The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-14 00:00:00

was anxious to do before the holidays ; but if the House
was desirous that he should not do so—(Cries of Go
on ! go on !")- It would be in the remembrance of the
House that he, as Chairman of that Election Committee,
had moved that the issuing of thswrit be suspended for
three weeks, in order to give time for the evidence to be
printed. That time would expire on Monday next, and he
thought it right to inform the House that it was not his
intention to move the further suspension of the issuing,
of the writ. He thought it right to make this state-
ment in order that Honourable Members might
have an opportunity of considering what course
they might think it advisable to pursue. In
allusion to what had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Montgomery the other evening, relating to the con-
duct of the Committee in neglecting to report whether
the bribery had been committed with the cognizance of
the sitting Members, without at all entering into the

reasons which had induced the' Committee to avoid all
allusion to the subject in the Report, and without al-
luding to what he considered the very vague manner in
which that part of the Election Act was worded, he
would, as some imputation seemed to have been cast
upon the sitting Members, at once state that it was not
his intention in any manner to imply more than had been
stated in the Report, and that the general feeling of the
Committee—a feeling in which he concurred—had been
that it had not been proved that the bribery which had
taken place had taken place with the cognizance or
knowledge of the sitting Members.
THE TARIFF.

On the motion that the Order of Day for the House
resolving itself into CoMmittee on the Customs Bill be
read,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from
the ropemakers of London, praying that the House
would not impose a less duty than BS. Upon the-importa-
tion of foreign cordage, or than 20s. upon the importa-
tion of foreign twist.
ViScount HOWICK could assure the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, that in bringing forward the motion of which he
had given notice, delay was not his object.—(Hear,
hear.) In the proposed alterations in the scale of du-
ties, there wore many articles on the importation of
which from_ foreign countries it was proposed to levy a
higher rate of duty than on their importation from the
British t colonies. The Right Hon. Baronet must agree that
the su.'Oject was one well worthy of the consideration of the
House, and that as it involved a question of principle,
it could be much more conveniently discussed by bring-
ing it forward in the shape'of ii, resolution before going
into Committee, inasmuch as if a discussion were to be
raised in Committee on every article of the tariff in which
the principle was involved, such discussion, in addi-
tion to many other inconveniences, would inevitably oc-
casion great waste of time, and much unneccessarvdelay.
On the other hand, to select one article for exemption,.
and to take a division on that, showing the determina-
tion of the House with regard to the principle gene-
rally, would not be doing justice to the importance of
the principle lie then -felt it his duty to submit to the
consideration of the House; and it would also prevent
that division being fairly taken, since it would be mixed
up with the consideration of the proper rate of duty to
be charged on the particular articles. Therefore, in
moving the resolution of which he had given notice,
which was in these words—" That in making a new ar-
rangement of the Customs duties, it is not expedient to
impose different' rates of duty upon the same article,
when imported from foreign countries or from British
possessions, in any case where no such difference now
exists; and that in those cases in which such a difference
already exists, it is not expedient that it should he in-
creased." It was now proposed, for the first time, to reduce
the duty on articles from our colonial possessions, or
compared with the duty on the same kind of articles
from other countries. To this 'he had the greatest ob-
jection. He objected to differential duties, because it
would leave the consumer subject to the burdens of taxa-
tion, and yet deprive the Treasury- of the income which
it ought to derive from those burdens, and would en.
tirely fail in affording that advantage to the colonies for
the purpose of which those differential duties were
created. With respect to this country, it was perfectly
obvious that-differential duties were contrary to the in-
terest of the country. Under the head of provisions he
found the articles of cheese and butter. At the present
time, these articles were at the same rate of duty, whe-
ther imported from a foreign country or a British posses-
sion.- Butter paid a duty of 1/. per cwt., and cheese 10s.
the cwt., from whatever country. they were imported.
The consequence of this had been, that none of- these
articles had been imported from a British possession, but
from foreign countries a very considerable revenue had
been obtained upon them, realising about 370,000/.
The proposal of her Majesty's Government was that the
duty upon these articles from the colonies should be re-
duced.. Butter from foreign countries was still to re-
main at 1/. per cwt.,- but from British possessions it was
to be ss. Cheese from foreign countries would still re-
main at 10s. per cwt., and from British possessions it
would be 2s. 6d. Now what would be the necessary ope-
ration of this change ? The Right Hon. Baronet told
them that every article iu the tariff had been carefully
considered with reference to the prices of the articles.
He supposed, therefore, that it was intended by this re-
duction in the duty on articles from the colonies, to alloW
the products of the colonies to enter into competition with
articles from foreign countries. But the difference in
the duty would counterbalance this a,dvantake. He would
assume, for the sake of argument, that this was the case.
Re might assume that in future one-half of the supply of
these articles would be derived from the British colo-
nies, and the other half from foreign countries. It was
obvious, then, that the condition of the consumer would
be unaltered, because the price would be the same, there-
fore when the duty was changed, there would be no dif-
ference so far as the consumer was concerned; but there
would be this very important difference to the Treasury,
that where they now received 375,000/., the duty on half
the supply would continue the same as at present, viz.,
I 87,500 L, and the other half being for the colonies, the
duty would be only one quarter of what it now is, and
instead of 187,500/., it would be somewhat less than
47,00011., so
.that it would be a loss to the revenue
of 140,000/., without a diminution of the price to
the consumer. Assuming then, that one half of the
supply would come from the colonies, for every cwt. of
cheese the revenue imposed a duty of 2s. fid., instead of
10s., thus losing 7s. 6d. per cwt. ; and the new duty on
butter would be 55., instead of 11., thus losing 15s. per
cwt., at the same time no advantage would accrue to the
consumer. Precisely in this manner all differential duties
operate. The consumer ought not to be subjected to
any burden, which was not productive to the Treasury.
The answer to this no doubt would be, that the colonies
must be protected. He trusted that the time would come,
especially after the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
the other evening, when they would see none but revenue
duties.—:(Hear, hear.) It was certainly difficult to dis-
tinguish between protecting duties, and duties for re-
venue, because even those which were called pro-
tective duties, did of necessity product revenue.
Even the corn duties themselves prOduced, in
reality, a very large revenue. With respect to the
argument, that the colonies should be protected against
foreigners, his answer to that would be a quotation from
the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Lord
Howick) heard with great pleasure the opinion expressed
by the Right lion. Baronet, " That if other countries
did not choose to buyscheap from usthat was no reason
why we should punish ourselves by refusing to buy
cheap from them." He cordially agreed with him in
that opinion. It might be said that it was necessary to
secure our authority in the colonies, by placing alow
rate of duty on their produce. But " there would arise
the question, were differential duties really an advantage
to the colonies or not ? The argument, he maintained,
was, that the establishment of these differential duties
were entirely delusive, and, instead of their being. ad-
vantageous, they were extremely injurious. He .enter-
tained this opinion on the simple grounds that he be-
lieved the establishment of these differential duties had
the necessary effect of diverting the capital and industry
of the colonies from their natural channel. Those dif-
ferential duties placed the colonies in a situation of con-
siderable danger. He was told that by these ditties a
great trade would be carried on between the mother
country and • the colonies, highly beneficial to both:
He believed that that had been the received doctrine
of a long period by many persons. Althoughthis was
fortified by prescription, few gentlemen would be found
to maintain it in principle, whatever they did inpractice,
for he believed that principle was now very generally
abandoned. He for one contended that trade of this
description between the colonies was disadvantageous to
both parties. He believed that instead of maintaining the
connection between the mother country and the
colonies, the maintenance of this principle was
of all others calculated 'to dissolve it. Because
it was obvious, that if the productions of the colonies
were received on more favourable terms in this country
than similar productions of other countries, the colonies,
in their turn, must be subject to a smaller trade in our
markets and elsewhere. - This was the ground why he
said these duties would weaken the connexion between
the colonists and the mother country. Look to the
United States of America ; it was perfectly well known
that it was this system of taxation which led to the
unhappy separation of the United States from the

mothe'reoun-try, and that the feeling of soreness was

created in the colonies by the restrictions which existed
with respect-to trade, and produced that feeling in the
United States which ultimately led to the separation of
the two countries. He thought it was best to assimi-
late duties, and to leave the internal government as
much as possible to the colonies themselves. He be-
lieved that the adoption of such a liberal policy as this,
so far from weakening the connection between the mo-
ther country and the colonies, would contribute
more than anything else to render the con-
nection permanently and mutually beneficial.—(Hear.).
After hearing the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the
other evening, he knew not how he (Sir R. Peel) could
conscientiously object to his (Lord Howick's) motion.
He heard with great satisfaction the Right Hon. Baronet
lay clown the great principles of commercial freedom.
He heard him express his concurrence in the views of
Mr. Huskisson ; aml he (LorAi Howick) now asked the
House and the Right lion. Baronet whether they 'believed
that if Mr. Huskisson was now alive, and had the absolute
power of disposing of this question, that the Right llon. Ba-
ronet had, he would create new differential duties in favour
of the colonies? On a carefulexansination of the scale of duties
proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Lord Howick) was
not able to discover the principle on which it was framed.
The Right Hon. Baronet would no doubt be able to offer an
explanation on that matter, but at present he ( Lord Howick)
was unable to comprehend the principle on which the changes
in the tariff were founded. In the case of some articles,_ the
produce of the colonies, protection was granted, while in that of
others it was altogether withheld. To colonial cotton they
granted a protective duty of 50 per cent. against cotton the
produce of foreign countries ; while with respect to linen there
was no difference whatever in the rates ef duty imposed, whether
it were colonial or foreign. In like manner manufactures
from goats' wool was not protected, while those from sheep's
wool was. What, he wanted to know, was the reason of all
that ? There was, no doubt, some reason for such an ar-
rangement,but the uninitiated must feel it difficult to under-
stand it. To commercial restrietiens generally' he was ON
posed. It was not to restrictions on commerce that we owed
our prosperity. If we were desirous of carrying on an advan-
tageous commerce with France, 4elgituei Spain; and the Ifni- •