bought stock and sold it. With regard to the subject of charities, the proposal of the Government was not as yet before the House; and when it was, he would venture to say that it could be shown that the case of the Patriotic Fund was totally beside the general question; nor was there any parallel to it in the whole range of the charities of the country. COLONEL SYKES said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of captains and of the army and navy lieutenants, whose incomes rarely exceeded £200 or £300 a year, and who were brought within the full operation of the income tax. The case of those gentlemen was entitled to the most favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to tax the charities of the country. LORD ROBERT CECIL inquired whether the charitable clauses would be inIcluded in the one tax Bill? minish their stocks, and that they were taken by surprise by his present rapid proceeding. He did not express any opinion on the subject himself, but he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman admitted there had been any breach of faith on his part in the matter? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that his attention had been called to the subject by a variety of letters which he had received from tea-dealers, who claimed the right to receive a drawback or to have some time allowed before the change came into operation. He could only say that the course he proposed to take was the usual one. Indeed, for many years there had been one uniform course, and he was not aware that they had ever postponed the reduction beyond the time when the Resolution was reported to the House. Certainly, for the last ten years there was nothing which formed a precedent for the claim now made. For himself, he entirely repudiated all intention of having given anything like the pledge supposed. In point of fact, when he made the speech referred to he was engaged in proposing a great number of reductions in Customs duties which he wished should take imCom-mediate effect. Formerly the duties used to be reserved from April to April, but the inconvenience of legislation to which that However gave rise had led to the change. cheerful a hope he might entertain that the benefit of the reduction in the tea duty would go to the consumer, it was absurd to suppose that in every country village and town the consumer would find the full reduction the day after the change took place. The dealer would get the best price he could, and the Government would be acting unjustly to the consumer if they yielded to any complaint such as this. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, they all belong to the Income Tax Act. Main Question put, and agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS considered in mittee. (In the Committee.) (3.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea, the following Duties of Customs shall, on and after the 25th day of April 1863, until the 1st day of August 1864, be charged thereon on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, viz.the lb. 1s. Od. Tea. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he thought that probably it would not be thought necessary to discuss the Resolution further on that occasion, and therefore he should reserve any remarks to see whether he was right in his expectation. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he wished to know whether the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called to the complaint of certain tea dealers, who alleged that the right hon. Gentleman had in some former speech distinctly laid down the principle that it would be convenient for the tea duties to run from July to July? They alleged that sufficient notice had not been given to them of the proposed change; that they had supposed from that statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no occasion to di MR. GREGSON said, that the stocks of the dealers in tea were never so low as at that moment. In fact, the dealers had prepared themselves for the proposed change. MR. DARBY GRIFFITII said, he was sorry to see, by the Resolution, that the 1s. duty would cease in August, 1864. He did not suppose that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to go back to the high duty, but why limit the term? It would leave the door open so as to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be tempted, if some emergency occurred, to re-impose the high duty. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the 1s. duty was proposed as Resolution agreed to. (4.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties and Drawbacks of Customs now charged and allowed on the articles undermentioned shall continue to be levied, Sugar, as denominated in the Tariff. a defined settlement, so to speak, of the sugar-producers in all parts of the world question. The term of August, 1864, had would endeavour to produce the best arbeen fixed as the period for considering ticle. There would be a waste in refining whether that amount should be kept as an of about 10 per cent, so that, supposing annual duty. The House might then con- the duty was 15s. per cwt., the loss under sider the duty on tea in connection with that head would amount to 1s. 6d. per that on sugar. cwt. The foreigner, who was allowed to refine in bond, would therefore have an advantage of 1s. 6d. per cwt. over the refiner of this country; but the refiner, say in Hamburg, would be subjected to freight and other charges, which would amount to a sum that would something like balance the loss of 1s. 6d. sustained by the Englishman. Again, the sugar came over in hogsheads, casks, and bags; every one of which (sometimes as many as 20,000 in a single ship) were examined with the standards kept in the Secretary's office. That practice occasioned great delay and expense to the revenue. He asked, then, why were these differential duties retained? Serious objections to equalization of the duty were no doubt made by Sir Thomas Fremantle and others before the Committee of last year-such as the frauds upon the revenue, the interruption to trade, and so forth. But it was not worth the while of the established firms to defraud the revenue; and as to the injury that would be occasioned to trade, he (Mr. Lindsay) did not see why the home refiner should not be able to refine at the same cost as the refiner abroad. And why should not sugar be refined in bond? There was no doubt that the consumption of sugar was enormously on the increase; and the loss on the equalization of the duties would be more than compensated for by the increased demand. If it was once for all known that protection was withdrawn, he had no doubt that the sugar-refiners in the country would find out the means of refining sugar in bond without risk to the revenue. Almonds, paste of. Cherries, dried. Comfits, dry. Confectionery. Ginger, preserved. Plums, preserved in Sugar. enumerated. MR. LINDSAY said, he wished to offer some observations on the mode of charging the sugar duties. It was exceedingly complicated and troublesome, and led to incessant alteration. Moreover, so long as a high differential duty was placed on the best description of sugar it was the interest of the sugar-grower to produce, not that description of sugar, but one of an inferior kind, on which a lower duty was paid. If these differential duties were levied at all, they ought to be levied in such a manner as to encourage the grower to produce the best quality of sugar. At that moment there was a conference sitting at Paris on this subject, endeavouring to arrange some more equitable mode of levying such duties. The duty received last year from the two higher classes of sugars was £291,000. But from that was to be deducted £184,000, the drawback for exportation; so that out of the £6,000,000 Customs duties received last year, only £107,000 was from the two higher classes of sugars. It was his conviction, that if there was a uniform duty on all sugars, the effect would be to enormously increase the supply, while the MR. CAVE said, he had hoped, that for that Session at least, they would have been spared a debate upon the sugar duties. As Chairman of the West India Committee, and therefore representing a very large number of those who were interested in the question, he should, of course, have been better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have reduced the duties on sugar. It seemed hard, that after illuminating for the peace seven years ago, they should still be paying the war duty. It seemed to them that the very large stocks now in bond, the unreasonable amount of the tax in proportion to the present value of the, to them by the Committee of Petitions, article, and the great variety of uses to showing, that though from remote corners which sugar might be applied, constituted of the kingdom, they were all suspiciously a fair claim to consideration; but he felt alike. That agitation naturally provoked that the Conference now being held on the retort, and the usual amount of pamphlets Continent was too good an excuse for a on both sides followed, some showing great Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally anx- ability, arguments drawn from which he had ious to retain so productive a duty. And recognised in his hon. Friend's speech, for he was by no means jealous of his hon. he had not the same practical acquaintance Friends the Members for Lancaster and with sugar which he undoubtedly had with Brighton, though he thought they hardly sugar questions. What was it his hon. deserved their success, after having on a Friend complained of? He said that the previous occasion thrown over tea in favour present mode of levying duties was contrary of paper. But as his hon. Friend the Mem- to the principles of free trade, that it gave ber for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had a premium to bad sugar, and therefore thought proper to bring up the subject, and obliged the consumer to put up with a attack the Report of the Select Committee worse article than he would otherwise have; of last year, it might be deemed excusable that it protected one producer agaist anin him, who took an active part in that in- other, and so on. A great deal of that quiry and cordially concurred in that Re- error, for such he believed it to be, arose port, to say a few words in reply, though from confusion of terms. To those who he could not hope to do justice to so wide objected to ad valorem duties, it seemed a subject, and one so little fit for debate. at first sight wrong to tax good sugar The House would remember that last Ses- higher than bad sugar. But good and bad sion his hon. Friend the Member for the sugar were really misnomers. The writer City (Mr. Crawford), who represented the of one pamphlet called it sugar "more or interests which were dissatisfied with the less highly manufactured;" that was a betpresent classification of the sugar duties, ter description, but still it did not convey moved for a Committee to inquire into the the actual fact, which was that a great whole subject. On the part of the West deal which was commonly called sugar was Indians he offered no opposition. The not sugar at all, that real sugar was nearly Committee was granted; and as his hon. of one quality and value, and was, or was Friend had naturally the chief voice in its intended to be, taxed alike. The only selection, he presumed it might be taken sugar properly so called was pure white to have been not unfavourably constituted sugar. Everything else was sugar and in regard to his case. He had also a Chair- something besides; and though it might be man who might be said to have been com- -which he did not admit-contrary to free mitted to his view of the question. The trade to tax two sorts of sugar differently, Committee sat more than two months, ask-it could not be so to tax sugar differently ed more than 6,000 questions, and, after an inquiry which, he was sure his hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge, was carried on with the greatest fairness and patience by Chairman and Committee, they reported, by a large majority at least, in favour of an extension of the classification. The question, however, had not been suffered to rest there. One of the witnesses, who happened, he understood, to have peculiar facilities for circulating his opinions through the press and in other ways, occupied the whole winter with great perseverance in attacking the Report; and, by putting forward the evidence on his own side and withholding that on the other, he probably made some impression. Hence the crop of Petitions which had been plentifully garnered into the bags at the table, the value of which had been somewhat im paired by the significant asterisk attached So from sugar in combination with something was to the higher qualities of sugar. The Committee found that the lower qualities paid a heavier duty in proportion to the real sugar contained in them than the higher, and that, in consequence, a great deal of what is called "concrete" and "melado, the simplest preparations of the cane, was excluded from the markets of this country by the duty. They therefore recommended that the duty should be more fairly assessed, in order to bring in every kind of produce. The true principle of a duty, as he imagined, was to place all producers in the same relation to each other as if there was no duty at all. Surely that would not be done by taxing the jaggery of India, which contained about 45 per cent of sugar, with the best produce of the slave labour of Cuba, which contained, perhaps, 90 per cent. The native agriculturist (the ryot) of India and the free negro of Jamaica, who cleared a few acres of jungle or forest and planted his sugar-canes, was it not mockery to talk to him about animal charcoal and vacuum pans? If there was no duty on sugar, he would increase our supply to a great extent with the rude produce which his hon. Friend would prohibit altogether. The average price of sugar paying higher duties amply compensated for the difference of duty. Those who tried to gain every advantage by going as near the line as possible sometimes made a mistake and suffered heavily. The weather, the voyage, and other causes might throw them out in their calculations. Again, the complaints of those who said that refining abroad-in India, for instance -did not pay, might be correct; but the reason was not in the duty, but in their inability to compete with the skilled labour, machinery, fuel, &c., of the English refiner. Besides, the voyage spoiled their sugar, and made it suffer in appearance in comparison with refiners' produce-which went immediately into consumption. The beautiful appearance of different qualities of sugar sent out by the refiner, who could imitate any colour or quality preferred, had changed people's taste, and thrown a large quantity of what was formerly grocery sugar out of direct consumption, and given rise to the erroneous impression that there was less good grocery sugar than formerly, the fact being that what used to be sold to grocers was now sold to refiners. There was no argument in favour of two dutiesthat is, on refined and unrefined sugar-that was not equally strong in favour of one only, the effect of which would be that none VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] but refined sugar would be imported, the trade of the English refiner would be destroyed, the price of sugar increased, the enormous consumption of 37 lb. a head fall off, and the revenue suffer. If the classification were not retained, the only fair alternatives would be no duty at all, or refining in bond. He had that evening presented a petition from importers and workers of 54,000 tons of sugar in favour of classification. He believed it to be the fairest method; it worked well, and the complaints of difficulty and inconvenience were very inconsiderable. The fact that the authors of the system were Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Wilson, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the date of its origin in 1845, precluded the possibility of any protection being intended, and he could not do better than close with the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoken by him in 1854, when repelling a similar attack to the present "There were difficulties to be encountered, but they were as nothing compared with the enormous inequality and injustice which would be done by refusing to admit classification." MR. CRAWFORD said, although he had been a Member of the Committee of last Session, he must confess he was one of those who felt dissatisfied with the present system of classifying sugars. He did not, however, think that that was a favourable opportunity for discussing the question. He should very much prefer to see that treated, not as a Budget question, but as a matter by itself. Moreover, it was only fair, that pending the inquiries of the Commission in Paris, the present sugar duties should remain unaltered. With respect to the constitution of the Committee, to which reference had been made, he was bound to state that he had taken the utmost pains to secure a representation of all the different interests; and as that in which he felt interested was only one of these, it was evident that it must have been in a minority on the Committee. MR. CAVE observed, that he had not intended to impute any unfair practice to the hon. Member. MR. CRAWFORD said, that he was not less impressed than ever he had been with the truth of the principle for which he contended, or less hopeful with regard to its ultimate success. At one time he had proposed, as a sort of compromise, a scheme of two duties; but, like all compromises, it had failed. The only true principle on which the sugar duties could Y be adjusted was a single duty, and to that | they would ultimately come. MR. CRUM-EWING said, he believed that a uniform rate of duty, accompanied by a power of refining in bond, would be a great benefit to the consumer. MR. GREGSON said, he also advocated the adoption of a uniform rate of duty, which would have the effect of securing supplies of the best instead of the worst kinds of sugar. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER said, he was glad to find that the general opinion of the Committee was that the Government had acted wisely in not entering into the discussion on the various rates of sugar duties at a time when they could not submit any actual proposal to Parliament. With regard to refining in bond, the opinion of the Committee last year, and of all sections of the witnesses, including revenue officers and persons engaged in the trade from all parts, was against refining in bond; consequently of that solution they were deprived. Of course, it was the duty of a Government to keep itself open to conviction until the time came when they could make a proposal to Parliament; but after due reflection and investigation he was not prepared to retract the opinion expressed in the quotation from a speech of his which had been read by the hon. Member opposite. As to a sole and single duty, it must include refined sugar upwards, or the principle would be interfered with. But it must also include molasses downwards, and that article would be practically prohibited at a duty equal to that on refined sugar. It had been said that the present scale of duties gave a premium on the admission of the inferior article. If that assertion were true, it was conclusive against the present system, but the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cave) had declared that the quantity of saccharine matter contained in sugar of a given weight was more highly taxed when the quality of the sugar was low than when it was high. If that statement was correct, then it was not true that a premium was given upon the admission of inferior sugar, but rather the contrary. However that might be, the question was one that would, no doubt, be more fully and satisfactorily discussed upon another occasion. SIR MINTO FARQUHAR remarked, that what both sugar-growers and sugarconsumers desired, was that the war duties imposed upon the article should be removed. MR. CARDWELL said, that having gone into the Committee with most dispassionate views, he was of opinion that the conclusion arrived at was the correct one. It was impossible to fix a single duty, because that would act as a prohibition upon low sugars, and as protection for others; and, it not being possible to adopt a graduated scale, it only remained to continue the present system of duties. Resolution agreed to. to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, (5.) That, towards raising the Supply granted and paid for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April 1863, for and in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act passed in the 16th and for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices, the following Rates and Duties (that is to say): For every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of all such Property, Profits, and Gains (except those chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the Rate or Duty of 7d. And For and in respect of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act, for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, In England, the Rate or Duty of 31d., and Subject to the provisions contained in the 28th section of the said Act for the exemption of Persons whose whole Income from every source shall be less than £100 a year. MR. HUNT said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some information in respect to the deduction of £60 he proposed to allow to all incomes under £200. The right hon. Gentleman had never stated why he fixed upon the precise sum. He (Mr. Hunt) took it that the right hon. Gentleman regarded that sum as representing the amount requisite to purchase the bare necessaries of life for a family. He was, however, at a loss to know why the right hon. Gentleman stopped at £200 a year for that reduction. He thought that he ought to go somewhat higher in allowing the reduction. He found that the incomes under £200 a year, under Schedules D and E, amounted to 268,144, and that those receiving higher incomes amounted to 111,207, showing at once the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have the great majority of complaints from the class of smaller incomes. The allowance at 7d. upon £60 was 358., which, upon incomes under £200 |