brethren, that all imported goods must be really paid for with manufactures; if, therefore, taxes on sugar, port, coffee, &c., reduce, as on his doctrine they must, the consumption of these articles, they must, necessarily, equally reduce the consumption of the manufactures given in payment for them. It inevitably follows that these taxes are quite as injurious, as his eleven millions of condemned ones.

To better his case Sir Henry intimates, that taxes on materials "produce an evil of the greatest magnitude," by increasing the cost of production, and lessening the means of competition in the export trade. This is unpardonable, because he knows it has been the system of this country to allow, in drawback, the duty contained in the cost of exported goods.

On his own doctrines, therefore, nearly thirty millions of his thirtynine innocent ones, are just as injurious as the eleven he is hostile to. It is Sir Henry who thus refutes himself, but I shall carry refutation a little farther.

Let us glance in detail, at his objections to the duties he censures. The duty of L.4. 13s. 4d. per ton on hemp is injurious, because it raises the prices of "sails, cordage, and those kinds of linen which are in general demand; and by thus diminishing the consumption of them, it diminishes the employment of capital and labour." The duty received on hemp, in 1827, was something more than L.104,000; and will any man in his senses believe that this trifling sum, spread over all the trades which use hemp, could affect prices so as to injure consumption? It has been abundantly proved by the fruits of relieving hats, leather, &c., from duty, that the abolition of this on hemp would scarcely be felt by the consumer.

The duty on barilla, which "is used in large quantities in making soap, raises the prices of the materials of several manufactures." This duty, perhaps, amounts to L.45,000, or L.50,000 per annum, and its removal would not reach the consumer. "It was originally and avowedly imposed as a protection of the manufacture of kelp, for the exclusive

benefit of a few families in Scotland." It was lately stated in Parliament, that these "few families" comprehend many thousand souls, and also, that a great number of Irish souls were dependent on the manufacture. "If thrown silk were free of duty, the price would be reduced by the amount of the duty; for our own throwsters, in order to secure a sale for their silk, would be obliged to introduce such improvements as would enable them to go into competition with free foreign thrown silks. If they could not make such improvements, and lower their prices, then the silk manufacturers would be supplied with oreign silks:"—that is, the greater part of the capital, and almost half the labour employed in the silk trade, would be destroyed, and rendered idle.

"The duty on timber affects and injures industry in a great variety of ways, in consequence of its being so much used in ships, buildings, machinery, &c." "It would appear as if it were an indispensable preliminary to securing a permanently successful competition with foreign ship-builders, to admit timber to be imported free of all duty." Sir Henry, however, contents himself with recommending such a change of duty as would render it impossible for American timber to be " imported and sold with profit." The leading shipowners possess infinitely more talent and knowledge of their own business than Sir H. Parnell, and they aver, that the change he proposes, would injure them far more on the one hand, than benefit them on the other. When Ministers disclosed their intention of altering the duty, the agents for the sale of Baltic timber immediately demanded a large advance of price; and there is no doubt that they would obtain a considerable permanent advance, should they gain the colonial part of the trade. It may be confidently assumed, that colonial timber, by enlarging supply and keeping down price, makes the difference of duty in its favour almost a nominal matter to the community. Sir Henry's objection, however, to the timber duty, is

it injures industry. There is always an excess of ships, houses, factories, machinery, &c.; and that is not the

least reason for believing that the total repeal of the duty would make in them the smallest increase.

The duty on common bricks and tiles, is something less than 6s. per thousand, and few people will think that its abolition would have any effect in carrying still further the excess of building.

His remark that the duties on tal

low and soap are exceedingly injurious to manufactures," may be disposed of by the remark, that the very few manufactures affected by them make no complaint. The duty on foreign tallow is only 3s. 2d. per cwt., and it can have little effect on the general price, because tallow is to so great an extent produced at home. Let us now look at his obnoxious duties on manufactures. If that on paper subject the manufacturer to vexatious regulations, I have nothing to do with them; the matter before me is their effect on consumption. Looking at the cheapness and uses of paper, there is no ground for believing that exempting it from duty would materially increase its consumption: it is evident that the latter in warehouses, shops, countinghouses, &c. would be to a great extent what it is, if the price were reduced one half. Sir Henry says, "The greatest evil of all is, the high price of books which it (the duty) gives rise to." This is something worse than assumption; the duty is so far from making books dear, that it does not affect the price of many, and it only adds a trifle to that of others, so far as regards the con

sumer.

Touching glass, he says," The taking off the duties would lead to an unlimited extension of this manufacture." What is his evidence? The use of a great number of articles now confined to the richer classes "would become universal among the lower orders." What articles? He only deigns to name plate glasses! If the latter were only about sixpence per lb. cheaper, every house in the United Kingdom-Ireland, of course, included-would be furnished with them! It is manifest that the consumption of glass in windows, bottles, and the articles used by the upper and middle classes, would not be increased by the repeal of the whole duty; and that it would rise very little amidst

the lower orders if the price were reduced one half. The duty is returned upon, yet he gravely asserts it prevents, exportation!

I say nothing in favour of the duty

on soap.

2

On the whole, then, the hemp duty falls to a large extent where consumption is not affected by a trifling difference of price, and its abolition would scarcely reach the consumer where the contrary is the case-the abolition of the barilla duty would take employment from a very large portion of capital and labour, without cheapening manufactures sufficiently to promote consumptionthe abolition of the duty on thrown silk might, on Sir Henry's admission, destroy some millions of capital, and deprive perhaps 200,000 souls of employment; and foreign thrown silk would certainly be considerably raised, if the manufacturers had to depend solely on it; therefore silks would be little cheapened to the consumer-the timber duty falls principally where it cannot affect consumption, and in other quarters its repeal would not reach the consumer; a vast portion of the consumers would, on their own declarations, be grievously injured in their power to consume by the repealthe duty on bricks and tiles falls where it manifestly little affects consumption-and it is evident that, to an enormous extent, the consumption of paper and glass would not be enlarged by giving them exemption from duty. It will be observed that not one of these duties materially affects the lower classes of consumers; if some of them make linens, silks, and glass a fraction dearer, there are cottons, earthenware, &c. as substitutes. It is certain that the abolition of duty would raise several of these articles abroad, and in consequence the benefit would be in a great measure monopolized by foreigners. The price of tallow, for example, must be mainly governed by its production at home; therefore the repeal of the duty would be little more than an addition to the price of the foreign produce.

Sir Henry decides that the repeal of the duties on ashes and barilla, glass, paper, hemp, thrown silk, coals, and in part soap, amounting to L.3,000,000, would lead to " an im

mense extension of all these trades, and the employment of some hundred thousand more workmen, and also a much larger amount of capital.” Now, a financier ought to know that, at the best, the repeal of any duty cannot add much more than its amount, and the interest of the capital employed by it, to consumption. Assuming, then, that the L.3,000,000 were wholly expended in additional consumption, and that half the sum were paid for labour, it would employ about 60,000 workmen at 10s. per week each. He owns that it might destroy the employment of the silk throwsters, and it would have the same effect to the people employed in manufacturing kelp: thus while 60,000 people might gain employment on the one hand, great part of 300,000 would lose it on the other. But, unhappily for him, Sir Henry's other doctrines will not allow that the repeal of these duties would raise consumption. He says they raise prices; and it follows that they are really paid by consumers, and, of course, in a large degree by people whose income arises from rents, tithes, dividends, &c. As he holds that taxing these people does no injury to general consumption, because the state expends the money on it which they otherwise would expend; it must be true that the repeal would merely transfer expenditure from the state to individuals, and would yield very little benefit to such consumption. As to capital, every pretender to financial knowledge ought to be aware, that duties form a great source of employment to it; for example, a tobacco manufacturer requires L.10,000 for doing that business which he could do with L.1000, if his article were free from duty. The abolition of the duties would diminish employment for capital. Putting this out of sight, the silk throwsters and kelp manufacturers employ perhaps six or eight millions of capital double or treble the amount of these duties, and the repeal would destroy much of it, and probably transfer the employment of the rest to foreign capital.

Now let the repeal of these duties be contrasted with that of some of his innoxious ones. Looking at sugar and tea, they rank almost next to bread as necessaries with all classes

of the community. Sugar or treacle is used by the very poor who cannot afford to buy shambles' meat or even bread, and not an article can be named which is in more universal use. The duties on these commodities really fall on the consumers, and the fact that a vast portion of the latter would use twice the quantity they do if they had the means, sufficiently proves how far they govern consumption. Their repeal would injure no part of the community. It is certain that if sugar were freed from duty, an enormous additional quantity would be consumed, and that this quantity would be paid for with the productions of industry. Thus then stands the contrast. If Sir Henry's injurious duties were repealed, the benefit would be chiefly confined to producers, importers, foreigners, and the wealthier classes

to a very large extent it could not raise the consumption of the articles on which the duties rest, or reach the consumer-in a great measure it would be the gain of one part of the community, though the loss of another-it would destroy far more employment than it would create— the mass of the population could derive no advantage from it and it would practically transfer taxes from the foreign to the British subject. If his innoxious ones were repealed, the benefit would go chiefly to consumers-it would greatly increase consumption-it would injure none, and be universally advantageous-it would make great additions to employment-and it would be especially beneficial to the mass of the community.

Sir Henry is the most unfortunate of mortals in his illustrations. He lauds the Wellington Ministry for abolishing the duty on leather, but is hugely wroth with it for doing the same with that on ale instead of those we have named. It is asserted on all hands that the removal of duty has not cheapened leather goods, and of course it cannot have increased consumption. Beer is far more generally a necessary than tobacco, and the duty on it was most unjust, because it was levied only on the poorer classes. He says, with ignorance perfectly astonishing-" by far the greater part of the people of England, and all the people of Ireland and

66

Scotland, derive no advantage from the repeal." The error is too glaring to need correction from us. Upon closely examining," he states, "the probable effects of the repealing of the duty on beer, none can be found which at all approach in general usefulness those consequences which would certainly have sprung from the repealing of the duties just mentioned;" (those on thrown silk, barillas, &c.) What are the certain effects which have flowed from experiment? An increase of malt and hop duty, going far towards replacing to the revenue the lost beer one; a mighty increase of employment to British and Foreign growers and carriers of barley, hop-growers, maltsters, brewers, manufacturers of glass and pewter, cork-cutters, aledealers, &c.; and a large increase to the comforts I might almost say the necessaries-of the body of the community. All this stands on the favourable side, without a single item on the other. Nevertheless he gravely assures us that the repeal of the leather duty was a wise proceeding; and that the repeal of the beer one was a great error," and will yield no benefit compared with such an abolition of duties, as manifestly would be almost a dead loss to the revenue, and would create infinitely more injury on the one hand than gain on the other.

We will now look at Sir Henry's injurious taxes on luxuries. In that guilty spirit of prejudice which actuates them throughout, the economists admit scarcely any thing to be a necessary save corn; sugar, tea, shoes, and even linen shirts, they class amidst luxuries. As the poor can about as easily find a substitute for bread, as they can for tea and sugar or treacle, the latter have as much right to be ranked amidst necessaries as the former.

He pronounces that some of the customs duties" are so high that the effect is in some cases to diminish the revenue, and in all to create smuggling and farther, to greatly diminish the importation of the articles on which they fall, to diminish the demand for, and the exportation of, our own manufactures." On this ground he calls them " exceedingly injurious."

To shew the worthlessness of the

official doctrine so often put forth, that the state of the revenue will not allow reduction of taxes, Sir Henry observes-" there is no difficulty in proving by reference to experience, that a diminution of taxation is not necessarily followed by a diminution of revenue." If experience would only furnish the comfortable proof, we might abolish every duty and tax without reducing the revenue; but unhappily its evidence is of a contrary character.

Sir Henry's first example of the evil of excessive duties relates to those on brandy and geneva. The consumption of them was greater in the four years preceding 1807, when the duty was 14s. a gallon, (W. M.) than it was in the four following 1814, when the duty was 18s. 10d. a gallon, (W. M.) He assigns no reason for the diminution save the increase of duty. Now it happens that on an average of the three years preceding 1812, when the duty had not been raised, the consumption had declined nearly one-fourth, as compared with his first average of four years; and this shews that other causes as well as duty operated to produce the decline.

For several years before the close of the war foreign spirits were almost driven out of consumption, not by duty, but by the difficulties which the war threw in the way of obtaining them and in this term English gin raised itself by improvement, from universal dislike, into general favour. When they were again admitted by peace, they had to encounter this formidable competitor, and soon after they had to encounter another, equally formidable, in the shape of whisky. These causes of their reduced consumption, our financier does not notice. Nevertheless, the use of brandy and geneva has greatly increased since 1818, and is double what it was for some time before.

Brandy, geneva, rum, whisky, and gin, are only varieties of the same article; and the duty on the two former is less a revenue, than a protecting one: Its leading object is to promote the consumption of domestic and colonial spirits. Every one knows that it makes no difference to the revenue, if that which causes a decline in one article, produce an

equal increase in another. In another part of his work, Sir Henry confesses that the increase in domestic spirits has very far outweighed the decline in foreign; therefore, the high duty on the latter must have been harmless. He proposes that the duty on brandy and geneva shall be made the same as that on British spirits, allowing 1s. 6d. per gallon to gin, so long as the corn law may endure. It is very clear that the main effect of this would be-the substitution of foreign spirits for British in consumption.

Sir Henry says, it is a matter of indifference to the revenue, whether it be collected on foreign or homemade spirits:- - Also, "If more brandy, and rum, and less British spirits, should be consumed, more British goods would be exported to pay for the brandy and rum; and there would be a smaller demand for corn, and consequently the public would have an advantage, by its becoming cheaper." He speaks thus of rum, immediately after declaring that the high duty on brandy and hollands was imposed to promote its consumption; and when his proposal would, on the whole, rather lessen than enlarge its means of competing with domestic spirits, it cannot now maintain its ground against whisky in England.

His plan, on his own admissions, would drive an enormous quantity of domestic and colonial spirits out of consumption, and greatly diminish the consumption of corn, the employment for industry amidst colonists, distillers, rectifiers, and corn growers, and their means of paying taxes. As to his assertion that more goods would be exported, it is enough to say, that the brandy would be bought of a country which rigidly excludes our manufactures, and the geneva of another which acts, as far as possible, on the same policy. The dogma of Sir Henry and his brethren, that foreign goods must, of necessity, be paid for with manufactures, is below notice. It is refuted by official documents, and if it be true, it must be equally so, that nothing can alter the state of the exchanges. They might as well assert that Brighton cannot buy goods of London, without paying for them with its manufactures. The producers of domes

tic and colonial spirits take all kinds of the productions of native industry in payment; those of foreign spirits would take scarcely any, therefore exports would lose from the change. He does not, as we understand him, state distinctly what the new duty ought to be, but he says, it should be sufficiently low, to prevent smuggling, and also it should be raised on whisky in Scotland and Ireland. The matter then stands thus:-Sir Henry proposes what he confesses would grievously injure a mighty portion of the community, and reduce its means of paying taxes

-cause a dead loss of L.1,500,000 to the revenue, and raise spirits to the people of Scotland and Ireland. His great objects are, benefit to the revenue!!! and the prevention of smuggling. With regard to the latter, it is manifest from what he says of raising the duty in Scotland and Ireland, that he would leave it sufficiently high to employ the smuggler, and increase smuggling prodigiously, if the Preventive Service should be abolished!

The next of his excessive duties is that on tobacco. He would reduce the duty on it to 1s. per lb., solely to prevent smuggling. After such reduction, the smuggler would gain in a single hogshead of tobacco a profit of perhaps L.70 on L.24; and it would produce abundance of smuggling without the Preventive Service. But, in such case, he says the duty should be still farther reduced. Well, he owns the first reduction would cause a loss of L.1,500,000 to the revenue; and, of course, the second would raise it to nearly L.2,000,000; after this, the Preventive Service would be as necessary as ever, if the duty on foreign spirits should not be reduced to almost nothing.

Another of his excessive duties is that on French wine. It injures consumption, and its reduction might lead to a less restricted trade with France. With regard to the former, such wine is only one variety among many of the same commodity, and the chief effect of the duty must be, to cause other wines to be used instead of it. Sir Henry's prejudices appear here in a ludicrous manner; he says "As England need no longer be bound by the Methuan treaty, the duty on French wines should be