The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, illAiwu 10. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. IRISH EDUCATION. The Earl of RODEN laid upon the table papers connected with National Education in Ireland, and moved for returns upon the subject. The Marquis of L A N SDO WNE said he could not allow a subject of such importance to pass without observation. He was desirous that the effects of a measure which had worked so well should be understood, grossly misrepresented as they had been. He wished the fullest discussion upon the subject. The only regret he felt was, that the number of documents whichthe Noble Earl had moved for would delay the discussion. The Earl of RODEN had been in hopes that the Noble Marquis, in consequence of the course he had pursued, would not have expressed his opinions upon the subject at the pre sent moment in such strong terms. He was quite sure that the measures which had been introduced were not calculated to produce a good system of education in Ireland. The Duke of RICHMOND thought when the documents were before the House, the charges made against the measure would be shown to be entirely groundless. The returns were then agreed to. MALT TAX. The Marquis of CAMDEN presented a petition from a parish in Kent, complaining of distress, and praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax. Lord BROUGHAM thought that a repeal of the malt tax would sot benefit the agricultural interest. That tax amounted to upwards of four millions, and that sum must either be raised by means of a tax upon malt or income. It was impos sible that a deficiency to so large an amount could be made up by any other means. He, therefore, could not support the prayer of the petition. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. FOREIGN RELATIONS. Lord BROUGHAM wished to put a question to the Noble Duke at the head of the Foreign Department. Two most important events had occurred within a very short time—the de cease of the Emperor of Austria, and the movement of a fleet of six or eight sail of the line from Malta. He wished to know what course his Majesty's Government intended to pur sue in consequence ? It was of great consequence that we should have at the Court of St. Petersburgh as Ambassador at the present time, a person of great talent and experience, and he ( Lord Brougham) had no doubt that his Majesty's Govern ment must see the propriety of filling up the vacancy which had for some time existed ; and he was desirous of knowing whe ther the appointment which it had been rumoured existed, had really taken place ? Now he was on his legs, he might be permitted to express a wish that his Majesty's Government would, on the decease of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, press upon the Government of that country that which he believed the general feeling of the people would approve, and which, he would say, it was the duty of that Government to attend to—certain he was it was consistent with justice, with humanity, and, he would add, because it was his conscien tious belief, with sound policy and wisdom, as regarded their own individual interest,—he repeated, be trusted his Majesty's Ministers would impress upon the Court of his Imperial Ma jesty, who succeeded to that Crown, to mitigate the rigour and punishment which had existed during the last 17 years, in flicted upon a class of men the most able, the most intelligent, the most accomplished, and who were the ornament of the country. The Duke of WELLINGTON was sure that the Noble Lord could not anticipate any definitive answer as to the course Government intended to pursue, after the expiration of so short a period since the death of the Emperor of Austria. With respect to the latter question of the Noble Lord, he had only to say that as soon as the weather permitted, the Noble Marquis with whom the interests of this country were instrustecl at the Court of Russia would leave London for that country. He could assure the Noble and Learned Lord that no grave matter was connected with the removal of his Ma jesty's fleet, as regarded this country and the Court of St. Petersburgh. He had no reason to believe that any cause for such an apprehension existed, or that any such might arise hereafter. Lord ELL ENBOROUGH gave notice, that on Thursday next he should move the second reading of the Indian Govern ment Indemnity Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the first reading of a Bill for amending the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in cases of contempt, and also to amend the laws relating to infants and f e mmes covert.—Read a first time. Mr. JERVIS brought up the Chester Criminal Bill, after which the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARcii 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair at three o'clock. MALT TAX. Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition from Lewes in kvour of a Labour Rate Bill, of a similar nature to that of last year, and praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax. The petition was signed by some of the most respectable proprie tors of land in the place. The SPEAKER suggested to lion. Members, whose names were on his list, the propriety of abstaining from presenting their petitions, if they did not relate to the debate which was coming on that evening—the Malt Tax.—( Cheers.) Mr. HODGES presented a great number of petitions from various places in the county of Kent, praying for a total repeal of the Malt Tax.—They were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. PLUM PT RE also presented petitions on the same subject, from places in Kent. Mr. GLADSTONE presented a petition from Newark, for a repeal of the Malt Tax. The Earl of DARLINGTON presented a petition, signed by 3,140 inhabitants of Salop, praying for a Repeal of the Malt Tax, and that no infringement should be made on the Corn Laws, the continuance of which they deem essential to their (the petitioners') very existence. A great number of similar petitions were presented by several Members from places in Surrey, Somerset, Kent, &c., all of which were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. FIELDEN presented a similar petition from the Bo rough of Oldham. Mr. COBBETT said, that if the Malt Tax were taken off, some other tax must be laid on ; and it was a matter of sur prise to him, that out of 658 Members, not one could be found who could discover where some saving might be made. He humbly thought he could do so himself.—( Hear, hear.) But whether another tax was laid on or not—whether a property tax, or whatever tax it might be—no tax could be more injurious than the Malt Tax. A property tax was so much money taken out of the pockets of the poor--it was laid on the rich, in the first instance, but it fell on the poor. Every one must allow this. The Malt Tax certainly had innumerable evils attached to it, so many that it would take a whole day to detail them. He applauded the sentiments of his constituents, and gave his most cordial support to the petition. The petition was then laid on the table. Mr. COBBETT then presented a petition from Manches ter, signed by 4,000 inhabitants of that town, praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and three similar petitions from pa rishes in Norfolk. The Hon. Member expressed a hope that the majority on that side of the House would not be separated upon this question. Lord G RIM STON E presented a petition from Hitchen, in Hertfordshire, to the same effect. _ _ Col. L YGON presented a similar petition from the county of Lincoln. Mr. G. BERKLEY presented petitions from Fetherstone and other places in the county of Gloucester, signed by up wards of 3,180 inhabitants of that county, in favour of the repeal of the Malt Tax. The Marquis of CH AND 0 S presented 40 petitions from different places in the counties of Buckingham and Bedford, signed by upwards of 5,000 persons, praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax. _ _ Mr. HANDLEY presented similar petitions from different parishes in the county of Lincoln. Mr. GORING presented similar petitions from parishes in Sussex. Sir J. A STL E Y presented petitions from Holt, and several other places, to a similar effect. Lord ALFORD presented petitions from Leicester, and several other places, against the Malt Tax. Mr. CURTEIS presented similar petitions from Battle, and twenty-three parishes in the county of Sussex. Mr. PELHAM presented similar petitions from parishes in the county of Lincoln, signed by upwards of 3,500 persons. DISSENTERS. Mr. WILK S presented a petition from a large body of Dissenters residing in the parish of St. Peter, in the borough of Wallingford, against the Church Rates. The petitioners stated that at a late meeting in that parish, those persons in favour of the Church Rates had been in a minority of two to one, and that, therefore, they prayed that this Honourable House would abolish this grievous impost. ROYAL BURGHS, SCOTLAND. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, praying that a proper symem might be introduced for the proper regulation of the funds arising from the Northern Lights. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Prisoners confined in tha Marshalsea Four Courts, Dublin, praying for the abolition of imprisonment for debt in that county. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented a petition from a per_ eon named Blaker, an attorney, beseeching the House that the duty on attorneys' certificates might be repealed. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. Lord HENNIKER presented a petition from a parish in Suffolk, praying for the reinstatement of a Board of Agricul ture ; also another . petition, praying that the charges for at tending the poor mtghtbe paid for by a general tax. Mr. A. BARING presented a petition from Essex, com plaining of agricultural dist ress . Mr. KELLY presented a petition from a number of Li censed Victuallers, complaining of the amount of the duty on Spirit Licenses. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the matter into his serious eon sideration, and thereby prevent the necessity for any Mem ber to bring the subject forward; but if this were not done he should certainly bring it before the House himself. He could easily prove to the House that this tax was as mis chievous and vicious in principle as it was unjust and partial in its practical operation. He trusted, therefore, that Sir R. Peel would propose some mitigation of this tax in his budget. Sir R. PEEL said that it was all very well for constituents to petition at i ltat asAy taxes which th e y m i g h t fi n d b urt h en- , some; but t ;it aol\ most unreasonabl e f or H on . M em b ers to apply for thi: ' dot' one tax afte r anot h er , un l ess they ,r 4 could find, and we -r eady to propose, some substitute. Mr. ROBINSO'N was of opi n i on t h at t h e whole taxation t jtf,,, titit country should be referred to the consideration of a tt4i) committee. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to give up the house tax, and now there was every appearance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer being placed in a similar situation with respect to the Malt Tax. He knew that many Honourable Members came to that House pledged, as respected that and other taxes, without being able to exercise their judgment. But he thought that the experiment which was about to be made that evening.was not fair to the Right Hon. Baronet, and not calculated for the security of that House, nor of the public. The only way, therefore, would be to refer the whole taxation to a Committee to see how the public burdens could be diminished, that they should be justly distributed, and that the lower classes should be relieved ; he should, therefore, rote for the repeal of the Malt Tax, because he thought it would oblige him to do this, and to substitute a tax on the property of the coun try—it was not fair to propose the abolition of any tax unless they were ready to find a substitute for it. Mr. C OBBE TT said, it was not to be expected that everything a man said upon the hustings was to be observed in that House, although there were 400 members who had pledged themselves to vote for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and who he believed would abide by their pledges in that respect. He differed from the Hon. Member ( Mr. Robinson) that it was the duty of every Member who proposed the repeal of a tax to find a substitute. That was for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look after, and if he did not require it, there was no earthly reason why any one else should trouble themselves about it.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) An Nom. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, and who spoke from the Opposition benches, said he was very happy to understand that so many Members were pledged to vote for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and he hoped that those Hon. Members would bear in mind the fate of Sir George Murray. Mr. KELLY regretted that the petition he had presented ' should have led even to an approach to any premature discus sion of the very momentous question which the House was called unon to discuss this evening ; and he begged to assure the Right lion. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the two subjects were perfectly and necessarily unconnected. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from Chep stow, complaining of agricultural distress. Lord G. L ENNO X presented a petition from the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Sussex, complaining that he had been put to considerable expense in making out certain returns by order of the House. He had applied for payment out of the County Rates, but he had been refused, and he had also applied to the Home Office, but with similar success. It was a great hardship upon this officer to be obliged to employ clerks, and pay out money to the amount of 701. I Is. 5d., and he ( Lord G. Lennox) trusted the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suggest some mode by which he would obtain compensation. Sir R. PEEL said the returns in question had been called for by the House, and he had great doubts as to the propriety of paying such demands out of the public funds, nor could he do so until some ne , - , arrangement had been made. After a few words from Mr. FINS, Sir R. PEEL observed, that the only way to prevent Hon. Members from moving for expensive returns was to have the expense defrayed out of the public funds.--.( Hear.) Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, in some instances expenses incurred in this way were paid for out of the county-rates, but he believed the county had no right to do so. An HON. MEmirrß suggested that those Hon. Members who moved for the returns, should be obliged to defray a portion of the expenses.—( Hear, hear.) THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11,1835. I propose, but will hail it with joy and satisfaction. —( Hear, hear, hear.) If we look at the question in another point of view we find that the great profit of the trade finds its way into the pockets of the maltsters. The consump tion of Malt, I find in the table of the Revenues, page 94, to be, up to the month of October, 1830, 40,758,900 bushels, at Bs. per bushel, which produces in round numbers 16,330,6001. Now, Sir, what was the duty paid to his Majesty's Govern ment for Malt in 1833? It was this-4,923,0741., and the expense of the maltster in the manufacture of Malt is about 3s. per quarter, and the extra charge of tax which is made by the Excise altogether amounts to 3s. 6d. per quarter. The whole sum, therefore, being 16.336,0001., I find out of that only 4,923,0741. finds its way into his Majesty's Exchequer. What becomes of the rest ? The rest must become the pro fit of some individual, and a great portion of it does, more or less, find its way into the pocket of the maltster. A profit the maltster certainly has a right to have ; but if this sum of money has been expended, I think the government is entitled to receive that duty, and that such a large amount ought not to go into the pockets of any individual whatever. If you make any alteration in those duties it would be a help to us, but if you take away the whole of the Malt duty you do away with monopolies, and you throw the trade more or less open to a large portion of his Majesty's subjects ; consequently the relief would not be confined to the farmer alone. It would extend to the whole of the community, and more or less, you would find every man benefited in some degree. Now, Sir, the brewer, no doubt, makes also a considerable pro fit by not giving to the poor man that sound and nutritious beverage which he has a right to expect, and which he ought to have ; but by taking off the duty on malt, opening the trade in every direction, and enabling; private persons as well as farmers to brew, you would ensure to the community at large that wholesome and proper beverage. Sir, there is another point which affects farmers most materially.—( Hear, hear.) You will find in many counties, that feeders of cattle, for instance, would prefer to bring the large cattle up to Smithfield upon the refuse barley they have. In my own county there are a number of graziers, most respectable men, who are in the constant habit of sending up their cattle to town, which they feed with oil cake, provided they can obtain the materials, and I find that the benefit to the farmer from the feeding the cattle in that way would be great and most beneficial to the trade.—( Hear. ) The maltster only uses the best quality of barley ; but if the Malt Tax were repealed, the farmer and labourer would gladly use the inferior sorts for making for their own consumption. I will also mention, that for the purpose of feeding cattle, two bushels of malt are equal to four of barley. In my own vicinity, I admit that the repeal of the Malt Tax would not af ford any very sensible relief ; but I know, and it is uni versally acknowledged, that in most other districts it would afford a great relief, and the whole agricultural community, therefore, pray that the whole of the tax may be repealed; and any approach to that desirable object will be received by the farmer as an earnest of the goodwill of this House, and of its desire to afford all the relief in its power to the agricultural interest. I regret to know that I shall not have the support of my Right Honourable Friend, but I must leave the question to the support of the country gentlemen of England, many of whom I know are pledged to the repeal of this tax.---( Hear, hear.) I am well aware that my Right Hon. Friend has a right to ask for a sub stitute, and I might claim the example of a precedent used by an Hon. Member in a former Parliament (the Right Hon. Mr. Tierney), that it was not his business to suggest taxes but to take them off ; but I would advise as a means of proceeding to supply the deficiency, the increasing of the duties on wines, spirits, and other articles of excise, by which means they would not trespass on the lower classes, but levy the tax ation on the higher classes of the community. It is impossible to go on year after year without affording relief to the farmers and labourers, and that relief was not to be afforded them by any remission of trifling taxes, but by some decided reduction, like the repeal of the Malt Tax.—( Hear, bear. ) I was certainly induced to think that in proposing this motion to the House, I should have to enter into a resolution more at length than the one which I have now the honour to submit for their consideration. I wish, however, to take the opinion of the House on the actual state of this burthen on the agricultural districts, and to ascertain from them whether, in this state of affairs, these duties should be taken off.—( Hear, hear.) Finding that the maltster would, in a great mea sure, be afforded a relief in the return of the duty, but not wishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be called on to give a drawback on the present amount of stock, making every allowance for the difficulties which would arise, I I feel, however, notwithstanding all this, that I shall best con sult the interests of the country at large, if they shall agree with me in the resolution which I have the honour to pro pose, which has for its effect an entire abolition of the Malt tax, leaving it to the House to bring in a bill which shall have for its object the abolition or dimi nution of these duties, not all at once, but by a gradual pro cess of two or three instalments, and which would thus relieve the Government from the consequent embsrrassment of its in stant repeal. God forbid that I should be a man to dictate an opi nion to this House, or force on them a measure which would have for its effect an injury upon public credit ; I am not the man to give to the country opinions such as that ; but I am the man to introduce stable, substantial, and decided measures of relief. I call on you, to relieve the distress of the agricultural in terest, of which you cannot be ignorant ; and whose in dustry cannot but command your respect. I find that in looking back to the debates on this question, individuals whom I new see in this House holding high and distinguished situations, have more or less given their opinion that this subject should meet with a speedy settlement. I appeal to a vast body of English country gentlemen whose returns have been made on the express understanding that they are to vote for the re peal of this tax.---( Cheers from the Opposition.) I call upon this House to advocate the cause of the farmers, that they would give effect to the motion which I have the honour to propose. I would not call the conduct of any Hon. Gentlemen into question, but I would appeal to them to consider the in fluence of their vote on this occasion.—( Hear, hear.) I bring the question forward honestly and sincerely. I bring it forward, as I conceive, from an actual duty I owe my consti tuents. I redeem the pledge I gave to the country, and what ever may be the result of this debate, I shall have the comfort of knowing at least that I have endeavoured to relieve the agri cultural interests, as well as that I have not swerved from my , duty. I could have wished that I addressed a House more in clined to favour this measure than the present.—( Hear.) I wish that I could speak with confidence as to the result ; but this the House may depend upon, that the malt duties cannot long maintain their position in the financial arrangements of this country—(Cheers, and cries of " Hear hear")—and it may perhaps fall to the lot of some advocate for the repeal snore worthy than myself, to witness the defeat of that tax in a way which the country calls for.--(Loud cheers. ) As I stated before, my intention is now to propose a reso lution calling upon the House to vote for the extinction altogether of the duties upon malt ; but at the same time I beg to state, that if I should succeed in that motion, I shall ask leave to bring in a Bill in which it would be a matter of arrangement as to the time when these reductions should take place. Therefore having stated this my object, I wish it clearly to be understood, that Hon. Members do not, by voting for my motion, bind themselves to any specific time or day. The question afterwards will arise, as to the time when the reduc tion shall commence, and the way in which it shall be effected, whether in two or more instalments. I thought it right to throw out this remark to the House, because I am aware that it would be inconvenient to encumber my resolution by lengthened explanations and details. I cannot justify my self in standing longer before this House, and the many other Hon. Members who are anxious to address it on this occasion. I feel that no words or ability of mine, feeble as it is, can add any strength to the cause which I advocate, or place in a more forcible light the position in which the English farmer now stands. Last year I had the honour to call the atten tion of this House to the state of agricultural distress under which the country laboured ;_ and although the majority was considerable, yet, with regard to the statements made on behalf of the English farmers then and now, there is no shade of difference. The distress which then existed still continues, and is on the increase ; and though I do not wish to enter at large into the subject of agricultural distress, still I cannot help saying that the English farmer cannot be in a worse po sition than he is at the present moment—( Hear, and cheers.) That alone should be an inducement to Hon. Members to give this question their serious consideration. I am unwilling longer to detain the House—l thank it for the patience with which it has listened to me. I have made my motion as simple as possible, and I now leave the question to a jury of English country gentlemen, who are called upon to take into consideration, not only whether dis tress exists, but whether it should be relieved and whether the repeal of the Malt Duties is the best mode of affording them that relief.—( Hear.) I have put my motion in a simple form, and hope that no person shall be taken unawares; and after what I have heard in other quarters, and the speeches which have been made in various parts of the country, (Loud cheering)—l cannot think it'possible that country gen tlemen owing their seats entirely (loud and continued cheer ing) to the agricultural interest, can now in the hour of need desert those in the first instance they supported, and by whom they have been so efficiently supported. I call upon you therefore as country gentlemen of England, to support the resolution which I now beg to submit to the House I now move this resolution—" that the present duty on malt shall altogether cease and terminate from this time." Mr. HANDLEY said he was well aware how difficult it was, in times of political excitement like these, to steer clear of party spirit, but his object at the present moment was not to achieve any triumph of party, but what after mature deli beration he conceived to be one of the greatest benefits to the country at large. The Noble Lord had described in able language the distressed state of the agricultural interest ; for himself he regretted that he could not find words sufficiently ex pressive of the distressed condition of agriculturists. He could not, however, persuade himself that his Majesty's Ministers who had the benefit of the advice and counsel of many country gentlemen from Essex, Kent, and other counties, would turn a deaf car to this mea sure. He thought they ought to have a care how they insulted the farmerste s b pe y e mch from the T s h ak i iig that n a o e r Y ofrelief only that was promised . —2( Hear.) The agricult urists were loud in their complaints on Pv Z'rY side. When com merce flagged, tile tradesman and : merchant in h up his credit and his establishment, by mea! of bills— his w ealthier (Htiar, hear)---and could get assistance from din com eant could keep n'S:,ghbours, but not so with the farmer ; he suffers. '-is ca parative silence, sinking by degrees, and trenching on ca pital from year to year, until he lost all his property and ere', friend to boot, and ended his days amongst the paupers of the parish. He had no hesitation in pronouncing that this was the fate of thousands. In 1821, when wheat was 545. per quarter, a Committee of that House pro nounced that the farmer was unable to pay the expenses of growing corn out of the profits. In 1823 a Corn mittwe again sat, when Corn was 535. Id. per quarter and that Committee reported that the state of the farmer was still worse--that his capital was diminishing very rapidly. At the present period, two-thirds of the former harvest had been abstracted for immediate consumption, yet the price was not more than 435. 4d. per quarter.—( Hear, hear.) —ln . the county from which he came, wheat had been sold at a much lower price ; he himself had sold it at 375. per quarter very lately. He would ask whether the farmer could live upon such a price, even if he were rent-free ? He would ask, whether the natural consequence would not be that one-third of the wheat lands would be thrown out of cultivation. Hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords opposite might express great fears for the progress of Reform, and cry loudly for the preservation of the institutions of the country ; but he would contend that such a state of things as be had represented was the only revolution that was to be feared—( Cheers)—it would most certainly be most subversive of property, and prove dangerous to the institutions of the country. He had not the slightest doubt but that the reduction of the Malt Duties would benefit, most materially, not only the agricultural interests, but those of the country at large.—( Hear, hear.) The Malt Tax was the most partial and impolitic of all imposts. It was partial, because it pressed upon only one class of the com munity, the agriculturists, and only one sort of land. It was demoralizing in its effects, because it deprived the labourer of a wholesome beverage, and drove him to the ale-house. The Noble Lord alluded to a most important fact, — that during the last forty years there had been no increase of consumption in malt, while in sugar there had been an increase of 30 per cent., and in tea of 40 per cent., while the increase in coffee actually amounted to two hundred per cent.—( Hear, hear:) The re sult which followed the reduction of the duty on beer was an increase of 16 millions of quarters of Malt in the year, com pared with the year before. Gentlemen were perfectly aware that they were now in a season when there had been a great deficiency in the crops of spring, and that which was selling at 325. not long before, was at present only 26i. Now could they fancy the time when it would be nothing to have an increase of 51. upon a quarter of barley—that would make 1/. an acre upon the ground under barley, and at least 5/. upon the whole farm. But he held that a great advantage would be conferred on the farmer, not so much from the increase of the demand that would take place for inferior Malt, but from the increase of the price that Malt of a better description would experience. The difference between that description of malt and that which is fit for grinding is 6s. a quarter. He saw no reason why brewers should not brew from inferior barley; and to shew the evils that the continuance of the heavy duties on malt produced, it was only necessary to state the fact that only one-fifth the proper quantity of malt was used by them. Another evi dence of the injury that the continuance of these duties occa sioned would be afforded by a reference to the prices of spirits. The price of spirits distilled from malt as compared with that from grain is from 2s. to 2s. 4d. a gallon. The Noble Lord alluded to what he ( Mr. H.) would now beg to call the at tention of the House—namely, as to the injurious effects caused by these heavy duties, in compelling farmers to use in ferior grain for feeding their cattle. This was capable of proof, as by analogy of reasoning he was prepared to show. There was nothing, it was well known, better suited for the feeding of cattle than malt dust. Bullocks fed on malt dust sold for seven shillings a head more than bullocks fed on distillers' wash, and the agricultural associations with which he was acquainted in the country parts, debar red their members from feeding their cattle on wash. Not only would these local advantages be produced, but the introduction of foreign grain would be, in a great measure, prohibited. He knew a delicate sense characterised the palates of the Metropolitan gentry. He would call on them to support this motion, inasmuch as they would secure to themselves great benefit from the improvement that would take place both in the beef and mutton they would consume, for, probably, they were not aware that beef grazed on that article (wash) was far inferior to that fed on malt dust. Another benefit would be derived from the abolition of this tax—he meant the expenses farmers were liable to for the support and maintenance of their ser vants.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Servants in his ( Mr. H.'s) county had always been permitted to live in their masters' houses, and he trusted in God they would never be de prived of that privilege. Their servants were accustomed to be supplied with beer—they must have, and will not do without it. It eauied the greatest expense to furnish them with beer ; but beer they ought to have, and would have. If the occupier of about 500 or 600 acres of land derived only a benefit of 201. or 30/., still that was a shilling per acre, and would be an equivalent to the land tax, and he begged to ask what other tax would afford an equal sum ? There was another grievance it was most desirable to check, he meant the existence of beer houses to their present extent.--( Hear. He was satisfied that he was borne out when he said that a great proportion of the crime, discontent, and misery which of late years had gained ground amongst the rural population, was attributable to these beer-shops-4 Hear, hear.) He knew better how to contend against the evil than by wielding a weapon that would strike at the root of the evil. He recollected that the Hon. Member for Oldham quoted the opinion of a gentleman of the name of Simeon, who had taken great pains to ascertain the best mode of checking the evil. He had held communications ' with fifteen clergymen, fourteen of whom stated it as their opinion that the best and surest means of obviating the evil, would be the repeal of the Malt Tax.—( Loud cheers.) If they enabled the labourer to brew his own beer, he would not frequent the beer shop. He knew it was said that this was an Utopian scheme, that it was chimerical, and that the labourers could not brew their own beer at home. Why surely what one man could do, another, with equal means, might effect. And he could state that his labourers did brew at home, and those who had but the common weekly wages were too happy to receive a portion of malt in part payment. He would call attention to another fact. At present the expense of brewing was so great, that the labourers were obliged to adulterate their own beer. He knew instances in which they had purchased sugar, which they were obliged to use as a substitute in the place of that which Providence had given them, and which they had earned with the sweat of their brow. But adultera tion did not serve. A man of a steady character and habits, who could with ease drink two or three pints, when going out to the fields, if he got the same quantity at these houses, came home frantic or infuriated. Last summer, a waterman, on the Thames told him ( Mr. H.) that he dare not drink the beer that was sold at those beer shops, for it would render him unable to do his duty. It was well known that when the large brewers charged 465. per barrel it could afford to be retailed at 365. if the Malt Tax were abolished. It was also a most impolitic tax, for in addition to the cost of the barley and to the amount of the duty, there was a difference of twelve shillings to fourteen shillings per quarter, which went into the pockets of the maltster. This, however, was natural, for no man would go into that trade unless with a prospect of larg e profits, on account of the vexatious restrictions which he was subject to from the Excise regulations. This added greatly to the burthen of the Malt Tax, and was a strong argument for the repeal of that duty. The obnoxious nature of the tax was so generally admitted, that he need not advert to it. He begged to disclaim the doctrine of Mr. Tierney, which had been alluded to by the Noble Marquis, that of voting for the repeal of a tax without being prepared to consent to a substitute. His vote had been worded for the motion of the Hon. Member for Worcester, for the sub stitution of a Property Tax in lieu of those taxes which op pressed the lower classes, and weighed upon industry ; and by that vote he was now ready to abide. He knew this course was somewhat unpopular in that House ; but he would ask what difficulty could arise from adopting such a measure ? Were the finances of the country in so deplorable a condition, and were its resources so circumscribed that means could not be found to provide for such a deficiency ? That could not be the opinion of the gentlemen at the Stock Exchange, or the Funds would not be at the present price--( Hear.) But, continued the Hon. Gentleman, lam relieved from entering into the budget, because the Right Hon. Baronet has at his right hand the Right Hon. the Pre sident of the Board of Trade— ( Hear, hear, hear, and loud laughter) —who I find, in 1833, in discussing this question made this observation—" He believed no reduction of taxation was more likely to give relief than the reduction of the duty on malt.—( Cheers.) If the duty could not be spared, it could be easily transferred to some other article. "—( Cheers. ) Now, Sir, I do not anticipate the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman in support of the motion of my Noble Friend— (Laughter)—because no doubt that speech will support those who had the good fortune to obtain the services of the most efficient President of the Board of Trade ; but still I hope the farmers will not have lost their advocate and con sistent friend.—.( Cheers and laughter.) That Right Hon. Gentleman alluded to duties on beer, spirits, and foreign wines, for I must do him the justice to recollect that there was at that time 12,0001. to remove, for which he did not think it, of course, necessary to provide. But I con ceive that any deficiency which might occur in the revenue might be easily supplied by letting the Crown lauds by public auction, and not letting them out on job-leases. There is another tax which found its way into this House, but which was repealed by the Right Honourable Baronet's pre decessor—the tax on transfer—and for the life of me I cannot understand what is the argument against the imposition of that tax. I know it will be said it is a breach of public faith. Good God ! Sir, was not the property tax a breach of public faith ?—( Hear, hear.) I can only say, looking as I do on taxation as an insurance paid by property for its pro. tection, I ask if there is any description of property it is more desirable to insure than property in the Funds? I beg not to be misunderstood, and I trust I shall not lend myself to anything that can be stamped dishonest or a breach of faith. I recol lect the burst of honest indignation which assailed the Hon. Member for Dublin when he talked of the cant of national faith. If he meant that national faith was of no value— undoubtedly that language was highly reprehensible; but I ask the House, what is the value of national faith, if you have not national means to meet it? I know that Mr. Pitt declared every acre of land in England was mortaged to the public creditor. I will not deny that position ; but I ask, in what condition will the public creditor be, if he should go through the somewhat difficult process of taking possession of unculti vated and useless land ? Sir, it amounts to this either you must place us in a position to pay the interest of that mortgage, or like the mortgages in private life, that interest must be reduced. Now Sir, before I sit down, I cannot help adverting to what h as f a ll en f rom a N o bl e Friend of mine, who stated that he was under an apprehension that Gentlemen, who had pledged themselves elsewhere— ( Hear, hear, hear)—for the repeal of the Malt Tax, would be found voting against the motion of the Noble Lord ~- night. I can only say of those Honourable Gentlemen, La of whom I now see around me, who on the many 'en Lord Althorp used the somewhat stale trick of oc casion %v.: - si gnation, a threat which we all know is t h r eatening al, • 4 into effect—(Loud laughter)—at all n ot very often carrie, ension, at this moment, of such ev ents, we have no appre.- - )—for, however easy i t may an event..(Continued laughtt., be for gentlemen to change their opinions, it is not so easy for them to change their places—( Loud laugh ter)—but if those gentlemen who voted against that repeal under an idea that Earl Grey would resign, should vote with the Ministry to-night, he weuld ask whether factious motives might not be imputed to them ?—( Hear.) He would now ask, had not his Noble Friend been alarmed without just cause ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it possible that those who a few short weeks ago on the hustings claimed the support of their constituencies because they arrogated to them selves the title of the farmer's friends ?—was it possible that that there were gentlemen in that House—( Loud cries cf " Hear, hear")—who would be found to add to the despair of the already broken-hearted farmer, by deserting his cause when the day of profession had gone by ?—( Hear, hear. ) They were now about to submit a test by which to try the sincerity of these Honourable Gentlemen ; and by the division of that night the country would learn who were, and who were not, the farmer's friends.—( Hear, hear.) He was sorry for having so long trespassed upon the House ; he felt gratified for the indulgence that had been extended to him, and most cordially seconded the motion of his Noble Friend._( Cheers. ) Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Mr. Speaker, the course which I mean to pursue makes me particularly anxious to rise at an early period of the discussion—at a period when I am not likely to be tempted, by any reference to political matters or causes of party asperity, to be diverted from my attempt of calling the attention of the House to the question before it, by any matter mixed up with politi cal considerations, or necessarily mixed up with party feelings. I am anxious dispassionately to review these facts and ar guments, on which I think the judgment of the House ought to be formed, and which if excluded from consideration is likely to do most serious prejudice to the best interests of the State—( Hear.) The matter which is to be discussed to-night involves too complicated interests to permit of a reference to any other than those sound arguments— that minute weighing, and deliberation upon facts, on which the verdict of that jury to which my Noble Friend referred, ought to be founded.—,(Hear, hear.,) It is because I hope that this House, is in that position that it considers itself a Jury, and that it is not prepared to decide upon partial evidence and previous prepossessions and preju dices, and upon a selection of the interests of any particular class. It is because I consider it a jury prepared to decide upon a comprehensive view of the merits of the whole question, that I ask of it, that Jury, to weigh well the evidence laid before it, and hear the arguments before it shall decide I am called on to consider this question—whether I will consent to a resolution which pledges me irrevocably and finally to the total repeal of the Malt Tax ? and that call is made at a period when the House of Commons has had no opportunity of hearing the financial statement—when they know not what is the amount of the disposable revenue—when they have had no opportunity of knowing the demands for the public service of the country—before there has been an opportu nity of considering any other mode of taxation ; and I am called on to be a party to an irrevocable resolution before the state of its effects on the Constitution shall have been ascertained. And this is to be done before there has been laid on the table of the House any authentic account of what are our resources. No one can well determine the inconvenience to which such a course would subject the Government. It will be my duty to make this statement as soon as possible after the close of other Ministerial arrange ments, and I then shall have an opportunity of stating to the House what is the amount of the disposable revenue, and what surplus the House will then have in possession, which they can apply either to a remission of taxation, if they consider that too much, or in any other mode they should think most eligible.—( Hear, hear.) But my Noble Friend calls on the House to refuse every other consideration, by stating to the House that the Malt Tax precedes every ether, and is entitled to the first consideration. I think it becomes me, forced as I am into a discussion which ought to be postponed—( Hear, hear, and cheers) —with respect to the Malt Tax, it becomes my duty to caution the House against this course in its present stage, and to do the best I can to caution them against what I call this unjustifiable mode of proceeding. I cannot possibly at this moment state exactly what arc the financial statements of this year, but I can state what was said by the Noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord, in his Budget of last year, made a calcula tion of what would be the available surplus revenue of the year beginning from April 1, 1835, to the ending of April, 1836. He made a calculation for two years. It is sufficient for my purpose to state, that though I think, in some respects, the calculation of the Noble Lord was partially erroneous, yet, upon the whole, the result was not far from the truth. —( Hear.) He estimated the demand for the services of the present year would be probably identical with. the past year.—( Hear.) I have the satisfaction of stating to the House that I think there will be a considerable reduc tion.—( Hear, hear.) At least there will be a reduction of 470,0001.—( Hear.) Although that reduction will not tend to the increase of the available surplus of the revenue, there are other miscalculations, for which the Noble Lord is in no way chargeable, that will cause a further reduc tion, and yet I think that, on the sth April, I may calculate the amount of the revenue will exceed the expenditure about 222,000/. I do not think we can calculate for the ensuing year.—( Hear, hear.) But after my reduction of half a mil lion a year, and the payment of 70,0001. to the West India slave proprietors,—with these financial prospects and the anticipation of a certain reduction of 25Q,0001., the Noble Lord asks this House to pledge itself to repeal the whole of the Malt Tax. What is the total amount of the Malt Tax ? I believe the Malt Tax last year—the gross amount of that tax was about 5,150,0001. Perhaps it will be more satisfac tory that I should state to the House what has been the amount of the payment into the Exchequer—on account of the Malt Tax—for the last four years past, as that will be the best indication of its value. In the year ending the sth of January, 1831, the net payment on account of the Malt Duty was 4,200,000/. ; in the year ending the sth of January, 1832, the amount paid into the Exchequer was 4,676,000/. ; in 1833, the amount was 4,732,000/., and in 1834, the net payment into the Exchequer was 4,812,000/. Now, with a surplus only of 250,0001., I am asked to under take to part with an increasing revenue. I am to pledge myself to the House to part with a revenue which will cause a deficit to the amount of 4,520,000/. ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord tells us that by re pealing the whole Malt tax we shall be able to get rid of a large expense on account of its collection. Of course, in determining the policy of taxes, the charge for collecting them is a most material consideration, and I have therefore taken pains to ascertain the expense of the Malt Tax, and I apprehend there are few taxes the collection of which is accompanied with less charge than that tax. I have attempted to ascertain what extent of establishment you might dispense with, supposing you determined to part with whole tax. But it is not difficult to determine what you would get rid of by repealing the tax. Sir, after the most careful review of the matter, I can state with confidence to the House that the charge for collecting the revenue of 5,100,000/. is certainly not more than 150,000/.—that is the whole sum you would save by the repeal of the whole duty. Ano ther material consideration was that there was no tax producing so much as 5,000,000/. —no combination of taxes collected, at so cheap a rate as the Malt tax.—( Loud cheers.) I am not now saying that there might not be some means found to relieve the farmer that there might not be further facilities given the farmer, free from excise restrictions. It is not necessary for me to go into that subject at present ; but the Noble Lord calls upon the House to pledge itself to the repeal of the, whole duty without any information upon the subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord and the Hon. Gen tleman complain that no remission has recently taken place with reference to the duty on malt. Do they recollect that in the year 1830, it was relieved from a heavy burden by the reduc tion of the duty on beer, to the extent of at least five shil lings a barrel.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But then it is said that the prices of the present year were not those of last year. What was the present price of barley ? There is this singu lar circumstance that whereas the price of barley is higher now, with reference to wheat, the Hon. Gent. assumes that it would afford the greatest relief to the agricultural interests to remove the tax from an article which bears the highest price of all agricultural produce. The price of wheat is low, whilst the price of barley is extremely high. How the Hon. Gentle man can come at the conclusion that by removing the tax from barley— Mr. HANDLEY rose to explain, but was called to order. Sir R. PEEL proceeded. Must we not also bear in mind the rate of duty? It seems that for the last four years there has been a progressive and considerable increase. Supposing the rate of duty were diminished, and the number of quarters of barley were increased so as not to diminish the revenue, this would be a powerful argument in the Hon. Gen tleman's favour, because it might be said that the reduction of the duty caused an increase in the quantity—if I show the Hon. Gentleman, that although the price of barley was increased, and the rate of duty was the same, the quantity of barley brought to charge would be increased, and the amount of the revenue would be diminished. As I stated before, the net revenue in 1831 was 4,200,000/., in 1832, 4,670,000/., in 1833, 4,770,000/., and in 1834, 4,812,0001.—( Hear, hear.) If this duty is so very oppressive, how did it happen that there was a progressive increase of receipts and quantity brought to charge? H ow can they r e c o n c il e this progressive increase in price and in quantity ? There are three points I wish to draw attention to—the increased price of barley —the increased quantity brought to charge—and the increased amount of the duty received. I know the answer that will be made to this. It will be said " true, the price has increased, but that is owing to defective harvests."-- The effect that it would produce would be, according to that argument, to diminish the quantity brought to charge.— ( Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) True, it was said you have had a progressive increase in the consumption of barley for the four years preceding October, but that was owing, it was also said, to the good harvests we experienced. But if I show that, since October, the quantity of barley brought to charge has increased, what will become of my Noble Friend's argument? I called this morning on the Excise, fearing that I might be exposed to fallacy, and knowing it would be alleged that the difference would be attributed to the harvest of last year, and, ther e f ore , mus t account for the difference of price. I found, there that the number of bushels brought to charge from the 10th October, 1833, to the 19th February, 1834, when brought into comparison with the number brought into charge from the 10th Oc tober, 1834, to the 19th February, 1835, gives an increase of 846,000 bushels.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") I do not wish to refer to any subject calculated to produce discussion or excitement, but I shall resign that advantage, if the House will give me its attention while I give them a statement of a few facts and a review of the arguments that have been advanced. It has been said that our surplus revenue will not exceed 260,0001., yet that it is fitting that we should pledge ourselves to a re moval of the Malt Tax. Several advantages have been promised us to result from this ; but to bring past experientwo_ to bear upon present affairs, let us try to ascertain if these pr phecies will be realised. The Noble Lord has said that' the continuance of this tax has caused t he in in the consumption of Malt, and referring to A s a early period of our history, he has attributed to 00 te_ . tax the removal of the national beverage from the P. ,r_ If I compare the present consumption of beer with that of the last century, I must allow that there has been a very conga!, rable diminution • but the question is whether this is to be . T e tributed to the effect of the duty ? Does it arise from !a_ effect of the duty, or from the competition of otb t , articles ?—( Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman had just . c. 7 that while the consumption of Beer has so considerably 6,. creased, that of tea, coffee, spirits, &c., has grea tl y increasoeini. Now, I rely upon this very same fact to draw an entirely i Cat trary conclusion from it—( Hear arid laughter.) F or I say7o it is because the consumption of all those and other mucharticles has so greatly increased that that of Beer h as so ,ta diminished.—( Hear, hear.) It is because people noW 11 , 1 „„ so much tea, coffee, spirits, &c., that they no longer drinico7. much beer. It is not on account of the malt duty, but bea t ; the national taste has changed. The year 1722, was that to, which the consumption of beer was greatest in the population. In that year it was 6,100,000 barrels, re ! about one barrel to each person in the empire. During the thre e years ending in 1833, the consumption of beer was 8,200 , barrels. But I maintain, and shall prove, that this is toe : tributed to the increased consumption of other articles. r. 1722, the consumption of tea was only 370,000 pounds,v; about one ounce to each person ; while in 1833, 't 31,829,000 pounds, or about pounds to each person. _ ( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") This is one great cals! which has superseded the use of beer. A similar inereas? proportion 0. has taken place in the consumption of spirits; and althoel many Hon. Gentlemen may deprecate that increase, Yl ct the duty on spirits were increased, it would only have the • of injuring the revenue, and of encouraging the illicit disti hr li ee r In 1760, the consumption of coffee was 262,000 lbs. , or . t tos quarters of an ounce to each person ; and in 1833, It ctio 20,691,000 lbs., or 1/ lb. to each person. Now, Wl_4 any Hon. Member expect that such an increase should trof place in the consumption of all those articles, and in tbet wf beer also ? It is impossible to have both, and so fa r as /flora is concerned, it certainly is better that tea and coffee shook be consumed than beer. Some Hon. Members se em to that the diminution in the consumption of beer arise s frl l o , greater duty being levied upon it than upon other arti luty Compare the rate per cent. between the articles. Th e Ge o, on malt is 2s. 7d.. that is, about 57 per cent. The Hon' t he tleman says injustice is done to the Malt Tax in encouraging _lt. consumption of other articles by the rate of duty upon r at The rate on coffee is 63 per cent ; on port and sherry , , 1 1$ which the Hon Gent. hopes to draw a large revenue, it is per cent. On rum 407 per cent—( Hear.) On English sPi, 7s. 6d. per gallon, or 332 per cent ; on brandy 627 per een and on geneva 930 per cent.—( Hear.) Now, thereforei„ ask, has the Honourable Gentleman a right to say_ that the consumption arises from the rate of duty ? MY N° o o Friend and the Honourable Gentleman say that there a immense profits made'by the maltsters ; the duty is onlY quarter, and the total amount is only 5 millions, wh_ t l' e •hie millions is made by the maltsters. What ? it cue that in this country there should be upon allY, such enormous and extravagant profits ?—( Hear, ne"itey that when the whole amount of duty is but 5,000,00 a, ,bey can exceed 60,000,000 in a certain trade which is open to one ? Why, there are 14,000 maltsters, and there are Per i l culiar reasons why there should be competition, beca use a portion of capital is derived from the public, that 26, e , is government money, and therefore the public mo I shall now refer the House to some of the calculations to have been made with respect to the difference between sr, price of barley and malt. Tho Hon. Member for Oldham (i e ) Cobbett) made a calculation of this sort last yeart,l l o9 o, appeared to make a considerable impression upon the is, The statement of the Hon. Member was, that the 10 46 8 ‘, barley was 255. per quarter, and the rate of duty 2°°' be, therefore the price of a quarter of malt ought to 844 independently of the charge for making it 455. the quarter; but, said the Hon. Member, the quarter of q f costs in the market 665., and, therefore, there is a ehere t ho' 19s. Bd., which goes as a clear profit into the pocket 0 1 . 04 maltster. I always think it best to have the latest infor o3 :l and sent this day to Mark-lane for the purpose of ascertar . the price of barley and wheat, because hearing of those,. t o vagant gains of the maltster, I wished to know what O a t, te il difference between the price of barley and which collo t 7oo the enormous gains of the maltster. I found that the m ,l 4 ,l of malting barley (this day) was from 365. to 40 5 . T; tl`, believe, is a good price for this article—(loud cries 0 Jr hear ")—which has not diminished in consumption, but tha t .i i , sillmand for it this year has been more than any other. Th is of all others of agricultural produce, bears the highest Pf i r t ot comparison with the other description of grain. Add to of duty, 20s. Bd., to the present price in the market, and ` 4 ` e ,etbs l of malt ought to be 60s. Bd. ; and I have aseertailnesH! the price of the best malt this day, in Mark-lane, 1915 , $ lO leaving a difference of ss. 4d. between the price of m a l t the price of barley, with the duty added thereto.—(l.l°l"f the of " Hear, hear.") Now, after deducting the expense_fhl process of malting, I do not think that ss. 4d. per 1:1 11P t , ; s e;) an extravagant profit for the maltster.—( Hear, be ar, " tlof My Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman refer to b aa : o titit advantage, that if the farmer, being enabled to Inn oist' from an inferior kind of barley—not for the purpo se °' ing beer, but for the purpose of feeding his cattle 0:001, I have the satisfaction of referring to an order of the '0 bearing date in 1827, which I now am anxious to make Pofol as I think it will go some way at least to prove the view% s gsq Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman. It is not nee beg. that barley should undergo the process of malting, as I Oros° that the steeping of barley is sufficient to develope aera saccarine qualities which constitute its nutrition in th e ' e t el of cattle. I cannot comprehend the statement f`nitit Noble Friend that by the mere process of 5 ,t;, 0 so i two bushels could be made to equal three.—(More.) eec prepared to enter into the argument just at present, b11.,41 tainly must again say, that I cannot see how two blls t u f malt could be made equal to three bushels of barletl3; to cannot conceive that there can be as much nutrialor.) two bushels,,of malt as in three bushels of barley. - -4 The order to which I have referred, was made in referenh bad the practice of steeping barley as food for cattle, w l tleor' caused the greatest falling off in the revenue.---‘OOP hear.) The excise are directed to endeavour t 0 .„, e 1l sj „ tain the parties who carry on this practice, as "ars"' the manner of disposing this corn so steeped, that ri° r to b e was to be interfered with ; but particular attention Ws a re paid to any kilns where the corn was so dried. 1 1, 1 '„ e 'll desire on the part of the Excise to give every oPP°"" 111 0 1 "' the part of the farmer of making malt, as far as it W i st s c ole• sistent with the due limits of his purpose for feeding 01 „obi° From that order it would be seen that henceforth 00 notice could be given, that no objection would b e 11111 bstil the part of the excise to the steeping of barley and reg-ostn°' the vegetation of it, for the express purpose of feedingGeotkr The next argument of my Noble Friend and the Flee' tho man was, that if you repeal the duty on Mgt 7 0 1 l A t man will be his own brewer. Now, I think the Pre ° l, o 4o". is very difficult---exceedingly difficult. What inu t i, 0, 1 5 to the poor man would there then be to brew "metre beer more than he has not at the present n'''t Why can't he now buy his own Malt, and with tb li nu rsr i , brew his own beer ?—( Hear.) I know the Wan" felt Gentleman will say that the price of Malt is %bac ' and the profit of the maltsters so grea t ' At to by, e is impossible for the poor man to buy with any 1 0° " - i vill;) self. But, Sir, if you remove the Malt Duty, move it from the great maltsters.—( Hear, ke e ;', o etio,, The great maltster will be able to enter into a fi c ille 1. 0 with the private malster, exceeding the advantage " - n or ° at present ; and is it possible to contend that the pith will be able, with every facility, to compete , sPif great molter, with extensive capital, with grieaess? ''l,o and who has devoted the whole of his life to the bos t. P a the to he cannot, he will have no temptation to brew , t"is b 1 not at present.—( Hear, hear.) If this ternEt, 0 . e t „ i° , operate after the removal of the Malt e.v";teci',be did it not operate when the beer duty was repe if (Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman sal ho 4 e'"ot e e- Malt Tax is repealed the beer shops will eisP"oes guished. I certainly heard at one time th e t ura!ji. panegyrics bestowed upon those places, but no w ' tar " y that if beer is drunk at the beer shops, all its sair-thst b w - t he ties perish. I certainly never heard it contested rt bo tt i,s, shops did not greatly increase the consumption of be on whole of the Hon. Gentleman's arguments was founav - r i o g ',P o o that beer was of no value unless drunk by the' 'abl e " t ' at his own house. But, Sir, I would say, don t ;des ! i e. 5,000,0001. of the revenue under the erroneous ; ho you will increase brewing in every po o r e° s hilY ° „el I apprehend at this m omen t, if th e labouring lilhe it beer at the house and takes it home with bil ro ble t he have it at a reduced rat e . There is a con s ht at t he ference in the price of a pot of beer bollgi o o bY o te public house and taken home, and the pot of beer t a ci yet y or e man who sits by the fire and takes it there ; 8 . 1 , 1 by O t os withstanding that there is something in taking ' l ' r ice he el and in company that makes him rather pay t hat . ' et t take it home, and, after the malt tax is repealed, ° I , De / 011 to induce any person to say that would not contint7t puti tio , therefore, take care that we do not lose the O ct al; the ground that we shall be able to revert to otherhad The Hon. Member who had seconded the fined himself to that view, and having don e l a te .;0' f riction , I l ot Member for Lincoln.—( Loud cheers. ) That TopestAl beg him to recollect what has occurred to the I, o f. ber brought forward a most popular motion for qle, e be the Malt Tax, but because he proposed a br lost his seat at the last election. --1( Great nhoraillfe would, therefore,beg the Member to take . ).••••' Hon. _ ot os the fate of the late Sir W. Ingilby—(Grea t ti e "( tli ° apprehend that will be the fate of every men : t ; hen ° o ea t , substitleletrog.) substitutes, when he came to propose a new tax e rg, five millions.--( Great cheering.) In my o pinion Il' agr iclm op oo that a great advantage will be derived bY, th e t ba sed„,(o, interests from the repeal of the Malt tax is n ° en erais/ a d. good grounds.—( Cheers. ) Is the advantage to be or not ? Which description of agriculture is ni ° t the O r e Is the light land suffering or the clay land ? n° which grows the wheat the land that suffers-- „g ol v llll b- Ite P and the only advantage the Hon. Gentleman er ica 00 repeal of the Malt Tax will be to force the e bi ern isa for clay land.—( Cheers.) The operation of th , hi terf ti r.) this tax will not be beneficial to the agrieultural .1 aters• - 6 1 the only persons benefited will be the tua- t t by experience, if the motion of my Noble Fri.e," h t hey Sir, I cannot help thinkin the agricultural interris cal; ot that they will be subject to considerable loss, we_' ‘ `i kn orl_ A P It theclublie 70 0 ' now think of.—(Great cheering.) o a " tat ° t there is always a floating capital of .P to the amount of 3,090,000/. which induces many small capitalists to a DUTY ON SUGAR. Mr. EWA RT begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a question relative to the equalization of the East and West India produce. He was aware that asking questions of that nature was likely to create some inconvenience—he had no wish to do so, but at the same time he felt it his duty, as the question was one in which our terri torial connection with these countries was deeply interested ; he begged to know whether it was the intention of the Go vernment to take that subject into consideration? Sir R. PEEL said he thought he should best consult the public convenience and interest by adhering to the rule which he laid down on a previous evening, namely, not to enter into details upon every individual question that was put. He apprehended that his best course would be to re serve himself for a general exposition of all those subjects until after the Ist of April, when be would be able to lay a statement of the public finances before the House. Sir ROGER G R lESLEY gave notice that he should move next Thursday for a return of all the expenses of the late Houses of Parliament since the year 1800. And also for a selection of ten of the most eminent architects of this coun try to lay plans and estimates of new houses before the House. Several petitions were presented for the repeal of the Malt Tax. THE MALT DUTY. The Marquis of C HAND° S then rose and said—in pursuance of the notice of motion which I have given, I am about to address the House upon a question of very considerable importance, not only to my constituency but to the whole country ; and whatever motive may be ascribed to me in consequence of the course I am about to adopt, I assure the House and the country that I have but one motive, and that is, to do the most I can for the benefit of the country.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I can further assure the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, that I have not the slightest wish or intention to embarass the Government. I have not the slightest idea of so doing, but I am forced by my duty both to my constituents and to the country, to bring forward the motion I have to submit to the House. It is in pursuance of a public promise, and nothing under heaven can drive me from it.—( Great Cheering.) The question is one which has often been discussed, and I am quite aware that I can do nothing more than detail anew to the House, the scenes of misery and distress which are now so often seen in the farmer's house, and which so generally surround the agricultural interests.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") With regard to the Malt Tax, which it is my duty now to bring before the House—for a great many years it oppressed the country. I find that the malt duty was first imposed in the reign of William and Mary, when it was 45., it was afterwards raised to Bs., and again in 1791 it was further raised to 12s. 6d., in 1802 to 18s. Bd., and in 1804 to 38s. Bd. In the year 1817 it was reduced to 20s. Bd., at which it now stands. Many gentlemen are of opinion that a partial reduction of the duty would be beneficial to the country. I most cordially agree with them, but still if the duty was only reduced one-half, the whole machinery of the excise—of the collection of the duty will remain to be charged to the country—(Cheers)—which is also ex tremely harassing to the farmer. Besides the harassing nature of the collection, it injures him most materially —( Hear, hear)—it diminishes to a great extent the growing of barley—it prevents him from, like in the days of old, having the labourer in his house-4 Cheers)--and it prevents him, therefore, from enjoying that beverage which in former times was the strength and sustenance of the country labourer.— ( Cheers.) By the reduction of the d u ties on ma l t th e farmers will be benefited in all these points.—( Hear.) The malt tax used to be, like the sugar duties, voted annually ; but in 1822 that system was altered--it then became a permanent tax, and was taken from the control of Parliament. The excessive pressure of the hop duties led on to the immo derate use of ardent spirits, and if that temptation were re moved, and the private brewery substituted for the gin shop, they must all agree that these—the chief incen tives to crime, to the destruction of the morals and health of the lower orders of the people—would be thereby most effectually removed. They all knew the evil conse quences that resulted from the establishment of those gin pa laces in the metropolis and in the country. I shall have merely to refer to the returns on the table of the House, to show the ruinous effects that the use of ardent spirits has had on the morals of the people, since the year 1812. From the year 1812 to the year 1819 the number of criminal offences appears to have been 72,216 ; from the year 1819 to 1826, the number is 95,628 ; from the year 1826 to to 1832, the increase is such that the total amount of criminal- offences in that period is 131,818 ; and what is most to be lamented is, that of these not less than 12,000 women have, during the same period, been brought before the police magistrates, all of whose offences were attributable to the use of ardent spirits. It was, therefore, most disastrous to the morals, as well as to the health of the people, that their national beverage should, by oppressive taxation, be re moved from them, and that ardent spirits should be substituted in its place. It was much to be regretted, and it was one of their chief complaints that relief was extended to different classes of his Majesty's subjects, but not the slightest attention was yet directed to the relief of the agricultural classes from the grievances they endure. In his Majesty's speech he deplores the ruinous state to which the agri cultural interest has been reduced, but no hopes are held out in it, as to how it can be improved. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) in the relief which he proposes, merely intends to do away with the county rates and other local expenditure. This would be of no advantage to the farmer; for suppose that a farmer who held 250 acres of land was merely relieved from local taxation, the benefit which he would derive would not be more than 81. per annum, whereas if the Malt Duties were removed, the benefits would be 701. or 801. per annum. Such were the fivourable consequences that , the farmer would experience by the abolition of the Malt Tax. If any one looks at the state of the farming houses and farmers, he find that there is scarcely one man in the circle of his acquaintance in the same position he was in some years ago. --( Hear, hear.) There is scarce one of them able to brew his own beer, or to maintain servants paid by the year. On the contrary, he is compelled to depend on the com mon brewer. It was most beneficial to this country at the period when in every farming town there was a circle of domestic labourers, who received wholesome homes brewed beer ; but who were now compelled to slake their thirst at the pump in the farm yard, or in the ditches, being unable to purchase beer of any sort, and the farmers being unable to give it to them. I hope and trust that in a British House of Commons, where there are so many country gentlemen, that I shall not make this appeal in vain on behalf of those on whom they de pend for the station they hold, and for that subsistence as gentlemen.—( Hear, hear.) The agricultural interests are bent down with distress--the landholders are obliged to leave their homes, and to visit a foreign soil, and the old mansions of the country are every day shut up.--( Hear, hear. ) The farmer finds it impossible to go on, and it is absolutely necessary for the Government and the House of Commons to take the subject into consideration, and to remedy the distres to which I have alluded. I hope they will follow the T' which I have pr o p ose d, an d w hi c h I th i nk will ~tan relief. It may be said that I as k a b oon at the c afford other of sking a par notother classes of the community. If I felt I was r * ling what was r 7 e r l i l c e t f i t i u n ra t l h e s h interest ape tial favour I would at once admit that I was the tradesmen who correct. I feel that in relieving the a' you relieve the community at large, ar depend on the farmer will not grudge ' •