The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-18 00:00:00

scruple. He did not think that such a thing wee ever in the
contemplation of those by whom the Act was passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in

the case to which the Right Hon. Gentleman referred, the
individual accused had given evidence of a conversation which
had taken place between him and two other persons. Two of
those persons had been found guilty on their own confessions
of the offences with which they were charged ; and another
was found guilty on evidence independent of the party in ques-
tion. There was great anxiety to cast some reflection on the
evidence of this party, but the Government believed he gave
evidence worthy of credit. The subject was then referred to
the law officers of the Crown, who gave their opinion that it
was doubtful whether proceedings for perjury could be taken
under the clause refe red to, without the consent of the Com-
missioners. The law officers thought the point was ono which
they ought not to waive in proceedings of this description' and
they called on the Court to quash the proceedings which had
taken place. The Court did not accede to that, but on grounds
independent of the merits of the case, so that the question
was now before them.

Mr. RICARDO called the attention of the House to a pe-
tition
which had been presented from the City of London, on
the subject of the duty on foreign coffee. The Government
would not conclude a treaty with the Brazils, because they
would not take slave-grown sugar, but they were ready to take
coffee, which was equally grown by slaves.—(Cheers. )
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. EWART then proceeded to bring forward his motion-,
of which he had given notice, that the duty on foreign coffee
and foreign cocoa be reduced to the same rate as the duty on
colonial coffee and cocoa. His proposition was, to make the
duty on foreign coffee fourpence, the same as that on the colo-
nial article, instead of sixpence per pound. He confessed his
proposition was a blow aimed at the system of differential
duties—a system which he considered most unsound, and which
a gentleman connected with the Board of Trade, Mr. Porter,
had condemned in the strongest terms, prophecying that, in a
short time, in so extensive an article of consumption as coffee,
they must adopt the only sound system which was a system of
uniform duties. It might be said that, his (Mr. Ewart's) pro-
position would lessen the revenue, but experience had
shown that, by the ;eduction of the duty on this article,
the consumption had ~so increased, that the revenue had
also greatly increased. In 1601 the consumption was only
one ounce to each individual in the country, and at the present
time it amounted to seventeen ounces per head. Besides, by
these differential duties, it must be recollected, though the con-
sumer paid a higher price, the Exchequer was not benefited.
The Hon. Gentleman, after entering into some statistical de-
tails in support of his proposition, moved the insertion of the
words "fourpence" instead of " sixpence" in the clause ; and
with respect to cocoa, the consumption of which he showed
had equally increased by a reduction of duty, he moved that
it be reduced to one penny per pound.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the speech of the Hon. Gentleman would seem to be directed
against a person proposing a new differential duty, whereas he
thought that he ought to obtain the praise of the Hon. Gen-
tleman from his taking steps in the direction of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's own motion. With respect to the differential duties,
lie considered that the inhabitants of the colonies, as British
subjects, had the same right of protection against foreign com-
modities, as was given to British subjects at home on articles of
consumption which would operate against them. The Hon.
Gentleman had dwelt much on the increased consumption. In
1801 coffee was a beverage scarcely known out of the higher
orders of society, and it was a luxury even among them. The
effect of reducing the duty had been to extend the consump-
tion of this article from a limited class to the whole community.
The Hon. Gentleman, and those who supported him, were de-
ceived if they imagined, now that coffee was an article of gene-
ral consumption, that a reduction of the duty would be at-
tended with similar effects to that which took place at the
period to which he had referred.—(Tleai, hear.) He would
not repeat the arguments which he had already brought for-
ward in favour of a differential duty. He thought. however,
that no one who was not prepared altogether to abandon the
system of differential duties could consistently oppose the Go-
vernment proposal ; while it must be admitted by those who
were, that a great benefit was offered to the community.

After a few words from Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. P. HOWARD said the colonies ought not to be re-
garded by the representatives of the people as alien from this
country. It should be recollected that the leading men in a
colony sacrificed many objects of ambition ; and if some com-
mercial advantages were not offered to them they could not be
expected to remain contented. The House should never forget
the declaration of its great opponent, Napoleon, that the colo-
nies were the wings which enabled this country to soar to
greatness. Believing that the amendment would not, if passed,
eventually benefit either this country or the colonies, he
should certainly give his vote against it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Ewart's amendment 2B
Against it .. 39
Majority against the amendment —ll '
Mr. M. GIBSON complained that the amount of protection
extended to particular interests appeared to be measured by
their power and influence in that House. Cocoa, which was
a very weak interest, was left with one penny protection ;
coffee, which was a stronger interest, received twopence ; sugar
had a much stronger protection ; that tremendous giant, corn,
was not dealt with at all. He knew the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would indignantly repudiate the idea of being influenced
by any such considerations, but he thought some explanation
of the grounds of the differential duties was necessary to enable
the House to understand the subject.—( Hear. )
Mr. GLADSTONE said they had heard of late years of
machines for calculating, but he was not aware of any machine
for calcula, ing the grounds of differential duties.—( Hear.) It
might certainly have occurred to the Hon. Gentleman that the
relative value of the different articles would form a ground of
differential duty.
Mr. BRIGHT said that whatever rule might be adopted on
these matters he was convinced of this, that that of substrac-
, tion from the public and addition; to private cloves was the
ruling one.—( Hear. )
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the stronger the party the
greater was the indisposition to deal with it.
Dr. BOWRING thought the argument of those who wanted
to obtain reductions for the consumer had not been answered.
The great interest they ought to look to was the consuming
interest.—The item was then agreed to.
On the next item. with respect to the duty on currants,
Mr. HUMPHREY said he thought the duty on currants
ought to be fourteen, instead of fifteen shillings, in order to
avoid the fraction of a pound.
Mr. HUME said the duty on currants ought to be made as
low as possible. He was sure that, by doing so, the consump-
tion of the article would be greatly increased.
After a few observations from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, the
item was agreed to, as were several other items.
Upon the item raising the duty on plums preserved in sugar
to sixpence per pound,
Mr. HUSIPHICRY and Mr.: Hawes contended against
such an extravagant impost.
Mr WARBURTON, while they were on the subject of
fruits, wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Kent. He had, some years ago, sat upon a
Committee with that Right Hen. Baronet, to consider a pe-
tition of the fruit-growers of Kent, praying for an increase in
the duty on apples. The Committee had reported against an
increase of the duty. In the following year the Right Hon.
Baronet became a member of the Cabinet ; the new tariff was
proposed, and the duty on apples was increased from 5 per cent.
ad valorem, to 6d. a bushel. ISow it was rather too bad, in a
new tariff, which was brought forward with the avowed object
of lowering the duties, to find that on such an article as apples
the duty had been raised ?
Sir R. PEEL thought these discussions offered no great
temptation to a Minister to reduce duties. The worthy Alder-
man, encouraged by his success in supporting the, turbot and
lobster interest—( Laughter)—had now taken up with the pud-
ding interest. With regard to the duty OR apples, it had been
generally understood that, in order to induce the House of
Lords to pass the Bill reducing the duty on fruits, Lord Mel-
bourne had consented to re-consider the question of apples,
with a view of affording apples additional protection ; and, in
accordance with that understanding, the duty had been raised.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman that when his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Kent accepted office, he had
made ne stipulation in regard to apples.
Mr. F. BARING said that Lord Melbourne Ind engaged
that the subject should be re-considered, and he considered
that that pledge had been fully redeemed by the appointment
of the Committee of which the Hon. Member for Kendal
had been a member.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, the subject had been fully dis-
cussed in 1842, and considered it was useless to revive that
discussion.
Mr. WARBURTON considered that his statement re.
mained untouched. The Committee had reported against any
increase in the duty, and in defiance of that recommendation,
the duty proposed by the Right Hon. Member-for Kent, which
had been rejected by the Committee, had been imposed.
Sir EDWARD KNATCH BULL had certainly misunder-
stood what had fallen from Lord Melbourne on the occasion
alluded to. He, as well as several others, had understood the
Noble Lord to say, that there should be an increase in the duty
on apples.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that the article of apples was not the
only article of the produce of the county of Kent which had
been carefully protected in the tariff. Canary seed, which was
almost exclusively produced in the county of Kent was also
protected by a high duty.—( Cries of .‘ Question, Question I")
Sir R. PEEL said there was another article, the produce of
the county of Kent—the article of hops. The reduction of
the duty en foreign hops was five times as great as the increase
of the duty on apples or canary seed.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY wished to draw their atten-
tion back to plums.—( A. laugh.) They were about to increase
the duty from 11. is. 6d. per cent. to 21. 15s. per cent. He
wished to know the reason of this increase?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that it was merely a question of the construction put upon the
law by the Treasury authorities. Plums were subjected to a
low duty—fruits preserved in sugar were subjected to a higher
rate. Recently plums had been imported preserved in sugar.
The Treasury considered they were liable to the higher rate of
duty ; and it was to give effect to that opinion, that the pre.
sent proposal had been made. They were, in fact, in the
same category as confectionary.
Mr. HUME said that confectionary imported from foreign
countries was subject to a duty of 6d per lb., but if it were
imported front the colonies the duty was only Id. per lb.
Now, would plums imported from British possessions be ad-
mitted at a duty of Id. a lb. ?
Mr. GLADSTONE said plums would not be admitted at a
duty of Id. from the British colonies, but they did not consti-
tute an article of colonial export. •
Mr. COLLETT would move as an amendment that the duty
be continued as at present.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY would divide against the
clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place.
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. GLADSTONE then rose, and said he had great satis-
faction proposing to the House the total extinction of the im-
post on the raw material of one of the most ancient of our
manufactures—the duty on the importation of foreign wool.
The facts of the case had been so often stated to the House,
that he did not think it would be proper, at that late hour, to
trespass long on their attention. He would, however, observe
that the present amount of revenue derived from this impost
was insignificant, when compared with the advantages which its
abolition would confer on our manufactures. Ile would not
argue that the measure he was about to propose would inflict
no loss upon agriculture, nor would he for a moment admit that
agriculturists were called upon"to Make any sacrifice to the
general interests. The' round he took was, that the abolition
of this duty would be a decided benefit, and advantageous to
the community at large.—( Hear, hear.) He did not say that
the measure would not, in some degree, affect various classes
of wool-growers, but the stimulus of competition would, he
thought, rather increase the price of the raw material. With
regard to the wool of Australia, he did not say but it would
have a depressing effect on it, but it would be trifling and inap-
preciable in amount if compared with the amount of benefit
which those engaged in manufactures or agriculture would re-
ceive. Now, as be said before, he would not trespass on the
House at any length, by adverting to the general principles,
on which the measure was fOunded, but would state a few facts
upon which the House might form, a tolerably correct judg-
ment. Previous to the year 1819, there existed a moderate
duty on the importation of foreign: wool, lower than that which
at present existed. The duty then was l Is.' per cwt. It was
altered in 1824 to 6d. per lb. A higher duty was subse-
quently imposed. Now, what he 'wanted to show was, that dur-
ing three years in which the duty was the highest on foreign
wool the prices were lowest-for bone-grown wool. The ex-
ports of British manufactures werc, as might be expected