Star. — London, England, 1819-06-19 00:00:00

tom in the Represents - 6004 that House, and b e screed with him in wishing that the People t ore tairlv represented ia it. • 1.. )UGHAM•said, that it had been Lord (Compton) that if we had Tau .:v proposed, we must have the Property Tax; tn 4: we must have taxes on the poor or on the rich; but there was another alternative, *mild he think of having no taxes at all ?—(H ear , 1, 0 0 —As long as we had a clear surplus of tem m o ons alear, it could not be said that there watt an a bsolute necessity for the new taxes. The new tri es were imposed for the benefit of the Sinking fund, for the benefit of the Stockholder. And this to o when we had besides a surplus of two millions, to the aid of which might be applied whatever we co w gain by retrenchment, which would be• found to a mount to iluite as great a sinking fund in pro. po rt , n to the debt i ,as Mr. Pitt thought necessary tra est.: public credit after the American war. At time when Mr. Pitt imposed new taxes to esta bh his Sinking. Fund, the finances of the country wer e much more distressed than they now are, for even when' two millions of mew taxes were imposed ;,, 1756, a surplus of -ouly i-900,000 was calculated 0 , which turned out in the nest year to be only 000,000. Was the inipositionof taxes, which after ail produced ()lily this miserable surplus to be com pared with the present proposition to swell the Sink ing Fund to five millions? In opposing the present pro position, therefore, instead of going counter, they I awe acting in strict conformity to the.precedent of Fox, who had also opposed the imposition of sew taxes during the war, not only because he had opposed the war, but on account of the nature ur tits! taxes themselves. Though he agreed with his Honourable Friend (Mr. Ricardo), that the taxes on the necessaries. of, life did not fall ultimately on the Lthourer, but on the employer of labourers, yet the . taxes now proposed were highly objectionable, as falling in the first place upon those we should rather relieve—the labourers ; and in the second place, upon these who were still more perhaps at present to be pitied, those who employed labourers. By removing the tax from the labourer to his employer, they were rely removing the difficulty one step, for by taxing tile funds which employed labour they lessened the de.nand for labour, and reduced its reward. On grounds he .apposed the Motion. Without - mixiag up with the question that of Parliamentary flziortn, he should give the tribute of his assent to the obserSations of the Noble Marquis (Tavistock), that if this was the*. hit Session of a Parliament, or even the first Session of a three years Parliament, these three millions of taxes would not have been imposed on the people !—(Hear, hear). 'the House then divided—For the Motion, 208— Against it, : 90—Majority, .118. ' On the re-admission of strangers, the House was in a Committee on the Bill. Mr. BRAND moved to leave out the clause which imposed a tax ea the stock of Malt which the dealers might have on hand, both because the circumstan ces of the dines, which had peculiarly affected these dealers, would justify a departure from precedent in their favour, and because even without taking the duty on this stock, the tax would produce £1,400,000, the sum required. He also wished the first payment, *Whims required to be made in October, to be further postponed. Ms. C. CALVERT objected to the propositiOn for making the znaltsters declare on oath the amount of their stock, which it was impossible for them to do. Nit:. H. DAVIS suggested to Ministers the propriety of agreeing to the Amendment of Mr. Brand. Mr. C. CALVELIT knew several Maltsters who had great quantities of malt on hand at this moment. One Gentleman, for instance, had nearly 10,000 quar ters, but of which it was impossible that he could furnish an exact account. There were several other maltsters who had lesser quantities now in their stores, and who were similarly situated. All that could be expected of those Gentlemen was, that they should level their malt so as to enable he Excise Officers to take an account of it. Mr. BERNALL wished to press upon the Chan cellor of the Exchequer the necessity of reconsidering this Tax. If the additional duty were imposed on the stock on hand, it would have the effect of ruining the smaller maltsters, as they were unable to pay it. In the counties of Nottingham and Lincoln this was considered a severe hardship, and he hoped he would be pardoned for adding, a great cruelty to maltsters.. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the Gentlemen who opposed this additional duty, bad argued on the supposition that the whole of the stock of malt on hand had been purchased at the high prices ; but if they considered for a moment, they would find that this was not the case. It would be found, on inquiry, that the greater part, if not all the malt purchased at what were called the high prices, had been sold to the brewers, and that the stock now on hand had been purchased ,at a much cheaper rate. This would diminish the great appre hension entertained from the proposed additional tax, and under such circumstances he felt that he could not in justice to the Public abandon it. As to the periods at which this tax was to be paid, he was 'anxious to arrange them so as to meet the wishes of the maltsters as far as possible. He intended to pro- pose, that the first payment was to be made on the 10th of November, at the rate of 2d. per bushel ; the second payment was to be made on the 2d of De cember, at the rate of 3d. per bushel ; the third was to be on the 3d of January, at 4d. per bushel. 'The fact payment was to he . in February and March, 1820, when the remaining sd. per bushel was to be paid up. This arrangement would, he trusted, obviate every inconvenience to the maltsters. Mr. C. CALVERT observed, that the Right 11011. Gentleman's mode of collecting the additional duty was but a trifling mitigation to the maltster. The consequence of this tax would be, that the =dater being unable to pay it, recourse mast be had to rigo rous measures, and it could not be expected that stone walls would pay the deficiency. Mr. HUSKISSON made some observations in support of the clause. Mr. LYTTLETON could not help observing the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated the maltsters. He first stated that the bur den was to be borne by them, and when they com plained of the hardships imposed upon them, the Right Honourable Gentleman told them they were I,erticularly favoured—that on a former occasion a considerable reduction of the taxes had been mad* to •*. people, , the lower classes of what might fairly be, a necessary of life, thou g h cons id ere d as one o f their luxuries. For himself, if the alternative were' that either the present or a property tax was to be imposed, he would vote for the latter ; but he would oppose both, as he did not consider the present a pro per time for adding to the burdens of the country. Mr. RICARDO and Mr. LYTTLETON mutually ex plained. • Mr. BROUGHAM opposed the addition of any malt duties, on the ground that, in the first instance, the tax on the malt in hand would fall on the malt seer, and because the general malt tax would fall on the consumers, who were almost wholly the lower classes of society. Mr. C. CALVERT understood that it was first in tended to imp.o'e an additional duty on the spirits in the hands of the distillers, but that this idea was abandoned. He thought it was the duty of Minis ters to encourage the use of a sound and wholesome bevera3e, and to put an additional duty on spirits, as they were injurious both to the healthand morals of the people. Mr. HUSKISSDN rnaintainea that if the stock of Malt in hand wer! not subjected to the tax propose 4; the maltsters would in consequence have an undue advantage in the market over the growers. Mr. S. WORTLEY dissented from the opinion of his Right Hon. Friend who spoke last, thinking it ex ceedingly unfair that the disadvantage of a new tax should be superadded to that of the fall of prices upon which the maltsters had but too much reason to cal culate—(Hear, hear.) Lord ALTHORP opposed the clause. Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that as the brewers had stated their intention to reduce the price of beer, if it were not for their expectation of a new tax upon malt, they had no right to demand any ex— emption from this tax. For no reduction having taken place in the price of beer, they had realized an ac tual profit at the expense of the consumer, without any benefit to the revenue. As to the fall in the price of malt, that fall would take place on the stock in hand, whether this tax was imposed or not, and the maltsters had no title to say that they should be ex empted from this tax in consideration of that fall, or that they should be reimbursed for the failure of their speculations at the expense of the revenue. A MEMBER read a letter which he had received from a maltster, stating the loss that would be sus tained through the proposed tax by maltsters who had any stock on hand. The loss the writer rated at between SOs. and 40s. per quarter. Mr. T. WILSON thought that the rnaltsters were not entitled to the indemnity which they required, by an exemption from this tax of the stock in hand, merely in consequence of the failure of their specula tions through the purchase of barley at a higher price than that at which it was likely to sell at the ap- proaching harvest. - • M. J. P. GRANT maintained that the disadvan tage which the maltsters were likely to suffer through the fall of prices upon the stock in hand did, entitle them in fairness to complain of the additional disad vantage of the proposed tax, and that the property which they had in hand should not be depreciated. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob served; that the proposed tax would not operate until November,. and that of course it could not affect the • price of the stock in hand to the extent which some Teendemen appeared to think. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said, that the ques tion before the Committee was, whether the maltsters were entitled to an exemption of the stock in hand :from the proposed additional tax ? He was ready to say that he opposed this as well as the ether new taxes, and especially, that under consideration, be- cause he thought it likely to injure the poor and the interest of agriculture, for it was a fallacy to sup pose that it would not fall upon the grower of corn and the consumer of beer. With respect, however, to the malt on hand, it was said that this was likely 'to fall in price, but if, on the contrary, it wereto rise, would not the maltsters put the difference in their own pockets—(Hear, hear.) And why, he would ask, should they be indemnified for the fall ? it would, indeed, be a novelty io legislation, to indem nify any body of men for a &lure of their specula tions at the expense of the revenue. If the maltsters could skew that they had it not in their power to re imburse themselves for the proposed tax by any ad vance of charge to the purchaser of the stock in hand, they would be entitled to consideration in this - case, but not otherwise, according to his judgment. Mr. RICARDO observed, that while the maltster had the power of transferring the proposed additio nal tax to others, he could have no right to complain -a the extension of this tax to the stock in hand. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON observed, that it was as serted, even by those who brought forward this mea sure, that the price of beer must fall if the new duty were not imposed. That its great pressure must be upon the poorer classes, seemed to him evident. If the situation of Ireland were considered, both the health and morals of the people must be improved by a reduction in the prices of malt liquors. It ought also to be considered, that the manufacture of them formed a new branch of industry, and a new opening for the employment of capital in that country. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro posed, that the additional Tax should be paid by in stalments—namely, 3d. on the 10th of November ; 3d. on the 10th of January ; 4d. on the 10th of. Fe bruary ; and 4d. on the 10th of April. On 4ie proposition of Mr. J. P. GRANT, the House divided upon the Clause for extending the Tax to the stock of Malt on hand. For the Clause, 175 — Against it, 67—Majority, 108: . On readmission to the Gallery, the Chairman was instructed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Howie ac cordingly resumed, and a Message was received from the Lords, stating their Lordships' assent to the Loan Bill, and the Hon duras Murder Prevention Bid; and also that their Lowish* had passed a Bill to indemnify sack persons as should give evi dence in their Committee with respect to Bribery and Corrop rion.at This t which Bill they respired the coneurreeee r ef that House. This Bill was read a first sad seco nd time, es the motion of Mr. Wynn, and ordered to he ementitted oa Monday. The House again resumed into a Committee on , . paid be increased in amount of tax to Is. nearly doubling the sum. That article, before the duty was dimi nished, was consumed in a very small pfoportion. effect of the diminution was considerably to increase the consumption. He should not divide the Com mittee, but in order to have the vote recorded he should move that the blank be filled up with the words seven-pence halfpenny in place of one shil ,ling. The amendment was negatived. On the clause for imposing the additional Excise buty, snaking a total of 3s. 6d. on malt per bushel, from the sth of July next, the Committee divided-- Pm the clause, 171—Against it, 82. On the clause for an additional duty of 4d. per pound on Tea. Mr. ALLEN objected to the proposed increase, as it materially affected a necessary of life ; which , in these very distressed times, supplied the place of meat and beer, with the lower orders. He suggested the propriety of diminishing the duties on - French Wines, as a certain method to increase their con sumption, and to benefit the Revenue materially. Mr. ELLICE declared his decided conviction, that the increased tax would not be productive. At the late Tea sales of the East India Company, the prices of the lower Teas were considerably diminished, in consequence of the diminution of the consumption. He had heard, from the best authority, that the di minution of Revenue arising from the diminution of price, was calculated to amount to sixty thousand pounds. Was it wise then, when the East India Company felt compelled, by the falling off in the consumption, to lower prices, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to counteract the effect by an addi tional taxation ? And could he believe that such an imposition would, under such circumstances, be pro ductive P The people of this country on that article, besides the 3i millions of revenue which it yielded to the Government, had two millions additional to pay to uphold the monopoly of the East India Company. The effect of the whole of this system of taxation was to reduce the spirit of the people, by making them dependent on the poors' rate. Mr. HUME objected to the clause, and trusted at the proper moment the people would be relieved from the pressure of the East India monopoly. Mr. HARVEY, Mr. HURST, and Mr. BROUGIIAM, objected to any additional taxation on articles of such necessity to the poorer classes. It would not be productive. Mr. AIdermanWAITHMAN said, its effect would be to fill the workhouses with aged women, who now mainly depended on a weekly pittance, of three or (oar shillings from the parish, and who lived chiefly lon bread and tea. Honourable Gentlemen should recollect that every thing consumed by the poor was also taxed—their beer was taxed—their tobacco was taxed—in short, they were devoured by taxation.— (Hear, was time for the House to grant them some remission from taxation, instead of adding to their burdens. The CNANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that his reason for not selecting wines for tax ation was, that such a measure would be only attend ed with a diminution of the consumption. Mr. MONEY defended the conduct of the East India Company. Mr. STUART WORTLEY expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way on an article so essentially affecting the subsistence of the poor.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SCARLETT suggested a diminution of the present duty on tea, as most likely to increase the consumption, and of course the revenue. Mr. LYTTELTON observed, that the whole amount of £120,000 bore a very small proportion to the total amount of new taxes. To give it up would render a material service to every cottage in the country. Lord MILTON suggested a postponement of the discussion on the Clause, to give time for an arrangement. Mr. WILSON suggested that all tea sold at the sale under two shillings a pound, should pay at the rate of 96 per cent. and that all above it should pay 100 per cent. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, adopting the suggestion, proposed the following Clause :—Ttiat 96 per cent. should be cbarged upon all tea sold at or under 2s. a pound at the sale, and 100 per cent. upon all above it. The Clause so amended was agreed to. The blank in the clause respecting the duty on To bacco being filled up with "three shillings per pound;' the 13(11 with its Amendments was ordered to be re- ported on Monday next. Mr. ELLICE wished to know whither it was the intention of the Right llonourable Gentleman to pro pose any additional duties upon Sugar? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered, that no alteration was to be made in the duties upon that article. Mr. WAITIIMAN asked, whether the war duties,, which were to expire next year, were included in the Customs Duties Bill? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they were not. The House then went into a Committee on the Customs Duties Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro- posed that a duty of sixpence per pound should be laid on all foreign sheep's, wool or lamb's wool, and that the duty should attach upon wool imported from any part of Europe, from the sth of October, and upon that imported from any other part of the world from the sth of January, 1820. Lord NILTON opposed the clause as a departure from the ancient policy of this country, which was to draw the raw material of our manufactures, free of duty, fi om foreign parts. The consequence bf the present measure would be to injure the woollen trade, as appeared from the various Petitions which he would lay on the table for the information of Mem bers, although he could not bring them formally be fore the. House. He would ask whether the was a period to try such an experiment? rev:: L was nominally 6d. per pound, but it would be at the .:4: -s. in many cases a shilling. This he C SE. . be sufficient to deterninie the prefelei•Le in America, ttl the Yienaisi‘and.Frer.:ll To impok such a tax at such a WO national, distress, would go as far as any .ouldto alienate the the affections of royal sufferis population. WESTERN spoke in favour of the duty. The . appeared to him to be, whether they, would annihilate the growth of wool in this country 0 • nt t? He insisted strongly on the great increase in the im portation of foreign wool, which from an average of three millions a year amounted in . a silent period to an average of twenty-four millions. Atwas idle to suppose that an ihrportation so extensive should Mt have the effect of discoaraging the growth of the ar ticle at home, and thereby of obliging our manufac turers to depend on foreign countries instead of their own for the raw material. Mr. DICKINSON opposed tee tar. It was imprac• ticable to carry on our own manufacture without the admixture of foreign wool. It would be a heavy im , post on the whole community, as it would add Is. 4.d. Ito the price of every yard of cloth. Our woollen manufacturers were at present in great distress. Po. reign manufacturers were entering into successful competition with them. Such was the existing state of things, that confidence was almost at an end, and every commercial adventure assumed the character of a hazardous speculation: Mr- Ht 811EISSON supported the expediency of imposing the duty. lie compared it with the duty on cotton. The former was only 7 per cent.—the latter 10 per cent. Of wool, however, we prOduced - much—of cotton, not a pound. Adverting to a pamphlet Which had been circulated by the Commit tee of Woolstaplers, is London, he ridiculed the ciples On which Gentlemen founded their arguments. He supported the duty, because he was perstladed that it would net injure our manufactures; and that the article in question could better bear the proposed duty than any other that could be selected. Mr. S. WORTLEY warmly opposed the proposed tax, as most detrimental to the manufactures of the country. It was impossible that our main facture:l ,could make good cloth without foreiga wool. 411 duties on raw materials were injurious, and this was peculiarly so. The duty would shut us out altoge ther from the Continent of Europe, and nearly so from that of America. There was already great dis treis in the manufacturing districts ; the propsilled duty would throw them into despair. Mr. H. SUMNER maintained the expediency of the duty as affording a very necessary protection o f` ' the agriculture of the country. Lord LASCELLES, on the contrary, contended, at considerable length, that the advantage of the agricultural interest ought not to be thus consulted to the danger.of ruining the woollen manufacture. Mr. W. BURRELL thought there was now a fair chance of a fair remunerating price to the Wool• grower ; he was only sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the wool of this year to enter the country. Mr. LYTTLETON 'condemned the impolcey of attempting to remunerate the agriCulturist at the ex• pease of the manufacturer—the ruin of the one would be attended with the ruin of the other. Mr. PHILIPS said that the landed interest had re. Presentatives in that House, the mercantile interest *as also represented, as the great towns were repre. seated ; but the manufacturing districts were not re presented, and the manufacturing interest was not therefore represented, except by accident. If we were to be a commercial country, if we exported, we must also import; but with an increased import of foreign wool, we had also had an increase of English wool. If you obstruct the imports into the couutry, you oh. , struct also the exports from the country. When Mr. PHILLIPS had concluded his speech, cries of " Question, question!" and " Withdraw, with• drew!" resounded from several parts of the House. Mr. HART DAVIS said, the manufacturer of this country would, if this tat were imposed, have 30 per cent. against him in competing with the foreign manufacturer. Mr. EVANS, though he had supported the Minis• try during the war, and though he was not unwilling .to support new taxes, still felt it his duty to enter his most solemn protest against the present tax—( Cries of " Question, question 1') Mr. T. WILSON (of London) assured the.HOuse, I that when he informed them that he intended only to say a few words, he intended to adhere strictly to his promise. The words he had to utter were, his down right abhorrence of the tax now proposed-! The question being again loudly called for, the House divided—For the Tax, 106—Against it, 63. Majority for it, 43. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and re quested leave to sit again. Mr. HUME moved for the printing the Annual Accounts of the East India Company.—Ordered. An Account of the Average for the last two years, ending in January, 1819, of the Excise Duties.—Ordered. The other Orders of the Day being disposed of, the House adjourned at THREE O'CLOCK this Morning. THE MINORITX . , ON WIZ MAILOGIS OT EATISTIIC I 6 MOTION AGAINST TIM MALT AND llTlftlt TAX TILLS. Althorp, Viscount Fitzgerald,lit.lin.M,Newman, K. W. Barham, Joseph F. Fitzroy, Lord C. Neville lion. IL Harnett, James Grant, J. P. North, Dudley Beecher, W. W. Gordon, Robert Ord, William Bernal, R. Graham, Sandford Palmer, C. F. Benyon, Hen. „ Grenfell, Pascoe Parnell, Sir H. Brand, Hon. T. Griffith, John W. Phillips, G. Browne, Dons. Guise, Sir W. Phillips, G. jun. Brougham, Henry Gurney, R. H. Phillips, C. M. Callaghan, J. Harcourt, John Ponsonby, Hon. F.C. Calcraft, John Hamilton, Lord A. Powlett, lion. Wm. Calvert, Charles Hill, Lord A. Rickford, William 'Campbell, Hon. S. Honeywood, W. P. Ricardo, David Clifford, Captain Hume, Joseph Robarts, A. Clifton, Lord Hutchinson, Hon. C. Hobart., W. T. Colborne, N. R. J. Kennedy, T. F. Rowley. Sr William Coke, T. W. Leslie, William Ruisell. Lord G. W. Concannon, Lucius Lamb, Hon. W. Hassell, Lord John Crompton, Samuel Lamb, lion. G. Scarlett, J. Calvert, Nicholas Lambton,J. G. 'Stuart, Lord James Crawley, Samuel Langton, W. G. Stewart, William Davies, 'F. H. I.atouche, John Taylor, M. A. Douglas, lion. F. S. Lemon, Sir W. Thorp, Alderman Denison, W. J. Lyttelton, lion. W. Waithman,Aldermall Duncanden,Vlscount Maberiey, John Wood, Alderman Dandy!, lion. L. Macleod, Roderick Webbe, E. Dundas, Thomas Mattocks, W. A. Western, C. C Eb r in g ton, Viscount Martin, John Wilson, Sir Robert Mike, Edward Wdton, Viscount H u ston, Earl of Merest, J. W. D. Isas.tits. Fasakettuy, N. Mb, G. Bennett, Hen, XG. Ferguson, Sir R. C. Mooch, Sir C. Tavisseek, Islarsois Mt. Mow paired off against tke.igalt Tn., 1 -~~ a "' - . • tnd that them, and therefore they hid a it il s. COntribute the Taxes. • ein 'the elaise advettlitgrO ita additional least SI and ; plp were now. This lax, generally, would tu depiiue the Ds*/ on Coffee A n d Co*t Nuts, . ceived would 1 consumer of almost the on ly luxu le ft to him; it )4i. ,T. P. GENET animadverted as the ecnitilst given even in i argued 'would o p erate to deprive the lower plisses of the use between the amount of the tax to be levied on that manufaitures. not the of a wholesome beverage ; it would o in a word, lessen part of the article which *as low priced and consti- ment of natic Iroperty the comforts and injure the morals of people. The tuted a main article of consumption with the poor thing could . tc or taxes Chancellor was between the horns of this dilemma; classes, and that imposed on the high priced colfee. and sufferis I e, what either h e must ra i se t hi s tax from ' a comparatively Coffee which sold at the wholesale price of 2s. and Mr. WEST —(Hear, small portionof the people, or else Le must raise it by 2s. 6d. a pound, and now paid a duty of lid. was to question appei of two depriving the lower classes of what might fairly be be increased in amount of tax to ls. nearly doubling annihilate the sere was called a necessary of life. though enntidered ac one of the SIMI_ That artielf._ before the duty was dime- He insisted sti **1 144 J