The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-08 00:00:00

the. Hon. Geztleman to whom he alluded, in which he
proposed this free trade which he now opposed. He
would advise those gentlemen to endeavour to lead their
constituencies to Sink that the corn-laws should not
last, instead of making them believe that Ministers would
adhere to this or to that policy, that they may profess to
pursue for party purposes. They told them of the na-
tional debt, but they never told them that they were
the persons who had all the benefit of contracting that
debt. The debt was contracted in the time of war, when the
articles necessary for war purposes were high, and now
they wanted to continue those high prices. The profits
went into the pockets of the landed proprietors, and Mr.
D. Hume told them, that when a man was said to be in
the possession of an estate worth 50,0001., he was also sup-
posed to possess 50,000/. consols ; but instead of that
they lived up to their incomes, mortgaged their proper-
ties, and now they must try measures to keep up the
prices of corn, the same as they were in the time of war.
it was most ridiculous for landed proprietors to come
into that house and say that they ought to be exempted
from taxation. They paid no rents at all • they received
their lands subject to those burthens, and they ought to
pay them. They had the corn-laws, and were sheltered
by Court patronage and place. They had all the pick-
ings of the Court, and had the whole patronage of the
Ministers. Their acres not only produced corn, but also
pensions and sinecures.— (Cheers and laughter.) Acres
were a great security, a sort of certificate by which
they obtained places and pensions ; he would ask them
if they thought that the time was not approaching when
the mercantile portion of the community would not ask
to be placed in the same position as that in which they
were. He would call on them no longer to interrupt the
public business by claims which could not be supported ;
he saw no grounds on this occasion for resisting the pro-
posal of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that the Corn-law
League had been unsuccessful for some years, and
now they were trying what they could do by
taking up the Church and the Court. Wishing
them success—("Hear," and laughter)—their " Hear,
hear," commenced too soon. Wishing them success
equal to their past success, he would observe, that al-
theugh tho Hon. Gentleman was a prophet, he could
not declare himself the prophet of a fulfi.led prediction.
He said that the agricultural portion of the community
were displeased with their Members, but he had merely
made an allusion to an article which appeared in the
newspapers. Let him show them how these constituen-
cies were inclining to the principles of the Corn-law-
League.—(Hear, hear.) He came down to the House
for the purpose of opposing the proposition, and it would
seem that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman did not
induce him to alter his intention. He recommended that
the proceeds of certain taxes should defray the expenses
of the Bill, not one expense of which he could account
for. These were the same principles as those brought
before the House by the Member for Somersetshire. He
did not think when a proposition had once been brought
before the House, and had been decided upon by a
large majority, that it was forwarding the public busi-
ness again to bring it before the House. Was the question
of local taxation to be discussed or not? If it were not
to be fully discussed, then he should say that it was in-
terrupting the business of this House, and keeping the
country in suspense, but if they only entered upon its
discussion without going through it, then he should say
that they would prejudice the question in the opinion of
the country, and it would not be doing justice to its
merits. He should decline to support the proposition of
his Hon. Friend. He had listened very attentively to
the lion. Member in the hope of hearing him urge some
argument in support of his proposition, but he had lis-
tened in vain, for he had heard none. But even sup-
posing that he (Mr. O'Brien) did acquiesce in this
proposition, the Hon. Member had not stated by what
means he intended to carry it out; so that, in fact, even
if it were affirmed by the House, all they would get by
it was a mere proposition for a general scramble.— (Hear,
hear.) He saw thellionourable Member for Montrose
laughing ; but he (Mr. O'Brien) knew very well that
that Hon. Member would not allow this proposition to
be carried out without making a very hard scramble.
Therefore, even if the House should give the Hon.
Member all that he asked, not the least use would be
the result of the proposition ; and for these reasons he
(Mr. O'Brien) felt compelled to vote against his propo-
sition.—(Hear, hear.) He did think the Hon. Member
was rather unwise in persevering in his proposition, and
he would get but few to vote with him ; but even if he
did get a few more than he expected, the result would
only prejudice his case. For these reasons he (Mr.
O'Brien) would give the proposition his most hearty op-
position.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. T. BARING did not think that the remission
of this tax would at all result in the beneficial effects
anticipated by the Government. Recently he, and
others at this side of the House, agreed, from the
financial difficulties of the country, to the imposi-
tion of a tax, but which they, at the same time,
could not but feel was a harsh, unequal, and
heavy-tax.—(Hear, hear.) But then the result of this
was the creation of a surplus, which was alleged as a
reason for the remission of the present tax ; and now the
House was called on to say that this was a fit and proper
mode of applying this surplus. If the Howe agreed to
this resolution, to take off this tax, it would be impossi-
ble to remove other and more oppressive ones.—(Hear,
hear.) People out of doors expressed their surprise at
this proceeding, and asked, " What the Government
meant by throwing away 250,0001. by the reduction of
the auction duties ?"—(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor cf
the Exchequer spoke of the inconvenience of the tax ;
but he (Mr. Baring) was surprised that that Right Hon.
Gentleman had not made out a better case against it than
he had ; and, indeed, he knew no tax against which a
good speech could not very easily be made.—(Laughter.)
But in the present case he should say that before this
proposition was made, inquiry should have been insti-
tuted in order to ascertain if there was no other
tax the removal of which would tend to confer
more general benefit to the public at large
than this —(Hear, hear.) He would ask why not
propose a reduction of the duty upon butter or
tallow, or many other articles of general consump-
tion amongst the poorer classes ?—(Hear, hear)—Hon.
Members cheered but he would ask them would they do
it ?—(Hear, hear.) He would vote against the remis-
sion of this tax, in order that he might afterwards have
an opportunity of voting in favour of the remission of
others, the removal of which would be more beneficial
to the country, while the remission of that now under
discussion might have been left for a future day.—
(Hear.) If a tax was to be imposed and that it was
deemed to be just, the best proof of its justice would be
the fact that there were no exemptions ; but on the
other hand the great proof of the hardships of some
taxes imposed was the number of cases of exemption.—
(Hear.) Now he would ask was the tax proposed to be
removed one that had been falling off ? He could
show that it had not, for he had before
him documents by which it appeared that
in the year 1831 this tax amounted to 233,000/., while
the average amount for the last three years was
294,0001., which proved it to be a gradually increasing
tax.—(Hear.) He would wish very much that the
Committee would consider whether there was no
other tax, the remission of which would not do more ge-
neral good. He had no doubt that if the question were
referred to twelve honest men they would very easily
find such a tax ; for instance there was the duty upon
soap.—(dear.) Li fact there was no article so much
used amongst the poor as soap—there was uo article so
necessary to their comfort, but the duty upon it was so
high that frauds were continually practiced in its menu-
facture.—(Hear.) Surely, then, the poor would be
more benefited by the removal of this duty than that
cri auctions. lie had before him a report from several
counties in England, by which it appeared that two-
thirds of the income of the labouring classes
was spent in the article of soap; and how much
of that sum went into the pockets a the Government in
the shape of duty?—(Hear, hear.) The duty upon soap
was about 141. 14s. per ton, or at the rate of thirty per
cent. profit to the revenue.—(Hear.) Now the auction
duties did not in any way affect manufactures or trades-
men, while the duty upon soap had a very serious effect
in keeping up the price of very many other articles of
general consumption. There were many other taxes of
a nature equally oppressive which he could mention, and
each of which it would be much more useful to remove
than this duty on • auctions.—(Hear, hear.) The con-
sumption of soap was equal to about 71b. per head of
the entire population, while that of sugar was about
151bs , even in the worst times ; and surely, then, would
it not. be a great public benefit to let the poorer classes
have these articles at the lowest possible price. Indeed he
could quote a very high authority to bear him out in his
assertion with regard to soap. In the year 1837, when
it was proposed to reduce the duty on newspapers. and
thereby remove a tax on knowledge, the present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer made a most argumentative
speech in favour of the remission of the duty on soap,
and showed how much the poor would benefit by it.—
(Cheers.) On the whole, he (Mr. Baring) did think,
and he believed the country would agree with him, that
a much better use could be very easily made of 250,000/.
than by applying it to the remission of the auction duty;
and he would give the proposition his negative.
Sir. J. GRAHAM said he rose for the purpose of re-
plying to the observations of his Hon. Friend opposite,
relative to certain measures which had originated with
him. One measure which he had proposed would ulti-
mately, he was convinced, cause a material saving to the
ratepayers. There was another and most important
measure which he had proposed. He alluded to the
proposed alteration of the law of settlement. This was
not the time to discuss that measure; but he would say
that it would tend very materially to the improvement
of the labouring classes. But if that measure should be
found not to be conducive-to that end, and if those who
had had experience in these matters should not be pre-
Fared to give it their assent, he certainly would not press
it. It was a matter quite open to discussion. It was a
question of the greatest importance, and ought not to be
treated in the least as a party question. He was quite
prepared to enter into the discussion of the -measure
but he would not advise the Government pertinaciously
to adhere to it. His Noble Friend the Member for Dor-
setshire intended to call the attention of the House to
the subject of lunatic asylums ; but, on this account the
Government could not be called upon to postpone the
consideration of the subject now under discussion, seeing
that the measure of his Noble Friend was not yet
matured. His lion. Friend had commented upon an
observation which he (Sir J. Graham) had made with
respect to the county-rate. What he (Sir J. Graham)
had said was that with greater care and greater supervi-
sion a very material saving might be effected. With re-
ference to the remission of the cotton duty his lion.
Friend had committed an error which he (Sir
James Graham) had heard others fall into—namely,
that of endeavouring to show the extent of relief to the
labourer of the country, whether manufacturing or com-
mercial, by the mere amount of the duty remitted as
affecting the article either worn or used by the la-
bourer. Now, that was not the argument. The argu-
ment was, that the remission of the duty on the raw
material would so operate upon the demand for that
article and the cost of the manufacture, as to materially
verease the general prosperity of the manufacture

itself, and incidentally a hundred fold to improve the
position of the working classes, by increasing the de-
mand for their labour. He might be permitted to state
some of the principal objections to this tax. If he
mistook not, the amount of property annually
charged under this tax was 45,000,0001., while
the actual amount submitted to bear any share
of the impost, was only 8,000,000/. annually,
or not more than 20 per cent. on the whole. The cost
of the collection of this duty amounted to as much as
50,0001, or about 20 per cent. of the whole duty. It
appeared to him that the greatest objection to this tax
was that it was a tax upon property, and upon the sub-
ject of its remission he would read the opinion of Sir
Henry Parnell, and Mr. Wickham the present Com-
missioner of Stamps and Taxes. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then read from a published report upon the
subject, in which the total abolition of the tax was advo-
cated. The first tax recommended by Sir Henry Parnell
to be remitted was that now under consideration. A
similar motion to that which had been made by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Somersetshire was made in the
year 1836, by the Noble Lord then the Member for
Buckinghamshire (the Marquis of Chandos), and on
that occasion he (Sir James Graham) held the same
opinion which he had that evening expressed with
respect to the tax now under discussion. He resisted
the motion of the Marquis of Chandos on precisely the
same grounds as those upon which he now resisted the
motion of his Hon. Friend ; and he should now have the
greatest pleasure in supporting the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. DARBY was understood to support the motion
of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, but the observa-
tions which he made were delivered in such a very low
tone of voice as to be quite inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME said the question they had that evening
to decide was, whether they should repeal the auction-
duty, or whether they should apply the surplus revenue
to the reduction of the county-rates. He would ask
whether there was any tax which pressed more un-
equally than the auction-duty ? Was there any more
expensive of collection, more difficult to collect, or one
that could be more easily evaded ? He would defy any
one to point out a more objectionable tax. The great
advantage by the remission of the duty was, that they
would thereby get rid of one branch of the excise. They
had already got rid of two branches and only two re-
mained—that with respect to soap and bricks. He
hoped that these would be done away with next year.
A late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Monteagle,
had proposed a reduction in the duty on glass, but al-
though the reduction took place, the establishment at
the Excise had to be kept up and the public in conse-
quence derived no benefit from the reduction. If the
whole of ,the duty had been taken off, as was now the
case, the people would have been largely benefited. He
would vote with great pleasure for the motion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. M. GORE would support the motion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be •
cause he thought there was no tax which pressed so
mischievously on the public as the auction duty. That
was not only his own opinion, but it was the opinion of
Dr. Adam Smith and Mr. Ricardo. And not only was the
principle supported by great writers, but it was sup-
ported by many of the ablest statesmen that this coun-
try ever produced. It was supported by the late Lord
Lansdowne who was such an able supporter of the
principles of free-trade, by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Huskisson,
Lord Liverpool, and the late Mr. Horner, whose name
ought never to be pronounced in that House but withre-
spect. He also thought that great advantage would arise
from an equalisation of the cost of auctioneers' licences.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to him that the
Hon. Member for Montrose had mistaken the objeet of
the vote to which they were about to come. His Hon.
Friend thought he was about to give a vote with regard
to county-rates, but there was nothing in the question
which regarded county-rates, even if the Committee did
not agree to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question,
as he understood it, was this:—There were various re-
missions of duty proposed; the House agreed to the re-
mission of the cotton duties, to the excise duty on glass,
and various remissions of the Customs' duties, and now
there was a proposition made for the remission of the
auction duty. which, according to the statement of the
Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury,
would reduce the surplus to about 90,000/. Now, if that
were the case, it was quite evident, as stated by his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. Baring), that there could be no remission
of other duties during the present session, if the Com-
mittee agreed to the proposition in the hands of the
Chairman.—(Hear, hear.) The question then was,
whether the Government proposed the very best re-
mission of duty, or whether there might not be any-
thing else more worthy the consideration of the House.
The House showed no want of assent to the propo-
sition of the Government, because the great mass of
the House had already agreed to it. But he owned a
proposition had been made to which be would wish
to give his assent on another occasion. He meant the
proposition made by his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Dumfries, to take off the duty on butter and cheese.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought that a reduction of the
duty on butter would be a most advisable reduction, and
he did not think that butter being fit for human food,
would be a fatal or decided objection against it.—
(Laughter.) With regard to the duty on cheese like-
wise, it might be remitted with great advantage. He un-
derstood that his Hon Friend proposed a reduction of 50
per cent. on that article. The amount of duty on
those two articles was about 260,0001., and they might,
therefore, reckon a loss of not less than 120,0001 to the
revenue, if the proposition of his Hon. Friend was car-
ried. Bat if the proposition of the Government were
carried he would hardly feel justified in voting for such
a reduction with only a surplus of 90,000/. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of
Trade said that the state of the revenue was the only
reason against the reduction of those duties. He said
the duties were excessive and absurd—at least he said
they were not reasonable and could not be defended.—
(Hear, hear.) When, therefore, the revenue was able
to afford a reduction on those duties, they might calcu-
late upon the concurrence of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and his (Lord J. Russell's) wish was, that the revenue
might be in such a state as to enable the Right Hon.
Gentleman to vote for such a reduction. After
the surplus was reduced by the amount of the
auction duty the surplus remaining would be
too small to allow of any further reduction,
and he confessed, for one, though it might be
an unpopular doctrine in that House, that he would
rather see a greater surplus of revenue than the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite proposed to leave, especially now
that they had that disagreeable tax—the property and
income-tax. He admitted that the surplus of 90,000/.
might be sufficient if the state of the country prospered,
supposing the trade advanced—(Hear, hear) —but, in
adverse circumstances, he would like to have more of a
margin than the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to leave ;
therefore, if the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed a re-
duction of the soap duty he (Lord J. Russell) could not
vote for the reduction, because he would hardly like to
reduce the surplus more than it was already reduced.
If, then, the present motion was carried, he owned he
could not give his vote for the proposition of his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Dumfries, or support any further
reduction of taxation during the present session. He
had thus stated the grounds upon which he would
give his vote, though he did not suppose they
would be agreeable tote Hon. Member for Dorset,
whose views were so very different from his (Lord John
Russell's.) He would not say a word with respect to the
auction duty ; but even if the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire succeeded in his proposition, he did not think he
would make much by it, as he thought the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would be much more likely to keep the
amount of the auction duty than apply it in the manner
in which the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire would wish
to have it applied.—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL said he agreed in some of the proeo-
sitions of the Noble Lord. lie agreed with him in thinking
that not a word was to be said in favour of the auction
duty.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord resisted the repeal
' of it, but he had the candour to admit, that not a word
was to be said in favour of it.—(Laughter.) He hoped
that Hon. Gentlemen would bear that in mind when they
were going to give their votes, because the Nob:e Lord
who was so high an authority, admitted that not a word
could be said in favour of it. The Noble Lord also said
that 90,0001. was too small a surplus, and when the
(louse affirmed the present proposition of the Govern.
ment with respect to the auction duty, be would
most cordially concur with the Noble Lord in the
opinion that it would be quite impossible to
agree to any other reduction.—(Loud laughter.)
He rejoiced to hear the Noble Lord had taken up that
position, because he could count on his cordial support.
—(A lie rejoiced that he could cordially unite
with the Noble Lord in resisting any other propositions
for the reduction of taxation which might come before
them. He hoped that gentlemen ou his (Sir Robert
Peel's) side of the House would recollect what were the
objects of the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) His Hon. Friend
(Mr. Bankes) might see that he would get nothing by
his motion, for if his Hon. Friend succeeded in prevent-
ing a reduction of the auction duty, he (Sir R. Peel)
would certainly be disposed to agree with the Noble
Lord, thinking it better to keep the 395,0001. auction
duty in the Exchequer. His Hon. Friend, therefore,
would not be likely to derive that advantage
from his proposal which he supposed. He advised
those who were interested in the protection of other
duties to recollect if the Noble Lord succeeded in resist-
ing the repeal of the auction duty that he proclaimed he
would then vote fur a reduction of the duty on butter
and cheese.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Now he would
beg of the House to consider what the auction tax was.
It was a tax decidedly in favour of persons possessed of
large property who wished to sell it, as compared with
the poorer class.—(Hear, hear.) In point of fact the
auction tax, as far as large populations were concerned,
was a device for enabling the rich man to ascertain the
real
gotittlre: 8,000
fhisecoo
property.—(Hear, hear.) They only
were sold, and yet theythoad an ugh4ims,mooeon,soeoOesL of pp
—(Hear, hear.) What was the course pursued ? A
person who had an estate worth 100,0001. and wishing
to dispose of it, put it up for sale by auc-
tion, but did not sell it He thus as-
certained what was the full value of the,
estate, after competition, not a peen
of
the tax was
paid, though ho had all the advantage!: f
h
the Excise establishment for the purpose oftia:celratwainainngd
the value of his estate ; but the man whose
was sold through distress had no such advantage.--
vaPnmtarY
(fkar, hear.) And when they considered the number
exceptions to the tax, and to the principle upon which it
was made, he would say that not only a word could not
be spoken in favour of it, but a volume might be written
against it. His Right Hon. Friend had stated the case
of an incumbered proprietor of a property, worth
100,0001., which was exposed to auction. The incum-
brances were 90,000/.—the demand for payment was
pressing—the estate was sold by auction. 100,000/. was
raised from the sale; the vendor had to give 10,0001- to pay
off the incumbrances; he received the remaining 10,0001.
out of which he was to pay 3,000/. to the Excise.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, take the case of a person having a