The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-11 00:00:00

144E' SUN,'" LOINMON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1860.

be said, and said with justice, to many members of her
Majesty's ,Goviernment—but most of all with justice
may -if' be demanded of me—what has become
of the calculations of 1853 ? (Hear, hear.) It is a perfectly
legitimate question, and I can render to my hon. friend who
cheers it an answet7so simple that the wayfarer " who runs
may read" it. Our financial calculations up to 1853 are to
be found in "Haze ;ard," and from that indubitabte source
I have within the last two or three days refreshed my own
recollections. Those Estimates I find are capable of being
presented in a very_
,simple form. We reckoned that we
should gain a revenue in the interval between 1853 and
1361 in the following proportion :—from new taxes then
proposed, including the Succession-tax, £2,549,000; from
lessened charges on account of the national debt; £1,264,000;
at the same time we knew that terminable annuities would
fall in in 1860 to the amount of £2,146,000. Adding together
these three chief sources of relief, they make a sum of
£5,90,000, which is as nearly as possible the sum to which
the Income-tax, at the rate of sd. in the pound, amounted
for the year 1859. Its actual amount was £6,140,000, which
with this aura of £5,959,000 to set against: it, we should
have been able to surrender. With regard to these calcula-
tions, they have suffered some damage; they have suffered
considerable damage from what has since occurred. (Hear.)
But that damage is not the cause of our not being able to
dispense with the Income-tax. I can show demonstrably
that this is not the case. The succession duty failed to pro-
duce what we expected of it, partly, or rather mainly, be-
cause it was found that by the law of succession real pro-
perty goes in the direct line in a much greater number of
cases than personal property; so that if £100,000,000 a year
in real and settled propertycame under the succession duty,
that amount would not yield the same average of duty as if
it had been personal property. Ido not now speak of a fact
known to the committee, that only life interest is valued
with respect to real property, but, over and above that, real
property descending in the direct line from father to son and
grandson pays only 1 per cent duty. And that direct descent
prevails in a much greater number of instances in real than
in personal property—(hear)—and consequently the revenue
from this source attained its maximum more slowly than
we anticipated. At the present moment, in 1860, we stand
worse than we did in 18.53 by £1,000,000 on account of the
failure of the succession duty. Besides this, instead of
being able to apply an annual surplus of revenue towards
the extinction of debt, that surplus was required by the
necessities of the war, and its application to the diminution
of debt was stopped for three or four years. That likewise
tended to disturb our calculations. The amount of this sur-
plus was £220,000. But the most serious item of all was
the additional debt contracted on account of the Russian
war. (Hear, hear.) It created an additional charge upon
us of £1,400,000. Under these three heads, therefore—the
deficiency in the amount of the succession duty, the stop-
page of the surplus applicable to tie extinction of debt, and
the additional charge created by the Russian war—we stand
worse than in 1853 by the sum of £2,720,000. But, Sir,
that sum has been fully compensated from other sources.
The experiment I commenced with a timid hand in 1853, of
raising the spirit duties, was again followed up by myself
in 1855 and by my successor in 1858. That increase has
added a permanent revenue to the country of £1,500,000 to
£2,000,000 a year; and if, along with the general produc-
tiveness of the revenue, your expenditure had continued to
be anything like what it was, you might have done what
you please with the Income-tax. (Cheers.) In 1853 the
annual expenditure was £52,183,000; I add on account of
the additional debt, £1,400,000, and £4,700,000 for the col-
lection of the revenue; this would make the actual charge
£58,283,000. But the estimate of the revenue for the year
1860-61, with the tea duty reduced to the minimum
as fixed for a time of peace, is not only £58,283,000, it
is £6o,6oo,ooo—(hear, hear)—leaving a surplus at your dis-
posal, without looking to the Income-tax, of £2,317,000,
if your expenditure had continued what it was. (Hear,
hear.) In 1853 the whole amount voted for Supply
and Services of every description, including the Miscel-
laneous charges on the Consolidated Fund, was £24,279,000,
—that was the amount of the charges under your own
control, and actually voted. But in 1860-61, instead of
£24,279,000, these charges amount to £39,000,000, showing
an increase in your expenditure of £14,721,000, whichis the
exact representative of what would be in itself an Income-
tax of 130. in the pound. (Hear, hear.) I ask now, Sir,
whether I have not redeemed my pledge ? (Cheers.) This is
a period of so much interest and so much importance that,
even at the risk of occupying a few minutes of your time, I
wish.to dwell a little on the subject of publice expenditure,
because I admit that my statement thus far, though true,
and I hope clear, is an imperfect statement. It would not
be fair to speak of the great increase in the expenditure of
the country without considering the great extension of the
dealings by which that increase is caused. The country is
richer than it was in 1853 in a degree really astonishing.
Permit me to lay before the committee, as well as I can, a
criterion by which we may arrive at some idea of the truth
with respect to the increase in the wealth of the country ;
and then wo can institute a just comparison between the
rate of increase in this wealth and the rate of increase in the
public expenditure. The best mode of making an estimate
of the rate of increase in the wealth of the country is to re-
sort to the income tax. No other criterion is comparable to
it, for though it may not be an exact index of the truth in
this matter, in any one year, yet, asbetween any one period
and another, I believe it is an index on which we may
safely rely. But, in taking the income-tax as a measure of
the income of the country, I beg to object to two out of the
five schedules of the tax. Schedule C does not, I think, re-
present any portion of the wealth of the country in the
sense of its productive power. It represents incomes from
realised property, such as
,capital invested in mortgages.
' Schedule E represents the income of the fraternity to
which I myself belong, including the salaries of officials,
Ministers, and others supported by public allowances.
But I do not take any increase in the salaries of these
gentlemen as any material augmentation of the
wealth of the country. (Loud laughter.) What this
house has been about I do not exactly know; I believe
there has been a considerable transfer of officers from D to
E ; and the growth of that most respectable company of
salaried gentlemen must have been viewed with delight by
all who take an interest in the body. (Laughter.) But the
test by comparison of the wealth of the country Must be
taken principally from schedules A, B, and D. The profits
derived from lands and tenements, and other property, are
included in schedules A and B. Schedule D includes the
profits derived from trades and professions. I will take the
period from 1842, when we commenced our great career of
commercial legislation, to the year 1852, when we closed it
—I hope to be renewed—under the pressure of war. I will
also take tho period from 1857-58, because it is the last
year in which the returns are made up ; and I will carry it
on, assuming the same rate'of increase to have continued to
1859-60. Now the net amount shown by the three schedules
of the income tax is as follows 1842, £154,000,000 ;
in 1853, £172,000,000; in 1857-1, £191,000,000; and in
1859-60, £200,000,000. The increase in the wealth of the
country between the first period and the second was 12 per
cent. in 11 years ; the increase between 1853 and 1860 was
161 per cent. in six years. That undoubtedly shows a very
large increase in the wealth of the country, and I think it
will be interesting to the committee to know in what pro-
portions that increase has been distributed between the
classes represented by three of the schedules to which I
have referred; for I must say that the statement is one
which throws a very considerable light upon the condition
of the landed interest, and more especially upon that of
our old friend, Mr. Farmer. (A laugh.) I shall take the
period from 1853-4 to 1857-B—a period of Leur years ; and
I find that during those fouryears the income under the
head of schedule D, which embraces the profits on trades,
and professions, grew from £64,974,003 to £70,700,000, or
at the rate of 9 per cent. ; while that under the head of
schedule A, which represents real and immovable pro-
perty, grew from £96,129,000 to £106,972,000, or at
the rate of 11 per cent.; schedule B—which repre-
sents the profits of the farmer, but having, also, no small
reference to the rent of the landlord—having grown from
£14123,000 to £13,436,000, or at the rate of 19 per cent.
(Hear, hear) That being the case, I rejoice to think that
we now live in times when any hon. gentleman may, if he
thinks fit, attend an agricultural dinner and congratulate
his hearers upon the prosperity of their condition without
fearing to insult them. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) I
must at the same time observe, lest I should appear to be
representing the condition of this particular class in colours
too sanguine, that during the period which elapsed between
1512 and 1853 the case was fat different with it, inasmuch
as schedule B exhibited during that time, unfortunately, no
increase whatsoever. (Hear.) A change has, however,
since taken place, and I am happy to say it is a change
which must be satisfactory to the community at large.
(Hear.) Having thus spoken of the increase of wealth in
the country, the committee will, perhaps, permit me very
briefly to compare it with the rate of increase in our expen-
diture. I shall in the first instance compare it with the
total expenditure—that is to say, with the whole State as
well as the whole local expenditure, as far as the latter can
boe
xefttaehsne ascertained
committee.
which
ehidt
inte;ea. I calculations, fk oers t wna t
naelocal expenditure of the country is
likewise beginning to form a very considerable item in our
financial
first
pp o sa i
et
ei o,
seriousnsttoa state
growo
attention
atto ayn
yde, llinwothr shows
a fitehy disposition
thel
right hon,
gn.ofoa enough t
riendtheSeco obtain for
retaryforthe
me
certain
HomeDreep:irurtnmseinnt
has
connection
cee withorfa t
tet
ih;
ei s
Statewl oeclal expenditurewtahsenin,
ltBo l:pfw.
3r
ohxvciGecssehs:,62,ao2ro3te entirely1:010e0000g. :aln
trustworthy, although I do not mean to contend that they are
telhixteperealnoldclYaitluearxpenditure iu the three kingdoms £13,221,00) ;
making a total, in round numbers,
1853.4 the total State expenditure was £55,769,000, or
very nearly the same amount as in 1812.3, and tho local
expenditure £15,819,000 ; making together, in round
numbers, 71 millions and a half, instead of the 6
millions and a Jug which was the amount in 181.2i0-dfrolrnn
the year 1859.60 the gross State extpoeild7iotuJr2es,goroeo7 ffictillet
honour-
ables locals ' 7rexpenditure,v9aol
rivalry—(a
(awhich a
un
laugh)—increased
thd:ovit sbi
ntein
eactuatedalsBesd3in b
the
ea
samespirit
pef
riod
e
£15,819,000, which it was in 1853, to £17,458,000—the total
expenditure for the year 1859-60 having been £87,697 000,
that is to say, that in the 11 years from 1842-3 to 1853-4
the
havem expenditureentione
dofinthereecaosuned tarty uthnedreartethoef
4two headsere
ent whi
ch
I wwhhilhe
in the six years which have elapsed between 1853 and 1859
it became much more mercurial, and increased at the rate

of 22t per cent. But in order to bring home to the corn -
rallies the real importance of the question which is raised
pot so much by the gross amount of the Imperial expendi •
ture as by that portion of it which is under the control of
Parliament, and for which Parliament is responsible, let me
take the increase which has occurred during the same period
in tho expenditure which has been voted by this House, or
which is, for certain miscellaneous purposes, charged on the
Consolidated Fund. The two items which come under this
head I shall call optional expenditure, and I may briefly
state that they amounted in 1842-3 to £21,487,000, in 1853-
54 to £23,361,000; the increase in this expenditure which,
as I before said, is under the control of Parliament, and•
whose amount is in the main determined by public opinion,
having.thus in 11 years amounted to a sum of £1,874,000,
or at the rate of 81 per cent., while from 1853 to 1859, a
period of six years, it increased to £36,898,000, or at the
rate of 58 per cent. on the entire national expenditure.
Now, therefore, you have at your command a tolerably com-
plete comparison between the growth of the wealth of the
country and the increase in its expenditure. Between the
years 1842 and 1853 the increase in her wealth was at the
rate of 12, and that in her expenditure at the rate of 84,
per cent. ; while between 1853 and 1859 the national
wealth grew at the rate of 166, the national expenditure at
the rate of 58 per cent. (Hear, hear.) I have troubled the
committee with these particulars, because I deemed it right
to invite their attention to what is a subject of vital impor-
tance. (Hear.) The country may be right in the course
which she is now taking, but, at all events, that course
ought not to be pursued blindfolded. We ought, on the
contrary, to have a clear knowledge of the proportion which
our wealth bears to our expenditure, in order that we may
be able to take a comprehensive view of our financial posi-
tion, and die policy which we ought to adopt. (Hear, hear.)
Let me now recall to the recollection of the committee the
fact that our fiscal situation—to borrow a phrase from our
neighbours at the other side of the Channel—as it stands
is, that there is a deficit of £9,400,000, the best means of
providing for which it becomes our duty to consider, and
we ought not, in my opinion, to face a question of such
magnitude as that without having duly weighed the prin-
ciples upon which we are to proceed, and the policy on which
we mean to act. Now, as I have already indicated to you
a summary Budget which might have the effect of filling
up the hiatus which I have mentioned, I have also sha-
dowed out to you another and a more generous Budget,
which, providing you with an Income-tax of Is. in the
pound, would achieve the same object, and would enable
you to relieve the consumers of tea and sugar to a certain
extent, as well as a more niggardly Budget, which would
keep up the duties on tea and sugar, and would still leave
the country liable to an Income-tax of 9d. in the pound.
With what views, then, and upon what principles are we
to face this state-of circumstances ? I may at once tell you
frankly that I am not satisfied with the rate of expendi-
ture. (Cheers.) I trust, therefore, that we mean in a
great degree to retrace our steps. (Hear, hear.) The pro-
cess of retracing our steps in such a matter, however, is one
which must necessarily be gradual ; for, if it be not pur-
_sued with circumspection and with caution, it will serve
but to aggravate the very evils which it was intended to
remove. (Hear, hear.) I assume, therefore, whether the
committee concurs with the Government in the expe-
diency of the Estimates which they have submitted or are
about to submit to the house or not, that you can effect
no radical change in the scale of that expenditure on
which you have now for a series of years embarked—no
radical change, I mean, applicable to the operations of the
present year, or to the provision you will have to make for
filling up the gap which yawns before you, and which is
represented by the figures £9,400,000. The real question
with which we have to deal is whether we ought upon this
occasion to say our necessities are great, our means too
narrow to enable us to effect any commercial reforms. Such
reforms are all very well, it may be contended, for fine
weather, but they do not suit a period of pressure and
alarm. That is, I know, a favourite doctrine with some
classes, but against the justice of that doctrine I, for one,
protest. (Cheers.) And upon the part of the Government
• Ido not hesitate to say that, in an epoch so marked and
signal in our financial history as the year 1860, it is their
opinion that it is the duty of Parliament to take some steps
in advance in that career of commercial improvement
which, perhaps more than any other cause, has contributed
to confirm the prosperity of the country and to the security
of its institutions, under the auspices of the Sovereign under
whose rule it is our happiness to live. (Cheers.) There are
in the present year special reasons why we should pursue
such a policy as that to which I refer. Are we to be told
that when a sum of £2,000,000 and upwards, which we
have hitherto been obliged to pay on the national debt,
comes into our possession, it only remains for us to cast it
into that great gulf of expenditure, there to be swallowed
up and to disappear ? (Hear, hear.) That sum is a
mighty engine for the purposes of relief, while for the pur-
poses of expenditure it is comparatively unimportant.
(Hear, hear.) Applied to the purposes of relief, you may
by its means shed a thousand blessings over the land;
thrown into the scale of your expenditure it represents,
after all, but the difference between the £13,000,000 which
you have already added to that expenditure and the
£11,000,000 which you might have added. Take, upon the
other hand, the question of the relief which it is in your
power to afford in dealing with the duties upon sugar
and upon tea, and, I may observe, in discussing that part
of the question you must pay regard to the claims of the
people as well as the claims of trade, on which the prospe-
rity of all classes mainly depends. (Hear, hear.) You have
at this particular season a considerable remission of taxa-
tion by the lapse of annuities. There is another special rea-
son. It is my intention before sitting down to propose to
the committee that they shall apply in aid of the expendi-
ture a sum of not less than £1,100,000, which is no part of
the proposed taxation of the year, but obtained by render-
ing available another portion of the malt credit and the cre-
dit usually given on hops. That will be a salutary measure;
but undoubtedly I think it marks in a particular degree the
obligation under which we lie at this time to make the
means, if we have not got the means, of carrying forward
the great work of public improvement. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
I am not satisfied to place this duty on narrow grounds of
whatever kind. It is not simply because annuities are fall-
ing in—it is not that you have considerable funds to be
drawn from this source or that; you must look at it from
another point of view, you must take it for granted that for
the present you have attained to what may be called a high
level of public expenditure, and that you are likely to re-
main on that high level for some time at least. Is that a
reason, or is it not, why you should stop the process of re-
forming the commercial legislation of the country P I say
that is no reason for stopping (hear, hear)—l say more, it is
a distinct reason for persevering in that process and carry-
ing it to its completion. (Hear, hear.) If we were, in the
year 1860, to hold our hands, let us consider what aspect our
procedure would wear. In 1860, when the people have paid
war duties on tea and sugar for three years in the hope of
something being Joke for them, in 1860 we stopped—we at-
tempted not in the slightest degree to carry forward the
work of commercial relaxation and improvement. If, after
that period of years, on a review of a juncture like the pre-
sent, when a particular fund of this nature is placed in our
hands, we stop in 1860, will it not be supposed that
you stop for ever. (Hear, hear.) And if this be not
the opportunity for endeavouring to give increased
effect to the beneficial principles of your legislation, I, for
one, must frankly own I know not when such an oppor-
tunity will arise. (Hear, hear.) This, sir, is shortly the
truth of the case. Our high taxation is not a reason for
stopping short in our commercial reforms ; it is a reason
why we should persevere in them. (Hear, hear.) It is
by means of these reforms that we are enabled to bear high
taxation. What, I ask, has the country done during the
last six months ? Paying an income-tax, which during the
half-year was at the rate of Is. ld. in the pound. Would
that have been done had it not been for the felt belief that
we should go on with our commercial reforms ? (Hear.)
I am speaking generally. Certainly I myself had about
two weeks ago a letter addressed to me, complaining of the
monstrous Injustice and iniquity of the income-tax, and
proposing that, in consideration thereof, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should be publicly hanged. (A laugh) I
don't mean to say there has not been a murmur ; but upon
the whole, speaking with the necessary latitude that must
attach to general expressions, I am justified in saying that
this high rate of taxation has been borne throughout the
country with a most extraordinary, laudable, and honour-
able forbearance. (Hear.) It was Lord Londonderry who
complained of the people of England as exhibiting an " ig-
norant impatience of taxation ;" but I think, were he to
rise from the dead and again take his place in this house,
he would be very much more likely to complain of an igno-
rant patience of taxation. (A. laugh.) I wish, sir, to
show the connexion there is between commercial reforms,
as affecting trade and industry, and the power to pay the
high taxes you have imposed. These two subjects are
inseparably locked the one to the other. You shall have
the demonstration in figures. I again ask you for a mo-
ment lo attend with me to the experience of two periods.
I take 10 years from the crisis of the Reform Bill down
to 1841, during which our commercial legislation was
upon the whole stationary ; and I take the 12 years from
1842 to 1853, within the circuit of which are
comprehended the beneficial changes that Parliament
has made. In the 10 years from 1832 to 1841 this was the
state of things :—You imposed of Customs and Excise
duties, £2,067,000, and you remitted £3,385,000, exhibiting
a balance remitted over and above what you imposed of
.0,317,C00, or at the rate of £131,000 a year. Now, observe
the effect on the state of the revenue. During these 16 years
the Customs and Excise increased by £1,707,000, or at the
rate of £170,000 a year; while the increase of the export
trade was £15,156,000, or at the annual rate of £1,515,000.
Let us now take the 12 years from 1842 to 1853. You re-
mitted during that period of Customs and Excise
£13,238,000, and imposed £1,029,000, presenting a balance
remitted of L 12,209,000, or an annual average of £1,017,000.
What was the effect on the revenue ? The Customs and
I?xcise increased £2,656,000, or at au annual rate of £221,000
When you remitted practically nothing, your Customs rc-
venue, in consequence of the increase of the population,
grew at the rate of £170,000 per annum ; and when you re-
mitted £1,017,000 a year, your Customs and Excise revenue
grew faster than when you remitted nothing at all, or next
to nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) I ask, is not this a conclu-
sive proof that it is the relaxation and reform of your com-
mercial system which has given to the country both the di's-
position to pay taxes and the power to pay taxes i 1 The foreign

• trade of of the country at the same period, instead of growing •
at the rate of £1,515,000 a year, grew at the rats of
£1,304,000. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say it is the duty of
the Government, both on account of the special circum-
stances of the juncture, and likewise, and still more, on the
broad ground of general and comprehensive principle, at
this time to make considerable remissions; and if that be so,
the next question is on what principle you should make
them. Of course, the subject of the tea and sugar duties
would naturally occur to the mind of ovary one as having a
claim, at any rate, to the first consideration. lam bound,
however, to say that these are not the subjects on which it
has appeared to the Government that they might operate
with the greatest advantage. No doubt the duties on
tea and sugar are taxes most desirable to be re-
pealed. They are harmless and beneficial articles—
articles of universal consumption, and I trust the
time may arrive, and arrive at no distant date, when we
may be able to recur to our former standard in regard to
these taxes. But, on the other hand, there never was a
time when the people wore so well able to pay these taxes
as now. The increase in the consumption of these articles
is regular, and the revenue is a growing revenue. If we
are to have a very large scale of expenditure and a very
high income-tax, I cannot think, while the bulk of the
burden should fall on the shoulders of those having pro-
perty, that it is desirable the labouring classes should boar
no share of the burden. But, sir, I stand more especially
on this—the duties on tea and sugar, whatever else they
may be, are simply revenue duties. They entail no com-
plexity in their system of Customs law; above all, they en-
tail none of the evils that belong to differential duties ; and
I will by and bye invite you to join the Government in
enacting measures whereby you will be able to counteract
and root out eviis of that kind, as well as give relief in the
price of commodities. But Ido not hesitate to say that it
is a mistake to suppose that the best mode of giving benefit
to the labouring classes is simply to operate on the articles
consumed by them. If you want to do them the maximum
of good, you should rather operate on the articles which
give them the maximum of employment. (Hoar, hear.)
What has made the great change in their position of late
years ? Not that you have legislated here and there taking
off ld. or 2d. in the pound of something consumed by the '
labouring classes. That is not what has bettered their con-
dition as it has been bettered during the last 10 or 16 years.
It is that you have set free their trade—(hear, hear)—it is
that you have put in motion the process to give them the'
widest field and highest remuneration for their labour.
(Hear, hoar.) Take the great change iu the corn laws ;
it may be doubted whether you have given them cheaper
bread—it may be a trifle cheaper than before—that
change, however, is comparatively immaterial; but 'you
have created a regular and steady trade of something
like £15,000,000 a-year ;by that trade you have
created a corresponding demand for the commodities of
which they are the producers, their labour being an essen-
tial element in their production, and it is the price their
labour thus brings, not the price of cheapened commodities
that forms the main benefit they receive. That is the
principle of a sound political economy applicable to com-
mercial legislation, and that is the principle on which we
will invite you to proceed. I may say therefore, in passing,
in regard to the tea and sugar duties, we shall ask Parlia-
ment to renew them—not to renew them for any lengthened
period, but only for ono year, with the further addition of
three months till July, 1861, because the Ist of April is an
inconvenient period for Parliament to eonsider the question.
Sir J. PAK INGTON—You propose to leave the duties
as they are ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Oh, I
mean to take the duties precisely as they now stand—that
is, ls. sd. per lb. on tea, and the duties on sugar, which are
classified, but which may be represented on the whole as
being about 3s. the cwt. above the minimum point at which
they stood fixed in 1853. Having stated to the committee
the conviction of the Government that we ought to have
remissions, and large remissions—that we ought to have
remissions by which we may most effectually act upon the
trade and commerce of the country, and upon the demand
for the labour of the people—l come now to the question of
the Commercial Treaty with France, and I will confidently
recommend the adoption of that Treaty to the house, as
fulfilling and satisfying all the conditions of the most bene-
ficial change in your commercial legislation. But perhaps,
sir, as the committee has not yet had an opportunity of
reading the Treaty, it may be convenient that I should state
to them very briefly its principal contents. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) First, I will take the engagements of France.
France engages to reduce the duty on English coal and coke
from the Ist of July, 1860 ;ou bar and pig-iron and steel
from the Ist of October, 1860 ; on tools and machinery from
the Ist of December, 1860 ; and on yarns and goods in
flax and hemp, including, I believe jute, in which a great
and very just interest is felt in semo important dis-
tricts—from the Ist of June, 1861. That is the first im-
portant covenant into which France enters. Her second
and great engagement is postponed to the Ist of October,
1861, it being, I think, in the knowledge of the committee
that that is done under a pledge by the Government of
Franco to the classes who suppose themselves to be inte-
rested in the maintenance of prohibition. On the let of
October, 1861, France engages to reduce the duties and to
take away the prohibitions on all the articles of British pro-
duction mentioned in a certain list, in such a way that no
duty upon any of those articles shall exceed 30 per cent, ad
valorem. Ido not speak of provisions, which do not mate-
rially enter into the Treaty; but those articles, Sir, include
all the staples of British manufacture, whether of yarns,
flax, hemp, hair; wool, silk, or cotton—all manufactures of
skins, leather, bark, wood, iron and all other metals, glass,
stoneware, earthenware, and porcelain. I will not go
through the whole list, but I am not aware of any great or
material article that is omitted. France also engages to
commute these ad valorem duties into rated duties by a
separate convention; but if there should be a disagreement
as to the terms on which they should be rated under the
convention, the very maximum chargeable on every class
will be 30 per cent. Then the duties will be levied at the
proper period upon the value, which will be determined by
the process now in use in the English Customs. That is
to say, the importer will declare the value, and it will be in
the option of the Custom-house authorities in France to
appropriate the article upon paying the price which he has
declared, with a percentage added. (Cheers.) And I must
say that I hold it to be a signal proof of earnestness and
liberality on the part of the French Government that it has
introduced an administrative regulation into its code for
the purpose of disarming suspicions and insuring the effica-
cious execution of the Treaty. (Hear, hear.) There is a
further provision, Sir, that the maximum of 30 per cent.
shall after a period not exceeding three years be reduced
to a maximum of 25 per cent. And I may be permitted to
remind the committee that this rule of 30 per cent., to
which France is nominally about to pass from a sys-
tem of prohibition, is the very rule which was
adopted nominally by the British Parliament when Mr.
Huskisson was our Minister for Trade, and we first set
about making important commercial changes. But there is,
I am bound to say, this difference between the two eases—
that the rule was accompanied in England with such modes
of operation that duties far exceeding 30 per cent, were in
a multitude of instances kept alive ; whereas, as far as the
terms of this instrument go, France has, I think, given us a
security that 30 per cent, will really be the maximum,
and that, from the nature of things, in a great multitude of
instances the duties will be much below that rate even on
manufactured goods. (Hear, hoar.) I come next to the
I English covenants. England engages, with a limited period
of exception, to be exercised with respect only to two er
three articles, to abolish immediately and totally all duties
upon all manufactured goods. There will be a sweep, clean,
entire, and absolute, of manufactured goods from the face
of the British tariff. She engages to reduce the duty on
brandy from 15s. a gallon to the level of the colonial duty
viz. Bs. 2d. She engages te reduce immediately the duty
on foreign wine. In the Treaty it is of course French wine
which is specified ; but it will be perfectly understood that
we proceed with regard to the commodities of all countries
alike. England engages, then, to reduce the duty on wine
from nearly ss. 10d. to 3s. per gallon. She engages fur-
ther to reduce that duty from the let of April, 1861, to a
scale which has reference te the strength of the wine as
measured by the quantity of spirits it contains. That scale
is as follows :—On all wines in bottle, whatever the strength,
and on all wines having 26 degrees and upwards of proof
Ppirits, 2s. per gallon ; on wine havine. 15 and under 26
degrees of proof; Is. 6d. per gallon; and on wine with lass
than 15 degrees, Is. per gallon. A power is reserved to us
of increasing our duty on wine in case we should increase
our Excise on spirits. And if, upon due fiscal considera-
tions, we should find it necessary on that account to increase
our duty on wines, we also engage to charge on any French
articles which are subject to Excise in England a duty cor-
responding with the Excise duty, together with extra and
fur ther charges to which the English producer may be put
in consequence of the regulations of our Inland Revenue,
Department. These, Sir, are the chief covenants on the part
of England. Both parties reserve to themselves power to
place Customs' duties anew on any foreign articles whatso-
ever, provided they place the same duties on the like articles
of domestic production. They likewise agree to treat
each other en the same terms as the most favoured nations.
All the articles of the Treaty are to continue in operation
f r a period of ten years, with a provision as to giving notice
of any desire for their revision. These, then, am the prin-
cipal stipulations of the Treaty with France, which may
have been seen by hon. members in one form or another,
but which have not collectively, or upon authority, as yet
met the public eye. I will not affect to be unaware that
many objections have been stated to this Treaty. It has
even been said that its terms indicate a subserviency to
France, and involve a sacrifice of British interests to those
of foreign nations or of a foreign Government. Sir, I am
thankful to think that no Ministry, be its merits or bo the
distinction of its chief what they may, can in this country
hold office for a single session upon terms of subserviency
to any Power whatever. (Cheers.) There is here a per-
fect security in the nature and in the traditions of the two
Houses of Parliament. But, sir, I know not what is meant
I.y eubee •viency to France as regards the articles of a Treaty
like this. We have given Franco nothing by this Treaty,
if I except some very trifling fiscal sacrifice which we are to
make with respect to the single article of brandy. I mean
that it might not be necessary to reduce tip duty to quite
so low a point as we take, and therefore there might be a
question whether some infinitesimal advantage may not bo
surrendered in that form. But, with that small and soli-
tary exception, we have given nothing to France by this
Treaty which we have not given with as liberal a hand to
ourselves. (Cheers.) And the changes hero proposed aro
changes every sne of which deserves the acceptance of this
house on its own merits, in conformity with all the prin-
ciples that have been recognised and acted upon for many
veers past. Sir, as to the charge of subserviency to France
I know that this Treaty may be said to bear a political cha-
racter. The commercial relations of England with France
have always borne a political character. What is the history
of the system of prohibitions on the ono side and on the
other which grew up between this country and France ? It
was simply this—that find ingyourselves in political estrange-
r', en t from her at the time of the Revolution, you followed
and confirmed that estrangement both on the one side and
the other by a system of prohibitory duties. And Ido not
deny that it was effectual for its end .I don't mean
for its economical end. Economically it may possibly have
been ruinous to both countries. But for its political end it I
S effectual. And because it was effectual call upon you
to legislate now by the reverse of that process. And if yolk
desire to knit together in amity those two great nations
whose conflicts have often shaken the world, undo for your
purpose that which your fathers did for their purpose, and

pursue with equal consistency an end that is more bens •
ficial. (Cheers.) Sir, there was once a time when close
relations et amity were established between the Govern-
ments of England and France. It was in the reign of the
later Stuarts; and it marks a dark spot in our annals, be-
cause it was an union formed in a spirit of domineering
ambition on the one side, and of base and vile subserviency
on the other. But that, sir, was not an union of the na-
tions; it was an union of tie Governments. This is not
to be an union of the Governments ,• it is to be an union of
the nations—(cheers)—and I confidently say again, as I
have already ventured to say in this House, that there
never can be any union between the nations of England
and France except an union beneficial to the world, because
directly either the one or the other begins to harbour
schemes of selfish aggrandisement—(Opposition cheers)—
that moment the jealousy of its neighbour will powerfully
react, and the very fact of their being in harmony will of
itself be the most conclusive proof that neither of them can
meditate anything which is dangerous to Europe. (Hear,
hear.) There is another class of objections of which Ido
not complain, but which I hope to remove. There are
those who say that a commercial treaty is an abandonment
of the principles of Free Trade. Well, certainly a com-
mercial treaty would be an abandonment of the principles
of Free Trade, in the latitude in which we now employ
that phrase, if it involved the recognition of exclusive pri-
vileges. In this sense I admit that Mr. Pitt's commercial
treaty would, if we had now adopted it in the terms in
which it was expressed, have been on our part an aban-
donment of Free Trade ; but, at the same time, I can-
not mention that treaty without saying that I think it was
for the time at which it was made one of the best and one
of the wisest measures ever adopted by Parliament, and has
contributed at least as much as any other passage of his
brilliant career to the fame of the great statesman who
concluded it. (Hear, hear.) We, however, have no ex-
clusive engagements we have not the pretence of an ex-
clusive engagement. France is perfectly aware that our
legislation makes no distinction between one nation and
another, and that what we enact for her we shall at the
same time enact far all the world. lam surprised at the
number and variety of these objections which come rushing
from all quarters. It is like the ancient explanation of the
physical cause of a storm--all the winds, north, east, west,
and south, rushing together :
" Una Eurnsque Notusque ruant creberque procellis
" Africus."
Sometimes a treaty is an obsolete and antiquated idea ;
sometimes it is a dangerous innovation ; and at others it is
an abandonment of free trade. There are also another class
of men, and those are gentlemen with whom we shall have
much difficulty in dealing. These are they who find fault
with it—and that I must say is by far the soundest objection
—because it is an abandonment of the principle of Protec-
tion. (Hear, hear.) This treaty is an abandonment of the
principle of Protection. lam not aware of any entangling
engagement which it contains ; it certainly contains no ex-
clusive privilege, but it is an abandonment of the principle
of Protection, and a means of sweeping from the statute-
book the chief relics of that miscalled system which still re-
main upon it. The fact is, and you will presently sex that it
is so, that our old friend Protection, who used formerly to
dwell in the palaces of the land, and who was !dislodged
some ten or fifteen years ago, has, since that period, found
very comfortable shelter and good living in holes and cor-
ners—(a laugh)—and you are now invited, if you will have
the goodness to concur in the operation, to see whether
you cannot likewise eject him from those holes and
corners. I told you that we are to remove the duty from
all manufaotured goods, and there is hardly one of that
class of duties which is not, in point of fact, the representa-
tive of a strictly protective duty; nay, more—and mark my
words—in many cases of a prohibitory duty. Perhaps the
case will be best explained by my stating to the
committee what will be the financial results of
the treaty as it stands. I will not enter into any small
details, and will take three branches of reduction only
. —the reduction of duty upon wine, the reduction of
that upon brandy, and the abolition of the duties upon
manufactured goods. The reduction of the duty upon wine
from ss. 10d. to 3s. per gallon will afford to the consumer a
relief of £830,000, and will entail upon the revenue, after
' allowing for an increase of consumption to the extent of 35
per cent, a loss of £515,000. The reduction of the duty on
brandy from los. to Ss. 2d. a gallon will give to the consu-
mer a relief of £446,000, and, assuming that the consump-
tion will be raised to the point at which it stood in 1850,
just before the disease of the vine commenced, it will cause
1 a loss of £225,000 to the revenue. There are three small
articles the abolition of the duties on which we propose to
postpone for a single year, in the meantime reducing it by
one-half. One of them its the article cork, which has been
the subject of a great deal of debate in this House. I must
i say that altogether there never was a stronger apparent
case made out for Pretection, and although, in consequence
of the measures which were adopted, there has been a con-
siderable shock to the trade, and a considerable change of
its nature and of the course which it takes, the House has
nothing to repent. On the contrary, the total consumption
ol
corkfB6
affectingO , fo ri s thetmw
la-
bour, to which it is not desirable to give a sudden shock.
These are the glove trade and the trade in straw plaiting.
In the meantime the duties will be reduced, and next year
much
orceohdt largerother
cetrreduction
trades,
nowdofes,
tothhnea
tndhuei
tt
yswi
simple
lebeoe
rgf,
kor,roeu
nat
nhdde
tdohufat
tyt
thwi
ieeasy
are trades carried on almost entirely by diffused es
reduced. On account of the importance
.of the present
change, however, we propose to give until the Ist of April,
rural la-
' they will be taken off. The amount of duty on manufac-
tured goods, which will be abolished, amounts to no less
than £432,000. The principal articles are silk manufao-
tures-1270,000 ; gloves, subject:to a short delay, £48,000 ;
artificial flowers, £20,000 ; watches, £15,003 ; certain oils,
£10,000; musical instruments, £9,000; leather, £9,000 ;
china, £8,000; glass, £7,001. There are also a great num-
ber of minor articles of industry produced largely abroad,
especially in France. The total relief to the consumer, that
is the amount of duty remitted, under the French treaty,
will be £1,737,000 ; the loss to the revenue for the first year
will be £1,190,000. Now, Sir, the objections which are
taken to this treaty in the interests of free-trade will not,
I am quite sure, be very long alive ; but there is one ob-
jection which turns upon another point with which I
must endeavour to deal. It is that which tells us that
the duties we are about to repeal are, forsooth, revenue
duties, and duties which are levied upon luxuries, and
do not affect the poor man. Compassion for the poor
man is a very fine thing, and I should be very sorry to say
anything that appeared to depreciate or undervalue so sacred
a sentiment, but I must say that it is entirely out of place
here. There is not one of these duties that is a revenue
duty—no, not ono of them. How they work with respect
to poor men, how they work with respect to those not rich
men, we will presently inquire. But if these are revenue
duties it is very curious to see who are the people who are
alarmed at the treaty. Are the manufacturers of British
brandy the guardians of the British revenue ? Are the im-
porters of Cape wines the guardians of the British revenue ?
Have the manufactures of British wines a peculiar interest
in the wellbeing of the exchequer ? The manufacturers of
Spitalfields and those of Coventry, who have an incom-
parable organ in my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice), are
most excellent citizens, and no doubt contribute their share
to the revenue, bat my right hon. friend won't tell me that
their great activity in rushing up to London aid making
representations upon this sub7ect has arisen from their in-
terest in the British revenue. It has arisen from something
very different. They don't come into my room and tell me
that they are there as the guardians of the British revenue,
they tell a much more simple and a much more intelligible
tale. They say this—that the duties which now stand upon
your tariff are, and it is perfectly true, levied upon articles
consumed by the rich. But why ars they not levied upon
articles consumed by the middle, the lower middle class and
the poor ? Because they won't let them in ; because they
are prohibitory against those articles. (Hear.) That is the
solution of the whole case. Our manufacturers give over to
France the highest qualities under cover of duties which
are as good for them as prohibitions, and reserve for them-
selves the making of the lower qualities, and the power of
exacting from the British consumer a higher price than
they will be able to get if this treaty is confirmed by Parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) I took the liberty of saying to one of
the deputations, '• It seems to me this is much the case of
the corn law over again." Don't let there be any mistake.
What is wanted is, a higher price than that at which you
can get goods from France. That is the Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end of it. I said, "Is not this the
case of the corn law ?" "Oh I dear, no ; not the least like
thecorn law." In fact, there is generally, on the part of the
most respectable classes, a desire for the protection of their
own business. They show that though they are without
exception adherents of free trade they are not adherents
of free trade without exception. (A laugh.) Let
us now consider the circumstances which render it
necessary to make a special arrangement. I entreat the
committee to look at the present state of the trade between
England and France; it is not a little instructive. Con-
sider in the first place, the relative positions of England and
France. It is perfectly true that France is a foreign coun-
try, but she is a foreign country absolutely separated
from you by a narrower channel than that which divides
you from Ireland ; and while nature, or providence rather,
es
has placed you in tho closest proximity, it has given to
these two great countries such diversities of soil, climate,
products,
imate'
products, and character, that I do not believe you can find,
on the face of the world, two other countries which are so
constituted for carrying on a beneficial and extended com-
merce. Cheers.) I believe, indeed, that the prohibitory
system subsisting between England and France is no less
unnatural as to every commercial—l think I may add as to
every moral and political—result
formerly thanryneirflyyousewpaerraetteodrEerinvge.
those prohibitory systems which
Eng-
land from Scotland, and Great Britain from Ireland. (Hear.)
I shall be teld, perhaps, that our system is not prohibitory
and certainly in respect of many articles it is not, for we
have considerable importations from France; but when I
remember how much we still prohibit, I have no hesitation
in saying that, although our system is far bettor than that
of France, yet, on the other hand, it is far indeed from being
what it ought to be. (Hear, hear.) Lot us look at the
question on the French side. The doctrine is that we should
attend to our own interests, and leave France to manage
hers. What, then, is the state,of trade as regards France ?
In 1858 the total value of exports from England to France
—not British exports, but exports of whatever origin—was
£14,821,000. Of that amount the home consumption in
France was £10,465,000. A portion 'of the articles are
unenumerated, and I cannot get at the details, but I have
obtained the particulars of articles to the value of £9,819,000,
about 19-20ths of the whole. Observe how they are dis-
tributed. Of the goods sent to France in 1858, amounting
to £9,819,000, raw materials, upon which no labour whatever
was passed, and the great bulk of which were not of British
origin, but morelY passed through our warehouses, were
£8,700,000, and half-manufactured articles, £160,000. The
total amount of manufactures which we send abroad every
year is about £130,000.000; but in 1858 our experts
of manufactured goods to France were only £688,000. It
is worth while to go a stop further in the analysis. Of that
£68,000, £208,000 wore for Cashmere shawls, which merely
came here in transit, and £217,000 for machinery, which
our friends over the water were pleased to admit under
some notion of special advantage. The value of all the other
manufactured articles was £263,000. (Hear, hear.) I want
to know whether that is a state of things so satisfactory that
when we have an opportunity of amending it we should
refuse to do so. I understand the statement of the moderate
Free-trader who says that half a leaf is better than no bread,
that all treakine• down of restrictions is good, and that it is
wiser to break awn our own restrictions and leave those of
our neighbour if we cannot touch them than to perpetuate
both. That is true and reasonable; but I cannot under-
stand those immoderate and unmanageable Freetraders who
eome from other quarters, who, I must say, know little of
what they talk about, and who say it is a positive evil to
induce our neighbours to break down their restrictions.
Tisey do not see what they condemn is a doubling of the
benefit. They think there is a chivalry in free trade, which
is degraded if it bteomes a matter of bargain, whereas it
appears to nie that bargain is really at the root of the whole
thing. The only reason why we have not made bargains
similar to the present in former years was simply because
we could not make them. It was not for want of trying.
For four or five years such was the chief business of several
departments of the State, and yet no progress could be made.
Why P Because they set out upon a false principle—the
principle that the concessions which each party made to the
other were not a benefit but an injury to itself. (Hear, hear.)
We have not proceeded upon that principle. We never pre
tended to Frances that we were going to inflict injury upon
ourselves. We have offered Frame our beet aid in breaking

• down her own vicious prohibitory system. In doing so, we
mWhat
hhy
aahtuawvneeo
htgaiavvt
eet
endmoa
npget r
isoa
gtmeo roe bda
se_un
nre
efia
yti
tt,
doo
onl: rboai
nn;c
ge
ost
oihddae n;
got
oro
otodhu ref
os eor
tl
ivuee
our-
selves selves if France had donenothing at all, doubly good because
France has done a great deal. (Cheers.) One word upon
our exports to Franco at a former period. About 20 years
ago there was a trade in:English manufactured goods with
France. It was in linen and linen yarns. In 1842 we
greatly reduced our duties, not by treaty, but independent of
France. How did that country reply to us ? France was
under a very friendly Government at the time, but how did
she meet the immense benefit we had made in favour of her
commerce ? She met it by smiting this single branch of
trade in British manufactures with prohibitory duties. She
raised her duties upon linen yarn, which before 1842 had
been from 9to 12 per cent., to from 13 to 27 per cent. Her
duties upon linen cloths, which before 1842 had been from
15 to 23 per cent., were increased to from 20 to 36 per cent.
The result may be anticipated. In 1841 we sent to ?ranee
linen and linen yarns to the amount 0f4000,1*7, tribe:NM
ii 1858 we sent only £151,483. Such is the stated tmeis
between England and France, and I confess lam not so
well satisfied with it as not to think that it admits of some
improvement. As an hon. friend whom I see opposite said .
the other day with respect to our wine duties, so I say of
our trade with France, it is not in the best " possible" state,
but, on the contrary, might be amended with advantage.
(Hear, hear.) I have promised, however, to show what the
real meaning of the doctrine is, that we are here dealing
with revenue duties. Take the article of brandy. I pre-
sume nobody will pretend that a duty of 15s. upon French
brandy, compared with a duty of Bs. on British spirits, is a
revenue duty. There is an article manufactured in this
country which some of us may have been happy or un-
happy enough to taste. It is called British brandy. (A
laugh.) In consequence of the immense price to which
French brandy is raised by our duty, which has the effect
not only of raising the price of the best French brandies,
but of excluding entirely everything but the best French
brandies, our middling and indifferent British brandy comes
into the place which is left empty for it by means of our pro-
hibitory duties. As far as brandy is concerned, therefore,
we are not dealing with revenue duties. Can we regard the
duties upon silk and wine as revenue duties ? The mystery
of the wine duty is a very deep one. Here especially we are
met by the cry that wine is the rich man's luxury. It is
the rich man's luxury, but I shall show presently that
those who* are not rich are making desperate struggles to
get at it—(a laugh)—and that, too, with some limited and
qualified success. But wine, forsooth, is the rich man's
luxury. Is tea the rich man's luxury ? No. It is the poor
man's, and, above all, the poor woman's luxury. But 1 speak
in the year 1860. In 1760 tea was the rich man's luxury. In
1760 there was no more tea consumed per head of the popu-
lation than there is wine now. In 1760 there were
4,000,0001 b. tea consumed ; now the annual consumption is
76,000,0001 b. The price of tea which is now sold at 3s. per
lb. was then advertised by the chief houses at £1 per lb.
(Hear.) Wine is the rich man's luxury, and you may make
tea, or sugar, or any other article of consumption the rich
man's luxury if you put on duty enough, by which you will
not only effectually bar the access of the poor man to it, but
reserve to yourselves the proud satisfaction of saying " Our
taxes aro paid by the rich ; none are levied upon articles
consumed by the poor." (than) Let us consider now the
nraetceesosfadryutoy. Wine,peration upon an article like wine of a uniform
I suppose, more than almost anything
else that is produced from the earth by the labour of man
varies in quality and price. It is not too much to say that
the price of wine runs from 1 up to 100. Upon all qualities
we lay the same rate of duty. What is the effect ? That
we tax even the highest wines somewhat heavily ; the next
to the highest we tax very heavily indeed, and all except
those limited classes we totally
and absolutely prohibit.
Let me give one illustration from a simpler case than that
of wine, which very clearly explains how this matter stands,
and dispose, once for all, of the notion that we are dealing
with revenue duties, laid upon the luxuries of a class, and
not upon articles wanted for the consumption of the poor.
It is the very simple case of gloves, which was stated to me
by a most intelligent and respectable deputation, who, as
became them, made no secret at all about the matter. Our
duty upon gloves is 3s. Bd. a dozen. We imported in 1859
about 300,000 dozen. The value of the gloves we import in
about 245. a dozen wholesale ; the retail price ranges from
30s. to 365. Our duty is something like lo per cent., which
seems very moderate, and enables those who are so dis-
posed to say, "Ah I we do not discourage the importation
, of French gloves; we merely lay upon them a duty of 15
per cent. for the sake of revenue." How does this work ?
It works in this way, that it causes the French to furnish
us with the finer qualities of gloves, while they leave to us
the supply of the poorer qualities. Abolish the duty, and
you will find that a quantity of gloves would be imported
from France, Naples, Germany, and Belgium. They will
r not be gloves at 245. a dozen, but gloves at 18s., 155., 10s.,
, and 6s, a dozen. The lesser-priced gloves cannot pay
the duty, for the duty, when applied to gloves of 100.
a dozen, is 37 per cent., and when applied to gloves of
6s. per dozen is 58 per cent. ; and those gentlemen,
whose words I heard with implicit belief. told me die•
tinctly that if this duty were removed a large quantity
of gloves would be imported here at 10s. and 12s. the
dozen. Therefore the duty is not a revenue duty, but
it is a;protection duty on the higher qualities as regardethe
bulk of the trade, and as regards the bulk of the British
consumers it is a duty not of protection but of prohibition.
So it is with the wine duties. Is that doubted ? Let us ow
, how the wine duties operate as a system of protection. We
have heard of Cape wine, and if we visit places much fre-
quented by the lower and middling classes we see advertise..
incite representing large tune surrounded by jovial peoples
with the words Cape Port and African Sherry written on
them. In all probability that is not Cape port or African
sherry. Those who import African sherry know how to
make a better use of it. There is a system of promotion
and preferment. (Laughter.) The African wines are need
for mixing with foreign European wines, and to employ
language familiar to my right hon. friend the Secretary for
War, vice the African wine promoted some new composts Fit
brought forward and delivered to a discerning public, with
what result it is not for me to say. (Laughter.) The African
wine has a differential duty in its favour of nearly 3s. •
fgraolmlo nw;ine,and ibfetsheee roe h erese
wb
ttohifeseg rl t ehaattcaanrxe theifeotry to
gr eo v e n
alongu
with us reforming the wine duties ; for they will see that
the decrease in the receipt duty from year to year would,
apart from any treaty with France, but from fiscal 001;
siderations, compel them in the course of a few yam' 51
reform the wine duties. I take for each period ofar.
during the last nine years the consumption of foreign Wine
and Cape wine in the United Kingdom. The average °'
foreign wine consumed in the three years, 1851-3, wal
was 6,225,000 gallons. (Hear, hear.) During the same
period the average consumption of colonial wine Wl°
254,000 gallons. In the period of 1854-56 the average eon"
sumption of foreign wine was 6,393,000 gallons, being an
increase of 168,000 gallons over the previous period. This
increase took place when the disease of the vine was
at its worst ; and I mention this particularly be'
cause, as this represents the consumption of foreign wins
during the disease, it shows that the increase which
has taken place in the consumption of Cape wine cannot be
owing to the disease in the European grape. When that
disease was at its worst the consumption of foreign win*
increased, as I have already stated, by 168,000 gallons;
the average consumption of Cape wine during the same
period-1854-56—rose from 254,000 gallons to 298,000
gallons. Daring the last term of years-1857-59—the
also of the vine was very much mitigated, but the average
consumption of foreign wine showed a decrease of 500,000
gallons as compared with the consumption of 1854-1856.
The average consumption of foreign wine in 1858-59 wadi
5,893,000 gallons, while the consumption of the colonial
wines had increased by 357,000 gallons, the average con-
sumption in that period being 655,000 gallons. The cola•
nial wine is, in fact, rapidly displacing the foreign. The
present duty is purely a protecting and differential dutry,
and is hostile to the revenue of the country. But there le
another element affecting the wins revenue, and that is
the manufacture of what is called British wine. While the
consumption of foreign wine has fallen from an average of
6,225,000 gallons to 5,893,000 gallons there has been an in•
crease in the manufacture of British wine, British wino...*
I mean that in the hands of small respectable manuface
turers, and am not referring to what is sold for fraudulent
purposes—is made very much with raisins, sugar, and
brandy. The duty paid on these materials is reckoned as
amounting to Is. 2d. a gallon. Therefore you have a duty
on foreign wine of ss. 10d. a gallon—on colonial wine of
2s, lid. the gallon, and on B.itish wine of Is. 2d. the gallon.
The result is that the consumption of foreign wine dimie
nishes, the consumption of colonial wine has increased, and
, the consumption of British wine has trebled within the last
, 10 years. This has all the tr essential characteristics of •
ade carried on under the influence
of differential duties. I
therefore say that the present wine duty is a protective and
differential duty with respect to the three classes which
enter into our consumption, namely, foreign, colonial, and
British wines, they all paying different rates of duty to the
revenue. (Hear, hoar.) Out of the enormous quantity. of
foreign wine manufactured abroad no doubt it is true that
only a small fraction would become available for this coun•
try. The great bulk ie a wine which an Englishman would
not take in exchange for his beer; bat it is also true that
between that common and coarse wine and the fine wined
there are 10,000 intermediate shades, and there is an ime
manse capacity for producing wines fitted for the English
market and for the taste of the middle and lower middle
classes in this country, which capacity is at present en•
tirely stifled by the operation of the wine duty. There fa
a notion that there is something fixed and unchanging is
an. Englishman's taste with respect to wine. You find a
great number of people in this country who believe, like
an article of Christian faith, that an Englishman is not
born to drink French wines. (Laughter.) Do what yon
will, they say; argue with him as you will; reduce
your duties as you will ; endeavour even to pour the
French wine down his throat, but still he will reject it. (A.
laugh.) Well, these are most worthy portions of the
community; but they form their judgment from the narrow
circle of their own experience, and won't condescend to look
beyond that circle for any consideration whatever. What
they maintain is absolutely the reverse of the truth, for
nothing. is more certain than the taste of English people at
ono time for French wine. (Hear, hear.) In earlier periods
of our history French wine was the great article of cone
sumption hero. (Cheers.) Taste is a mutable thing. If
you go back to what an eminent living poet has called " the
spacious times of great Elizabeth," you will find that
the most delicate lady in the land did not scruple then
to breakfast off beefsteaks and ale. Down to the
Revolution French wine was very largely consumed
here. I have seen it stated, and have no reason to doubt
the assertion, that in 1687 there were imported into this
country 3,800,000 gallons of French wine, or about two.
thirds of the whole quantity of foreign wine which we now
consume. How was this consumption checked and die.
couraged ? By the influence of prohibitive duties. The
prohibitive system grew up by degrees, and by degrees the
English people were positively beaten and sterved eut of
their taste for French wine. But for 100 years after that
the taste itself remained, for when Mr. Pitt made the
treaty of 1786 what was the result ? According to the
interesting paper written by Lord Chelsea, in the year
preceding 1786 the import of French wine into England
was under 100,000 gallons. In the six years from 1787
to 1792 the import grow to 683,000 gallons. Then with
the war two or three years afterwards a nearly prohibitive,
at all events a high differential, duty was imposed, and the
average import fell to 161,000 gallons. At that average ib
rem ained till 1824, when the differential duty, instead of
4s. 5d., became 2s. sd.' and the consumption rose to 372,000
gallons. I must admit that when the duties were equalised
in 1830 the consumption of French vine did not increase.
It seemed as if by that time, after the pressure of
heavy duties for a century and a half, the taste fir
it was nearly forgotten, and it became the luxury of a very'
limited class in the community. But it is remarkable that,
in conjunction with the very changes of taste which have
been proceeding of late years, we may likewise perceive in
the operation of the present wine duties proofs of a grewisi
taste for French wine ; for whereas from 1825 to 1830 we
only consumed 379,000 gallons a year, and after 1830 thAl
consumption was reduced to something like 310,000 or
315,000 gallons. on the average of tho last ten years _
have consumed 584,000 gallons, so that the importation 05
French wino is absolutely increasing, and the pereentso
of the total consumption is rapidly increasing. Taste, 1 gori
is mutable. It is idle to talk of the taste 'for port anua
sherry and the highly brandied wines as fixed ttil •