reduction of protec-
tive duties was most beneficial to the consumer and the
revenue. Let me call the attention of the House for a
moment to the results of that course with respect to one
particular article on which I formerly proposed a reduc-
tion. I allude to the proposal for the reduction of the
duty on foreign sugar. The benefit to the revenue and
year
ratl
1845
5p
tehoeulidtihgahrt Hon.dly h
Gentleman
have been cal-
opposite reduced the duty on colonial sugar, but left that
cthuelated. consumer
In tfhreom y
on foreign sugar untouched. The result of that propo-
sition was a loss to the revenue of 1,400,600/. In
1846 we proposed a reduction of the duty on foreign
sugar, and the consequence was an increase in the con-
sumption, to the extent of 900,000 cwt., and an increase
in the duty of 1,100,0001—(Hear, hear.)
Such was the
effect which followed from our • I 1 propos I
- quote this to the
House merely as an instance of the benefit to be derived
by the general population of the country, as well as the
Exchequer, from the reduction of protective duties.—
(Hear, hear.) There was another proposal which I
made, which was connected with the charges on land,
and was a charge with respect to the expense of lunatic
asylums, and a reduction of the duties on clover and
grass seeds.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition,
and " Hear, hear," from the Government side.) I can-
not say that these propositions were very well received.
—(lean) I have heard much objection urged against
them, and not a single word said in their favour. Now
whatever may be said, I am unwilling to force them on
those who may be unwilling to receive them.—(Hear,
and laughter.) These proposals were all based on that
principle which we believe to be most beneficial to the
community and moat calculatid to promote the health of j