The Sun. — London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

the magnitude of these transactions. Instead of receiv ing alieut 30,000—from 25,000 to 30,000 bales of cotton a week as we do now, we had some forty or fifty years ago only as many hundred. This increase will overbear you; and suppose America should adopt the system, you must follow. With this large mass of taxation hanging over you, and having got rid of this question of protec tions, you will have to deal with many of these duties, and, if a growing surplus to the revenue does not allow you to abolish them, depend upon it with regard to the fresh taxes you must, in the interests of commerce, wilich are the interests of the whole community, increase direct taxation, and make that system fair. There is too much intelligence—too much discussion now, for any p ar ty to escape their fair quantity of taxation—property o f au sorts must bear its share, and when we make up our minds to that, let us see if it does not lead to a fair s y s tem of expenditure. Here we are adopting a system of free trade, but yet extending our colonial empire, and spreading our establishments all ove r th e wor ld. That might have been very wise and proper, this extension of our establishments, very desirable a hundred years ago ; for seventy years since, when Adam Smith wrote, he said he did not expect we should live to see the days when protection would be abolished altogether. But we have survived these days. They have changed, and with them our position with regard to our colonial em pire. You must not let your pride and vanity prevent your telling the people what they must do in this matter. They must let the colonies maintain their own establishment and pay their own expenses. It does not add to our power or strength to incur all this expenditure. On the contrary, the people will run away from your extravagance ; for with the facilities they now enjoy for emigration, at half the expense and in half the time sufficient heretofore, there were also removed the physical as well as the moral objections to emigration. People are not now going into exile—they are going to their friends and their families when they set out for America. They go there as they would on a visit. Do you suppose, then, that if you waste your money in Ca nada or Australia, people will not go away, whither their acquaintance and relations have preceded them, to escape from taxation ? The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that this emigration did not tend to impair our resources or diminish the consumptive ability of this country ; and to a certain extent, no doubt, the right honourable gentle man is perfectly correct. But he must remember this is a question of degree. It may be that, as far as our re cent experience goes, he is correct—that there has only been emigration enough to give elbow-room to those of the poor left behind. But this, though true up to a certain point, became a fallacy beyond it. Suppose half the population to go away, what would be the consuming ability of the other half, however prosperous ? There is every reason why we should look this question in the face, as the beginning of a controversy which will widen in extent and scope, and lead us to inquire whether we are not able to diminish the whole amount of our expen diture. It may be done ; but if we agree to a large amount of expenditure, let no class in this country ex pect to escape taxation. I will never pretend to exempt the middle classes or the 101. householders, if they send people here to vote for increased expenditure. Let them make up their minds to this, that increased expenditure, which their representatives support, must fall upon their class as upon others. But as regards this house tax. I am dealing with it now because you propose to levy it to meet the deficiency arising out of the partial repeal of the malt tax. Show me that you have an increased ex penditure approved by this house, and show me that that increased expenditure necessitates an increased tax, and I may support your proposition, for that is a very diffe rent thing. But when you propose to create a deficit by reducing the tax on malt, and then ask to be allowed by the house to meet it in this way, I repeat what I have already said over and over again—that it is only in the case of a sufficient surplus that I will ever support the reduction or abolition of the malt tax ; and that being the case, I shall of course say " No" to thi s h ouse t ax . (Cheers.) Lord J. MANNERS said, that they had learnt from the hon. gentleman who had just spoken that he and his party would never consent to the system of what had been termed " unrestricted competition." (Cries of " Oh !" from the Opposition, and cheers from the Minis terial benches.) The hon. gentleman had told them, with perfect fairness, that he objected to the term itself, and that he preferred that one-sided system of financial legislation which was more properly termed " free im ports." (Hear, hear.) He could not compliment the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cobden) upon having redeemed the pledge he had given to instruct the hon. member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) in what he was pleased to team the ABC of his political science. If, indeed, the hon. member for the West Riding had endeavoured to make the A B C of his political creed plain to the under standing of his hon. fried (Mr. Ball), he seemed entirely to have forgotten the DE F which followed. The hon. gentleman had told them that there was no necessary connexion between the system of direct taxation and the system of free imports, and towards the close of his speech he entered into an elaborate argument to ,show that if they touched the Custom-house duties at 321 they would inevitably find themselves landed in a geaeral system of direct taxation. He (Lord J. Max-triers) would let the D E F of the honourable gentliimen answer his own A B C. Having got the sanction of the honourable member for the West Riding, in the concluding part of his speech, to the system of direct taxation, he would ask the house to observe what were his objections to the mode in which the Government proposed to carry that system out. The hon. member had alleged that the proposal of the Government with respect to the house-tax would array class after class, and set town against country (" hear, hear," from the opposition); and, as figures were never wanting, so they were not wanting in this instance to hiin to make out some show for his proposition. But it must have struck the house, when the hon. member gave his catalogue of the items which were to be added to this house-tax, and which were to swell the taxation upon houses up to 21 per cent. against 3 per cent. upon the land, that he omitted all reference to the land-tax and those other taxes which pressed especially upon the land. (Hear.) He gave, as an illustration, property in London, and talked of Belgrave-square, and of the great " lords of the soil" deriving an income from that ground free from impositions which others paid ; but he forgot to tell the house that in proportion as their revenue was increased the proposed income-tax would take from what he called their inordinate receipts. The hon. member alluded also to the soap duty ; his argument upon this particular was a little hazy, and perhaps that was not surprising, for while it would appear to ordinary intel lects that the soap duty was , in one res p ec t, t o t h e mas ter manufacture r very much what the malt-tax was to the farmer, he forgot to state that the master manu facturers enjoyed a drawback upon all soap used in their manufactones, while the farmers got no drawback upon malt. (Hear.) The hon. member, admitting that the clo,im of the farmer to the repeal or diminution of the malt tax was undeniable in point of justice and fiscal equiip, and on the ground of real free trade legislation, said, "Permit me to tell you the landed interest of England, and those farmers whom I have for years as sured, when it suited my pvrposes to do so, that in me they would find the most strenuous opponent of this ob noxious tax, that whenever I gave them any such assu rance it was coupled, at least in my own mind, with the determination never to consent to the repeal of this tax so long as any other tax was to be imposed to make up the deficiency." The hon. member would vote for the repeal of the malt tax at "the Greek Kalends " and not before. (Hear, hear.) He told the hou se he thought that the whole system of Custom-house duties would give way, that other Excise duties must be repealed, that the malt tax was an unjust tax upon the farmers, and that he would be prepared to vote for its repeal when there was no other tax to be substituted for it. (Hear.) The farmers, it might be hoped, would know how to appreciate the often vaunted professions of friend ship of the hon. member. ("Hear, hear," from the Ministerial side.) Differin g f rom th e right hon. gentle man (Sir C. Wood), the hon. member did ample justice to the motives of the Government in proposing their al tered schedules for the income tax ; the same considera tion, it might have been thought, would have induced him to see the injustice of the accusations he brought of an at tempt to set town against country, and re-open the war of classes. If any step that could be taken by the landed gentlemen of England could prove that there was no thought of the kind lingering in their breasts, 'if ii ever existed—which he (Lord J. Manners) denied—ii was the proposal made _to the house in behalf of that . _ great class to establish the house and income-tax upon a Just and equitable basis. (Hear.) The right hon. gen tleman (Sir C. Wood), indeed, seemed so oppressed with a sense of the justice that was . going to be done to the industrial interests that he warned the landed gentry how they permitted the Government so to place taxa tion they their backs ; but the consolation offered by the right hon. member to the landed gentlemen was not of such, a nature as t o b e lik e l y to make them look to q his eillhobudget for the relief which he somewhat ob- scurely hin ! ! _t i ed- Re stated, frankly enough, that he was Of opinioa tab income and propedy-tax must be con tinued, that the amount of taxation levied b it from the landed gentlemen must continue unabated ;but that under his schem e th ey Would , at tained upon, ave the conso lation of knowin shog t hat an unjust least rate h was still main peps and p r ofessional men. There wa,s not a land d gentleman in the house who would consent to derive consolation from so contaminated a (Hear, hear.) Th e 1., source. ! "'mi. 'membr (Mr. Cobden) argued that it Was unjust to continue the exemption ption of gentleman in the small farmers. There e w re isi n; was nseoet anilaornlet daxation placed the house who (Hear.) The upon the smaller farmers than at present. hon. member asked . whether they would consent t thus freed from taxation to which other classes were 131- 7 might be asked with te nfoldf s o ul . e . jecte,d. The question be e ct to whom he forgot to force of another class, with respect taxed like the rest of the it, but who did objet community, Would he to have the r goodness, at atthtehelnveexstt meeting he might attend in s any Riding, to ask the 101. householders the question he now asked of the farmer:,—whether they would a ny longer consent to be exempt from taxation which was being paid by the smaller portion by far of the house hear." ? (Laughter, and cries of "hear, C. holder s o f the country Th e right h on . gent l eman (S ir his eagerness to s h ow how objectionable were I t li i ro e o d n ) ; a i i n n sources from which the deficiency created by the c.pro posed remissi on of taxation was to be made up, wasle l_ into the most gr i evous indiscretion, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer could commit—that of revealing to the country his own embryo budget. He was prepared to maintain the present property and income tax in all its injustice and inequality, and also the small house tax ; he, objected to, the mode proposed of bringing 400,0001. a:year Ifite the'rxchepier ; - a nd he 'said - the • repeal of the , malt tax would be a boon neither to the consumer nor., I the producer, but that the amount would be swallowed up by the maltsters and the brewers. A Chancellor of the Exchequer who year after year had been either proposing, or supporting other Chancellors when they proposed, to repeal or remit Excise duties, on the score that the producer and the consumer would be alike benefited, placed himself in a very awkward position when he gravely told the house that neither producer nor consumer would derive any benefit from the remission of above 2,000,0001. of Excise taxation. (Hear.) Was it to be understood that the right hon. gentleman, who supported the remis sion of the duty on glass, and the auction duty, and proposed the remission of the duty on bricks, was really persuaded that he was only giving a great fiscal boon to brickmakers, auctioneers, and glass manufacturers ? (Hear.) The great mass of the inhabitants of this coun try, who had tasted the benefits derived from those re missions of the Excise duties, would know full well that there was not a man, whether inhabitant of a town or tiller of the soil, who would not derive some appreciable benefit from this remission of half the malt tax, in the increased consumption he would be able to enjoy of that old English beverage which, in spite of the apprehen sions of the hon. member opposite, would be dear to the working classes of this country while they laboured and toiled for the means of their subsistence. (Hear, hear.) It was very well for the hon. member to read the house a lecture against what in slang phrase might be termed "all alcholic beverages ' • but did he believe in his con science that any one of his eminent medical authorities thought it necessary to abstain from the use of them, even for one day in a week 1 Thelton. member, who was willing to vote at some impossible period fora repeal of the malt-tax as a boon to the farmer, and in accordance with the principles of unrestricted competition, entertained now very grave doubts how far he should be justified as a moral man in voting for the repeal of a tax the remis sion of which might increase the consumption of beer. He had fallen, then, into what his hon. friend the mem ber for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would tell him was an old fallacy, for be was prepared to try to make men strong, healthy, and moral, not simply by Act of Parliament, but by the maintenance of an outrageous duty upon an article the use of which he thought objectionable on a moral ground. Let not the house hear the maintenance, of an unjust tax supported by gentlemen because tl-,ey might not themselves appreciate the beverage which was dear to the labouring classes of this country. (Heal., hear.) But did gentlemen opposite mean to tell the house that the system which they had always said was the necessary and just corollary of their favourite prin ciples was one which would not stand the test of expe rience ? The right hon. gentleman said that direct taxation could only be made endurable by being so levied that the great masses of the community should be un touched by it. A system of direct taxation founded upon enormous exemptions had not, indeed, that merit of novelty, the absence of which in the budget the right hon. gentleman so much regretted; it was as old as the days of Robin Hood, who took from the Bishop of Here ford his gold in the merry glades of Sherwood. The house would now clearly understand that the right hon. gentle man's Budget was to be founded upon a system of unjust taxation upon professians—a system of taxation levied upon a small number of houses ; and, should the right hon. gentleman regain that place which he for feited, to the universal satisfaction of the tax-payers, those classes would find the favourite weapon in his armoury was the maintenance of the income tax in all its present iniustice, while the landed interest would find that the seat greatlarm upon which he depended for maintaining the credit and institutions of the country was the tax which interfered most with the operations of farming industry ; and the right hon. gentleman would give no relief beyond repealing the tea duties, which the Government now proposed, and the 100,0001. for tlae relief of the shipping interest. Beyond this the right hon. gentleman would return to office with his views unchanged as to the great principles of that direct and indirect taxation, with regard to which the hon. member, on the contrary, had never ceased to state that they were unjust and inequitable, and must at no dis tant day be altered. [The noble lord then bent for a moment towards the table, apparently to ascertain if ho had a note of any further topic on which to remark ; to the Opposition members he seemed to be resuming his seat, and at least half-a-dozen of them sprang up, pre pared, in that case, to address the house.] The purport of the opposition of the heterogeneous sections on the other side of the house, and of the contradictory asser tions and arguments to which the house had been doomed to listen, and, from what they saw, were pro bably doomed to listen for some nights to come, was really to maintain in all their injustice and want of equity the present financial arrangements which charac terised the income and house tax. (Hear, hear,) Mr. RICH found credit taken in the budget for 400,0001., as the result of the repayments of the loan commissioners. Now he wished to know what reason existed for the change proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although there was at present an abund ance of capital, the right hon. gentleman ought to look to the future, when depressions might arise. He found by the returns on the table of the house, that there was a balance of 2,700,0001. yet unpaid from loans that had been issued ; and the right hon. gentleman intended to be put his hand on the re-payments as they might fall in, and devote them to the current services of the year, as old stores. This was a serious question which ought to brought fully before the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman estimated his surplus at 1,350,000/., the saving from the termination of the Kafir war at 250,000/., the payments from the loan commissioners at 400,0001., and the produce from the increase of the house tax at 500,000/.—making in all 2,500,0001. On the opposite side the right hon. gentleman calculated the loss from the remission of the malt and hop duties at 1,000,0001., the loss from the change of the tea-duty at 400,000/., the extraordinary estimates at 600,000/. and the loss from light dues and other remissions of that kind at 100,000/.—making a total of 2,100,000/. This would leave him with the narrow surplus of 400,0001. Now, setting aside the payment of the loan commissioners, the balance would be nil ; and in the event of the embers of the Kafir war being again lighted up, his sur plus would turn to a deficiency. (Hear, hear.) And this risk was to be run for the sake of a reduction of the malt tax. Now, what benefit would the country derive from such a reduction ? The honourable baronet the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Lytton) said the other night that the consumer would gain a penny on each pot of beer. He (Mr. Rich) had taken the liberty of asking the hon. member for Derby the number of gallons of good beer produced from a quarter of malt, and found the quantity to be 124 gallons. Now, multiplying the number of quarters consumed by the number of gallons brewed, he found the total number of gallons to be about 600,000,000 The reduction propos e d b y th e Chancellor of the Exchequer was 2,500,0001., and that sum reduced into pence gave 600,000,000, consequently the benefit to the consumer could not be more than a penny per gallon, supposing every particle of the re mission to go to the consumer, and no portion of it be kept by the brewer. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LOWE said, when he considered that we had on the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sur plus of 1,300,0001., he should have thought the wisest and best course that any Government could have adopted, would have been to persevere quietly and steadily in the system hitherto carried out with such successful financial results. It appeared to him that no case had been made out for a change ; all that we had to do was to have gone on as before, and when the surplus had been dis posed of we might consider that we had done all that wise and prudent men could do under the circumstances. Further, he should have thought that the present time being one of unexampled prosperity, and remembering that the lot of mankind was mutable, the probability was that when any change did occur, that change would be wise in our proceedings and calculations not to count on being better off than we are, not even to suppose that our present state of prosperity was always to continue, and not to imitate the person in the parable, who says that "to-morrow shall be even as to-day, and much more abundant" ; and that we should rather look our dangers in the face, and make our arrangements not on the calculation that we were to have a period of un limited prosperity, but that out of many hundred contin gencies any one might arise which might temporarily or continually prevent our progress. The budget before them did not take this into consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not only adopted free trade, but he now seemed unable to persuade himself that the existence of free trade was consistent with any of the mutations to which human affairs were liable. Further, he (Mr. Lowe) should have thought, considering what the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had so ably shown, that the cause of the great emigration now taking place from this country was not from any want or suffering of the people here, but arose out of an anxiety to participate in the great opening for prosperity in another country ; and therefore that the causes which ruled our emigration were causes over which the internal organisation of this country had little or no control, and that it was not in our power, by ameliorating the condition of the emi grating classes, to prevent them from emigrating. When he considered all this, he should have thought that this, of all others, was not the time to add an additional im pulse to that mighty emigration, and by making men pinched in their circumstances at home, and by taxing those who worked for wages, to suggest to them that there were other lands where there was neither house tax, assessed taxes, nor excise. (Hear.) He (Mr. Lowe) thought that the right hon. gentleman had made out no case for the surplus put forward by him in the Budget. The state of the Budget amounted to this : that it pro posed to reduce the revenue to the extent of something like 1,200,000/. by the remission of the tea duties and the light dues; and by the increase to the national de fences—with all of which nobody quarrelled—while, on the other hand, it only imposed 1,000,000/. in the shape of house tax ; and for the rest, to meet the loss of half Le malt tax, it trusted entirely to the chapter of acci- Now he, for one, refused to be led into that line lents, of recklessness. He was satisfied that if in such a year as the present—a year of unexampled and glorious pros perity beyond all imagination—the nation was not honest enough to meet its obligations, it was not likely to meet them in harder times. If they began by borrowing money —for the p ro p os iti on with regard to the Exchequer loan amounted to this—they would set an example to future Parliaments of reducing taxes like the malt tax, although the people were never so well able to bear them ; and that example future Parliaments would either follow or they would not. If they followed it they would in a very short time wreck and ruin the finances of the country, shipwreck its credit, and reduce us to the level of a third-rate power, contemptible in the eyes of the world. If they did follow it, then they would hold them up to scorn and disgrace as the most reckless and im provident stewards of th,t public money that ever dis honoured the name of a Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ARTHUR MILLS hardly thought it fair to impute to those who advocated the repeal of the malt tax woe awaited us when men spoke well of us. a desire to enrich any particular class. We were told olthe heav y converse of that held good, certainly the Chancellor f hfa t t he Exchequer ought to be the happiest of men. (A laugh.) His object in rising, how ever, was to state the . strong feeling which his constituents entertained to some of the propositions of the right honourable gentleman. He (Mr Mills) had the misfortune, on this occasion, to differ from many of those with whom he ordinarily agreed. He thought it infelicitous that while the Govern ment should have proposed to extend the house tax and the income tax to classes who had hitherto been exempted from them—an extension in itself which he considered wise and just—they should simultaneously have also pro posed to double the former tax, and that too for the sake of remitting the malt tax—a burden with regard to which very great diversity of opinion existed amongst the agri cultural interest itself. He thought the reduction of the malt tax would cause a serious and uncalled-for sacrifice to the revenue ; and certainly, when it could only be accomplished by the reduplication of the house tax, which must press very severely on certain classes, he hoped that the Government would consent to reconsider their proposals. It had been said that the proposed alteration in the house tax would lead to an extensive I disfranchisement, because voters would get houses at 91. 19s. 6d. rent, instead of 101., in order to evade the tax. He could not believe that Englishmen would be foind prepared, for such paltry consideration, to barter their birthright, b u t if th ey s h ou ld , what then became of that ardent longing for political power among the masses which it was so often said was the characteristic of, our age. He believed that two of the classes who were now to be asked for the first - time to contribute to the house tax and the income tax—he meant persons occupying houses at 101. rent, and persons having in comes of 1001. a year—could no longer be denied the elective franchise; so that instead of being a disfranchis ing measure, h e ra th er b e li eve d that th extension of direct taxation to those classes would widen the consti tuency. Mr. BASS—There was no monopoly in brewing—all that was wanted was industry, and superior skill in the application of large sums of money. Why, they might as well say tbAt the right hon. gentleman opposite, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, had got a monopoly because he had more brains than many of them. (Laughter.) The rut hon. gentleman had most judiciously and wisely de f.erred commencing the reduction of the malt duty till the 10th of October, because, if he had reduced it at once, he would not only have disturbed the whole calculations of the present year, but have thrown the whole malting and brewing trade into confusion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) evidently did not understand either malting or brewing ; and when he talked of brewing fresh beer with fresh malt, he could only say that the hon. gentleman was much better acquainted with other matters than with that part of his (Mr. Bass's) trade. (A laugh.) He would inform him, before he made another speech on this subject, that there was a malting season, which began about the let of October. and ended about the let of May ; and from the let of May to the Ist of October there was a complete cessation in the process of malting. A brewer must begin brewing with a stock of malt very nearly amount ing to one-third of his annual consumption ; and how could he do that unless he was allowed to have a stock of malt on hand ? He could assure the hon. member, there fine, that as to brewing fresh beer with fresh malt, it was altogether out of the question and impossible. (A laugh.) But turning to the general question of the removal of the malt tax, he (Mr. Bass) had last year had the honour of submitting this very proposition to remit half the tax to the house, believing that it would be, as he still believed, most advantageous to the country, that it would be of con siderable benefit to the producer of barley, of much advan tage to the consumer of beer ; and that it would entail very little loss, ultimately, to the revenue. On that occa sion, however, his proposition did not receive the support of more than thirty-one honourable members, and among its friends he did not find the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any of his present colleagues. Let them look at the reason of the thing. Were they to say, "We must remit every duty on foreign articles ; but we shall obstinately retain every tax upon our own produce ?" But it was said that the malt tax involved five millions of our revenue ; and that that was too large a sum to deal with in the way of re duction. (Hear.) Well, he admitted the force of that argument ; and therefore it was that he had thought that they should begin by degrees, taking off one-half at first, which would by no means cause a loss of one-half to the revenue, and then, if the prosperity of the country at some future time enabled them to repeal the remaining half, it would be for Parliament in its wisdom to take that step. But the right hon. baronet, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir C. Wood), the other night argued that to remit the duty would be useless ; for it would not increase the consumption of malt ; and he said that there had been no corresponding increase in the consumption when the beer duty was removed in the year 1830. Now, he (Mr. Bass) thought the right hon. baronet was mistaken in this. True there was no immediate increase after the year 1830, because we had two bad harvests at that period; but in the year 1836 the quantity had increased prodigiously, HA lieved that, in round numbers, the consumption, v • 1830 was three millions and a half, had risen to t, ably more than five millions. (Hear, hear.) He the that ought to have satisfied the right hon. baronet. then they were told that Mr. Barclay, the largest brewer in the world, had stated, in his evidence before a commit tee of the House of Lords, that it would be useless to take off the malt duty ; and it was also. said that Mr. Taylor —who was Mr. Barclay's maltstor' by bye—had stated pretty much the same thin e v . the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Sandars)—himselAn' eminent maltster—had, the other night, countenanced the idea that the reduction of the duty would all go into the pockets of the great brewers ; and still the hon. gentleman said he would vote for this budget, although he had opposed his (Mr. Bass's) proposal last year. (A laugh, and a cry of " no.") But he would ask, what became of the charge of rapacity against the brewers? It was said that this mea sure would distribute two millions and a half of money among the brewers ; and yet, on the other hand, they were all to a man against it. Surely the brewers—men who had made large fortunes—ought to be allowed credit for some sagacity—or cunning, as honourable gentlemen would perhaps call it ; and if they were so rapacious as was al leged, how was it that they were opposed to a reduction which it was said would swell their profits so enormously ? But it was said they had not made reductions in the price of beer when there had been considerable reductions in the price of barley. That was perfectly true. For twenty years, or nearly, since the last adjustment of the prices of beer, the price of barley had been remarkably uniform ; and he had once explained to the house before how it was that, in an article divided so minutely, it was incon venient to have frequent alterations in price, and that it became almost an agreement between the brewers and publicans that there should not be sudden and frequent changes (hear, hear, and laughter.) H e h oped that they would be good enough to hear him out. Since the establishment of free trade, it was true that there had been a steady and permanent reduction in the price of bar ley up to the present year. In the present year the brewers were paying considerably more than the average prices of the last thirty years ; but up to the present year there had been a considerable and an important reduction, and no corresponding reduction in the price of beer. Now he ex plained to the house last year, and he now repeated it, that it was very difficult to make a reduction in the price of beer, on account merely of the reduction in the price of bar ley. But if they added to the reduction in the price of bar ley the reduction of the duty on malt, he said emphatically not only would the consumer of beer receive the benefit of the reduction in the malt-tax, but he would get, in addition thereto, that reduction which had taken place in the price of barley, which the brewers and the rnaltsters owe to the public at large(laughter.) He repeated that he believed when ever they made this reduction in the malt tax, that the brewers would not only make commensurate reduction to the public, but would also make a further handsome reduction for the reduced price of barley. An honourable gentleman below him asked, what would the reduction of half the duty on malt amount to ? He (Mr. Bass) had no hesitation in stating his computation, and he was sure there were many who would not refuse to be guided by him. He thought there ought to be a reduction of 4s. to 6s. a barrel, accord ing to the strength of the beer. Gentlemen would under stand that light beer would not be capable of as large a reduction as strong beer—(a laugh)—it would be quite un reasonable to expect as large a reduction in pale ale. (Great laughter.) Still he undertook to give that opinion, that there ought to be a reduction of from 4s. to 6s. a bar rel on the price of beer, according to its strength. Remem ber the brewer had, or ought to have, a profit on the capi tal which he employed in his trade, and there would be not only the reduction in the duty, but in the interest of the capital which would be no longer required to conduct the business on the same scale. Enabling tho trade to be conducted with a smaller capital would invite more competition, and this the brewers must expect. (Hear, hear, hear.) He might be p erm it ted to say a few words with respect to the bugbear of foreign malt. Ho would undertake to say, that if the British manufacturers only had a fair chance—that was to say, if the foreigners re duced their duty, they would supply the foreign market with malt instead of the foreigner supplying us. What inducement could our brewers have to take the foreigners' Malt ? Why, the principal brewers of this country would not trust the maltsters to make malt for them —they must make their own malt. He begged his honourable friend to understand, that in order to be a successful brewer you must understand the manatees trade too. It was not every sort of malt that would produce a really valuable quality of beer ; it was not the foreigner who could supply an article that could he trusted to produce a desired quality of beer. What inducement had British manufacturers to go to the foreigner when they could make their malt cheaper than he could, and as he (Mr. Bass) undertook to say, make it better too ? With respect to keeping malt in the winter, there were very few countries in which it could be done, and none that he was acquainted with so favourable to the production of malt as this country. For that purpose a mild and moist climate was required ; with a very severe degree of frost they could not make malt and when that occurred in this country the process was in terrupted. Ho could not think that the countries on the Baltic or on the banks of the Elbe could make an article equal to that used by the English brewer, and never would he believe, till he saw it, that a single barrel could be brought into this country which would injure our manu facturers by foreign competition. As to the production of foreign barley, he believed the difficulties arising on that head were greatly overrated. Ho knew that at times very large quantities of for e i gn b ar l ey m i g h t b e i ntroduced i nto this country. As much as 1,600,000 quarters had been imported in 1849, but of that quantity not one fourth was malting barley, the rest being used for the pur pose of distillation or fattening cattle, as well as for human food. He had ascertained on careful inquiry that, going from one end of Purope to the other, there was the great difficulty : procuring, on all the large quantity produced, more than 200,000 quar ters of fine maltin g barley. Wh a t was th at in compari son with the 5,000,000 quarters we use d ? Evidently it would have no effect in prices. In 1850 the quantity we imported fell off to 1,100,000 or 1,200,000 quarters, in the following year it fell to 800,000, and during the year ending the 10th October last—for thi s information he was in debted to the kindness of the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—it was under 600,000 or thereabouts. The house would not fail to observe that this decline in the importation of foreign barley—this diminution of competition with our English barley-growers had taken place, not with such a reduction of price as might reasonably account for it, but with a very great and THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1852. serious advance of price. The price in 1849 was 235. a quarter, next year it was 235. 2d., in the year after it was 245., and at the present moment the average price was upwards of 30s. He (Mr. Bass) was paying for fine barley 365. a quarter, and could not get a supply from abroad, yet they had had fine harvests in the barley countries, ex cepting France, whilst the barley harvest in this country had been very indifferent, a considerable proportion of it having been damaged. He (Mr. Bass) could not meet with a single sa:nple of what was called bright barley in this country ; indeed they were sending it abroad, for foreign brewers were beginning to com pete with our own for the finest qualities of English barley. The right hon. baronet the late Chancellor of the Eichequer asked, why meddle with a part of the farming business that was so prcqtable, for sheep were best reared and fattened on barley sells. He (Mr. Bass) said, the more you extend the trade the more good you did the farmer. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the hop tax, he could not but hope that the Chancellor of Exchequer would listen to the representations addressed to him from so many quar ters, and give up an impost against which there were such grave objections. They bad heard a great deal about fat tening cattle with malt. He had attempted that himself, and the question had been examined, at the instance of Government,thy some of the best and most competent au thorities in the country, the Messrs. Thomson, of Glasgow. whose opinion was that it was not a profitable mode. There was, however, no hindrance to feeding cattle on malt at present • the only point at whi c h t h e Exc i se stopped you was in taking it on the kiln, and he maintained that it was not necessary to do so, but was, in fact a hindrance and a loss. Considering the indulgence which the house had ex tended to him, he should rot say a word more on the other interesting topics with which the budget was fraught. Lord ADOLPHUS VANE felt that, after the lucid de tails of the statement mach by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer in introducing the ministerial measures, he need say very little to justify to the constituents who had re turned him to Parliament the vote he was about to give on the present occasion. Re had heard an hon. member for a borough assign as a reason for not supporting the measures of the Government the unpopularity he should incur by so doing, but he (Lord A. Vane) fearlessly said that unpopularity, if he were doomed to encounter it, would not prevent him from giving a vote in favour of nieasures which he c onscientiously felt to be based on jus tice. (Hear, hear.) If he understood the policy of past years, it was that indirect taxation which pressed on the essential articles of consumption among the poorer classes should be remove d, an d direct taxation be imposed instead, not exempting any clases who were in a social position that enabled them to bear their due share of the public burdens. Now he conceives that the measures brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and approved of by her Majesty's Government, did embrace those desir able objects. Resfecting the proposed increase of the house tax, he confessed he saw no reason why 101. householders should be exempted, as they now were. At present many a man who was subjected to very hard work by the duties of his profession or occupation paid as much as 101. a year on account of income tax. He saw no reason why such a man should be obliged to pay a larger quota of taxation than was fair, while a man who had 1401. a-year of licome was entirely exempted, and the labourer in the field was paying a larger share of taxes on all articles of consumption in, consequence of this exemp tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he was prepared to 'vindicate his proposal regarding the house tax on grounds of justice and expediency, and he had heard another right hon. gentleman who lately filled that office state, on Friday night, that he was not prepared to say that the house tax slould not be extended. He considered that those authorities quite justified him in voting for the extension of the house tax, and he could not imagine a fairer extension of it than that men should be assessed who occupied property which entitled them to vote at election's for members of Parliament. - In reference to the duplica tion of the tax, he considered that the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was but the supplement of that brought forward by the late Government. Either tax was just, and therefore the Government ought to obtain a fair quota from each, or it should be removed altogether. He did not think they oltained that quota now in the case of the house tax, and therefore he should have no hesita tion in supporting both is extension and duplication. If he incurred unpopularity, he could say to his constituents that his vote was an honest one, and that if he voted for taxing classes who were htherto exempted, it was in order to benefit the poor of the country. (Hear.) Gentlemen on his side could corroborate him in saying that the great dif ficulty they had to encounter at the late elections was that their opponents continualy impressed on the people that they were the only men who would secure cheapness, and that they would pour blesings from that exhaustless cor nucopia of free trade of vhich they were the sole posses sors. He believed that tie measures brought forward by the Government would give the country plenty in earnest, and therefore he gave then his hearty support. (Hear.) No one would pretend that a reduction of half the malt tax would not very much diminish the price of beer, and that the remission of the atx on tea would not be an im mense benefit to the poorer classes. He had great satis faction also in supporting the system first ministerially , enunciated by the right hon. gentleman the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, recognising the truth that incomes which were precarious, masmuch as they depended on health, were not to be taxed in the same proportion as those derived from realised property. He thought that a fair principle, and was persuaded that the popularity which the Chancellor of the Exclequer would reap from this part of his plan would far overbalance any unpopularity he might incur on account of the increased house tax. (Minis terial cheers.) He observed that some honourable mem bers held language on the subject which, in fact, offered O. premium to householders to agitate against the tax. It was by no means a difficult thing to head a popular crusade against any tax ; and if members went and addressed bat talions of householders, and called on them to rise under their guidance, as he observed from the papers that the hon. member for Lambeth and the hon. baronet the member for Marylebone had bean doing, he said they were countenancing an agitation against a measure which he considered fair and just, and therefore the blame of creating disturbance must lie, not on those who proposed the tax, but on these who organised the agitation. (Hear, hear.) He had heard the Government accused of a wish to retain office, and bitter attacks directed against the noble lord at the head of the Government. It was not for him to defend a nobleman vhoso talent was universally admitted to be pre-eminent, and whose character malice could not assail ; it was not for him to defend a Govern ment whose conduct was before the country, but as an independent member of the house it was with high grati fication he supported a Government who he believed were actuated solely by a wish to amend the financial system of the country, and to carry out the principles which the house and the country had sanctioned with fairness to all classes, and without oppression to any. (Ministerial cheers.) He hoped honourable members would not be led away, by specious fault-finding or dexterous straw splitting, to cavil at the details of the Government plan, but that they would consider its whole spirit and main features, and give the Ministry strength to carry out a system just in principle, and, he believed he might add, in the opinion of the country, grand in the com prehensive views it took of the piblic requirements. Mr. F. PEEL said when the hon. member for the West Riding observed that hon. gentlemen opposite appeared to think there was some inconsistency in opposing the Budget on his (Mr. Peel's) side of the house, he perceived from the reception they gave to that observation how much importance they attached to it. It might be said, per haps, with some show of reason, that the essence of the Budget was the reduction of indirect and the substitu tion of direct taxation ; that that was the policy in augurated in 1842, and that it had been steadily car ried out ever since —that all the present Government had done was to take up that policy where the late ministers had left it and extend it over a greater range of subjects. He admitted that, since 1842, direct taxation had formed a more important branch of their revenue than it had done in previous times ; but he was not aware that direct taxation had been substituted in, preference, in a financial point of view. The . only ground on which the income tax was vindicated was its capacity for being in strumental in making great commercial reforms. If that development was inherent in their trade, it could only be done by the remission of indirect and the substitution of direct taxation. He hoped, however, the house would not yield a blind subserviency to any theory of taxation, and that before they voted for the doubling or extension of the house tax they should satisfy themselves as to what was the emergency that called for it, and what were the com mercial advantages to be derived from this remission of in direct taxation. Ile was in favour of a just admixture of both systems. It was useful in this way, that it tended to keep up the spirit of discontent—(hear, and laughter)— m ef on nl ey u . rm l n t in ng du a ce t d a t n h y e punubnlieccetaosawryatocihttlwayithofjeatlhoeuspyubtlihec expenditure of the national revenue. This be was certain of, th.. 6 it direct taxation was absolutely necessary, it was an essential condition that it should be imposed by a friendly and discriminating hand. If the impression pre vailed, whether well-founded or not did not altar the result that the doubling of the house tax was brought forward in the spirit of retaliation for supposed injuries inflicted by re cent legislation on the agricultural classes, he did not think it required any great sagacity to see that it might be impos sible to saddle this tax upon the country. The house tax did not do what the income tax p a man's income, and it professed to do—namely, to deal with the disposable part of was well known th at the h ouse i n w hich ho lived was not in all cases a fair criterion of a man's income. It was also urged that the doubling of the tax might lead to the die franchisement o f s ome vo t er s, and that his (Mr. Peel's) side of the hou se ought not to complain of that , because it was one of thei r axioms t h at taxation and representation should go hand i n h and toget h er, an d that in this case they were only giving 'a p ar li amen t a ry recognition to the princi ple. They were now about to re-arrange done portion of their taxes on the basis of the electoral system. Many, however, would rather regard the right of voting as a burden instead of a privilege. He thought house property was sufficiently burdened in this country already. Another consideration was, that the house tax had not a very good name, and people did no t understand w h a t was the emergency which called for its imposition. A time might possibly come when thi s country would be caned upon to make great sacrifices, and if they now exhausted their resources, they would not know whore to obtain the additional re sources. They were doing all they could to render a re sort to direct taxation in an emergency impracticable. It was quite possible that the number of houses between 101. and 201. was enough to bring about them a battalion of discontented householders whatever their contribution might be, the amount could not be very considerable. Under the present assessment the house tax was extended to 13 millions of hcii;;;;;TW the estimate of the right lion. gentleman the including of houses rated at 101. would make the number only equal to 15 millions. So, again, with regard to shops —the number was 8 millions, and by the proposed scheme it would be increased to 10 millions. The reduction of the tea tax was undoubtedly the redeem ing point of the Budget . , that feature of it which should commend itself to the judgment of the country. (Hear, hear.) But the reduction might take place without the imposition of any new tax. lie relied upon the experienc e of Parliament with respect to the sugarduties. Underthe act of 1848 no great diminution of revenue had taken place. 1 he revenue yielded by tea had been decreasing of late yer rs. The right hon: gentlethan the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated a loss to the revenue this year of 400,0001., but that would be made up by an increased consumption of s, re oO asonable in anticipating that. As to the malt duty he did no,ootoOknoor 6,7h:w®° pounds ; and there was nothing un reasonable would be benefited by it, and as a (peg tion,of,cempensation to agriculture it must be of very r ar tist operation, only applying to the lighter soils. He did not believe that the consumption would increase, When, in 1830, four times the amount of the duty now to be taken off was repealed, the average price of barley in the four years following was less than it was in the years preceding that year. If beer were to be reduced by 4s. or 6s. a barrel, no great advantage to the consumer would ensue; and certainly none such as could be purchased by the sacri fice of an enormous amount of revenue, especially as all this would only lead to a disastrous financial result. A sub stantial surplus of 1,500,0001. was going to be converted into a fictitious surplus of 400,0001. The pivit of the plan was the renewal of the cincome tax ; yet many persons would not vote for it unless its inequalities were removed (hear, hear) ; and others thought that incomes being assessed at various rates was objectionable—if not upon the ground of its being against public faith, as frittering away the tax. The malt duty and the income tax each yielded about the same amount, 5,000,0001, or 6,000,0001., and it was proposed to get rid of the former. But there was no comparison between them as to the trouble of collec tion, and he thought the malt tax one of the best taxes. He did not know any tax that brought more to the revenue at so trifling a cost to the industry and capital of the country. As to the modification of the income tax, it would still leave many inequalities. The objection urged against the present system was that it taxed at an equal rate incomes of very different value. (Hear.) But that argument would yet apply, for instance, to the case of house pro perty, which was exposed to the risk of houses becoming uninhabited, as 156,000 were at the last returns. So, again, as to annuitants, who now for the first time would be liable even as low as 501. a-year, though their incomes were ex posed to great uncertainty. Again, there would be this singular anomaly, that whereas an income of 1401. from land or personalty would be liable to income tax, an in come of the same amount derived partly from one source and partly from the other, might escape the tax. Further, he objected to the reduction in the rate of assessment upon the farmers under Schedule B, who had hitherto been assessed at half the rent, and now were to be assessed at a third. There would be no injustice in leaving it as it stood, for by the law as it stood, if a party found his in come in fact not so large as he had calculated it, he could apply for a diminution of it. Upon the whole, he regarded the budget with disappointment. (Ironical cheers.) He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted, not as a mediator, but rather as a partisan. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") The right hon. gentleman had done his best to set town against country. It had been said that the financial system of the country was a miserable mess of hotch-potch, and that the right hon. gentleman would make it clear and fair. But these promises had not been realised, and it was a very ordinary budget after all— (ironical cheers.) Mr. WALPOLE then rose and said—Sir, we have had very important admissions in the course of the debate. (Hear, hear). And remember we are discussing the ques tion, according to the suggestion of the noble lord the mem ber for London, as a whole—(hear)—to be taken up and considered as a whole. We have had, I say, many impor tant admissions in the debate, when you consider the sub ject in that light. (Hear, hear.) You have had an admis sion from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (in conformity with the opinion expressed by other hon. mem bers) that the remission of the tea duties is a wise and beneficial measure. (Hear, hear). Welhave the admission of the right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the way in which we have dealt with the shipping interest in giving it relief from some restrictions to which it was exposed, is wise and just. Then we have the admission of the hon. member for the West Riding (whose speech answered half of the arguments which have come from the other side) as to a most important point in' the discussion—as to the income tax—(hear, hear) — which he said is so good that it ought to have come from his own friends. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) We have these great admissions, and I think that even as to the distinct and specific resolution with which we are now dealing—as to the house tax—that, though you object to the increase of it, you do not object to the area over which we propose to spread it—(hear)—and in justice I believe you could not maintain such a proposition. (Hear, hear.) But these being your admission, and bearing in mind that you are to consider the budget as a whole, what is the issue you are taking with us ? Are you not opposing us on a part, and that a very small part? (Hear, hear.) The principal objections you raise are two—as to the malt tax and the house tax—objections against which I set your own admis sions —(hear, hear)—and I ask you whether, dealing with it as a whole, and on principle, ought you not to support us to this extent, agreeing that the scheme should be approved of as a whole, though its details may be rea sonably modified ? ("No no," from the Opposition.) You object to that? Then I will put it upon a fair issue. The subject is large and comprehensive, and I wish to bring you to the test, reducing that large and comprehensive subject within the compass of the few important principles involved in it, the necessary objects which those principles have in view, and the results to which they lead. What are those principles ? I think if you examine the propositions of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will find them three in number, with a corresponding number of objects. These principles are first to adhere unreservedly, or, in your own language, " firmly to maintain and prudently to extend," the commercial system established by recent legislation. Now, the object of that unquestionably is to bring home to every one all the articles, whether of import or of domestic produce (if you mean to be consistent) as cheaply and as readily as the results of " unrestricted competition" can secure them. That principle is exemplified and that object attained (as I will show you) by a fair remission—and no more than a fair remission--of the tea duties and the malt duties. (Hear.) The second principle contained in the Budget is acting upon the recommendation of her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, that if you found in the establishment of a new commercial system that you had inflicted any injury on any particular interest, you ought in common justice to mitigate that injury. (Hear.) What is the object involved in that principle? It is this, that those who are at home shall enjoy the same advantages in competition with others as those others do in competition with us. (Hear. The other principle is that which has most attracted attention in this debate ; it is the mode in which you deal with the taxation of the country, the object being to put it on a fair and equal footing, so that all running together the great free-trade race, may run it equally, unencumbered by any impediments except those we find bearing upon the rest of the community. (Hear, hear.) Sir, these are the three principles we profess ; and I maintain that every one of them is just ; and that they are fairly acted upon in the propositions of my right hon. friend. (Cheers.) I begin with the first—that of our commercial freedom policy, the object being to give especially the prime necessaries of life as cheaply to every one as they can be. (Hear.) Now, how far have you worked upon this principle for the last 20 years ? In 1842 was the first alteration in our tariffs. You brought home to the con sumers of the country, by removing the prohibitory duty, animal food, so as to make it more cheap than it otherwise would have been. Ten years afterwards—looking to the last returns—you will find that during the last 10 months 100,000 foreign cattle, and 200,000 foreign sheep and lambs were brought into our markets. Whether you were wise in doing this absolutely, without any duty, I think may be questioned. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerialists.) Questioned, I mean, upon this ground—whether, without materially increasing the price, you might not have added to your revenue ? (Hear.) Well, what did you do with the other great article of food—corn ? Ten years ago the quantity of corn brought into this country was 2,250,000 quarters, and the quantity of meal and flour, 1,200,000 cwt. Within the last eleven months the quantity of corn imported has increased to 5,500,000 quarters —an increase of 2,000,000 quarters, and of wheat, flour, and meal to 3,500,000 cwt.—an increase of 2,000,000 cwt. Thus, then, you dealt with the two great articles of food, undoubtedly prime necessaries of life. But did you be nefit the consumer in that which is an equal necessary of life ? Did you benefit him by giving him his beverages cheap as well as his meat and bread ? (Hear. hear.) No ! You left all the duties upon tea or malt where they were before. I know you said you had a reason for it. That the repeal of those duties would be dealing with an amount of revenue so large that you could not venture to part with it. But upon your own principles you were bound to do so, in order to benefit the consumer upon that which is as much a necessary of life as his food. (" No, no," from the Opposition.) No ! Why, I venture to say there is not a village so remote—there is not a cottage so humble, but that an addition to the quantity of tea and beer they consume would be a boon. (Hear, hear.) Well, we propose to deal with both these articles. Now, as to the question of malt, which I will now deal with as a consumer's and not as a producer's question. What did the late Chancellor of the Exchequer do with re gard to this point ? The right hon. gentleman the member for Halifax said that from statistical returns he formed the opinion that a reduction of duty would not materially increase the quantity of malt. I own I was astonished at that statement. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the malt duty was first imposed at the end of the seventeenth century. It was raised during the whole of the 18th century, from 4s. a quarter to 11. 15s. a quarter. It was subsequently reduced to 1/. Bs., and later still to 1/. 2s. 7d. I cannot. fail to draw conclusions from such returns, and I confess I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman failed to draw just conclusions from them. For, first, there is the most start ling fact, which, to my astonishment, has been denied this evening—namely, that, notwithstanding all the increase in your population, the quantity of malt manufactured in this country has been nearly stationary. And why ? Because you had put on so high a duty. (Hear, hear.) Let there be, however, no mistake on this point. " Owing," says the return, "to malt liquor having become the favourite beverage in England, the manufacture of malt has been carried on on a large scale • but instead o f the manufacture increasing with th e population, and with the malt, it has remained nearly stationary for the lost 100 years ending in 1816 ; in proof of which it may be stated that whereas during the previous 12 years the annual quan tity which paid duty was 20,000,000 bushels and a frac tion, during the 12 years ending 1816 it was only 23,009,090 bushels and a fraction in the year, which in some de gree accounted for the increased consumption of tea and coffee ; but there cannot be a question that this state of things is mainly owing to the exorbitant duty which our malt or our beer has been subject to, and to the oppres sive regulations imposed on the manufacturers of malt." (Cheers.) And Mr. M'Cialloch is the authority for this (renewed cheers.) Sir, I should like the noble lord oppo site to reconcile this answer with the statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for Halifax, that the quantity of malt was not materially increased by the remission of duty (cheers.) But there is another conclusion to be drawn from those returns, which I also think upsets the whole argument of the right hon. gentleman—it is that as you increase the duty you diminish the consumption per head (hear, hear.) I have got the tables at hand to prove this, and I will now take one remarkable one. One hundred years ago, in 1750, the quantity of bushels of malt made in this country was 29 millions and a fraction. The duty was Gd. per bushel, and the consumption was five bushels per head. Now, sir, let us see whether the consumer of this country has been benefited by your mode of dealing with this question since 1750. (Hear, hear.) Betsyeeu that year and 1805 the duty was increased—first, to 11. 9d., then it was ls. 4d., and at last it was 2s. and a fraction per bushel. And what was the effect of this ? Why, that in 1801 the quantity made was 30,000,000 bushels, with the duty at 2s. sd. And what was the con sumption per head ? Why, it was reduced to three bushels and some gallons. I will now take mother period—that between 1801 and 1811. In the former year the duty was raised to the enormous amount of 4s. 5d., and in 1835 it was reduced again to 2s. sd. per bush e l. W as the quan tity raised ? It was previously 30 ,000,000. In 1811 it was 25,000,000 and a fraction. The consumption instead of being five bushels as in 1750, was three bushels in 1805. and in the last year it was reduced to two bushels and four gallons. In 1831 the quantity of malt manufactured was 32,000,000, the duty being 2s. 7d. the bushel, and the consumption two bushels per head. Well, I think that a most important table ; but the hon. gentleman the mem ber for Middlesex reminds me that the beer duty was taken off in 1830. The right hon. tkatleman the member for Halifax, however, said last night, although I do not know where he got the statistics on which to found his assertion, that the remission of the beer duty had had no effect on the consumption of beer. Now, what was the number of bushels of • malt made in 1829 and 1830. In 1829, 23,000,000 ; in 1830, 26,900,000. In 1831 it rose from 26,900,030 bushels to 32,300,003. In 1832 it was 31,629,000 bushels; in 1833, 33,769,000 bushels, and so it went on increasing until 1840, when it amounted to 36,652,000 bushels. But the right hon. gen tlemen the member for Halifax went on to argue that there was a great falling off in 1841. I reminded him at the time that 5 per cent. was added to the malt tax. In 1840 the Innount being 36,352,000, it fell in 1841, to 30,956,000. In 1846 it was '30,376,000. It has been remarked that these were years of considerable distress, and that the con sumption was diminished—(hear, hear)—but you will not say that the years from 1842 downwards have all been years of great distress. It is true that manufac tured malt has increased from 32,000,000 in 1851 to 35,000,000 in 1852 ; but observe this one point. The result has been that, notwithstanding the great pros perity of the country, notwithstanding that everything else has gone on improving, notwithstanding that the ma nufacture of malt has to a certain extent increased, the malt manufactured in 1852 in this country is actually less than it was in the year 1800, and it is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the consumption of the quantity of malt and of beer have been materially im peded by your unequal taxation (cheers). If that be so, may we not remedy this state of things by reducing the duty one half ? For that reason, if for no other, and con sidering the consumer, I think that the remission of this duty, as proposed by my right hon. friend, a wise, just, and beneficial measure (ministerial cheers and counter cheers), I suppose you will admit it is " wise " if we increase the quantity of that which is the most wholesome beverage ? (Cheers.) I suppose you will not deny it is " just" if it enables the agriculturist to cultivate his lighter soils to a greater extent that heretofore. (Cheers.) But having dealt with this subject of malt, I now come to the duty on tea. Upon this topic I need say but little, but in passing I may be permitted to make a few observations, for I think it is th a t p ar t o f th e sc h eme of my right hon. friend for which he deserves the greatest credit, as no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the courage to repeal this duty. (Cheers.) I consider that the repeal of the tea duties will be beneficial in three points of view —(cheers)—namely, socially, commercially, and financially. (Cheers.) Socially it will be a benefit because it will cheapen for the poor of this country that beverage of which, I believe, most is consumed. (Hear, hear.) Commercially, it will open up a much wider trade in the East, and, no doubt, your manufacturers will find in it the means of multiplying the exchange of their products. (Hear.) But, financially, I think you will find it beneficial, and Ido so for two reason. When previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have remitted the duties, I find that the consumption has increased enormously. The duties were remitted in 1745 and in 1784. During the 10 years preceding 1745 the consumption amounted to 768,5201 b. Five years afterwards it amounted to 2,360,0001 b. In 1784 Mr. Pitt reduced the duties, and the measure was so suc cessful that the amount consumed was trebled in a few years, and subsequently quadrupled. (Cheers.) Sir, I have now dealt with the first portion of the subject, and shown the principle on which the Government have acted. We act on your (the opposition's) principle of commercial freedom, and we apply it to the remission of these two great duties— the duties on malt and the duty on tea —(hear, hear)—and both of which remissions we think will benefit the consumer as well as the producer and the ma nufacturer. To that part of the budget I think there can be no reasonable objection ; and I now come to the second principle of the proposition—and that is the mode in which it is proposed to deal with those interests which have been peculiarly affected by your legislation. I mean the colo nial, the shipping, andthe agricultural interest? What have we done for the colonial interest ? Why, we have enabled them to refine the produce of their sugar-growing estates in a manner consistent with their own interests. Is not that a just and beneficial act? (Hear, hear.) Then with regard to the shipping interest. The noble lord the member for the City of London has himself declared that that interest has been greatly relieved by the measures proposed by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With respect, again, to the agricultural interest. We have bene fitted them by enabling them to cultivate their soil to an ex tent they could not have accomplished if they laboured under the burdens which before pressed upon them. (Cheers.) Sir, I think the hon. member for the West Riding argued this question with perfect fairness in the first part of his speech, and he made for us an immense admission when he said, that if the whole of the malt duties were remitted, we should not be doing more than had been done for the calico manufacturer when the 31d. per square yard was taken off. (Hear.) The hon. baronet, the member for Hertfordshire. alluded to that subject the other evening. Let us consider the effect of that reduction, and apply the argument to malt. The effect of the reduction was, that whereas in 1830, I think, the quantity of calico exported annually was only 89,000,000 yards, in ten years afterwards it arose to the enormous amount of 329,000,000 yards. (Hear.) Now, if you could take off the whole duty on malt, I should like to know whether you would not lighten the springs of industry as applied to the soil, as you did when you remitted the duty in the case of calico? (Hear, hear.) Unquestionably such a remission would have the same effect. Unquestionably it would be consistent with your system of legislation; but it would be beneficial to the consumer and the producer. (Cheers.) It is said, how ever, that if you cannot take off the whole tax you had better not take off half, for in that case the odium remains, and you still have the inconvenience of the excise. Sir, that argument is the old story—(hear)—" if you cannot do everything you ought to do nothing." (Cheers.) I would appeal to the hon. member for the West Riding, and ask him whether, supposing there was a duty upon oorn,which from consideration of revenue could not be wholly taken off, he would not propose the remission of a part? (Hear.) Would it not be reasonable to get an instalment—(hear, hear)—and get as much as you could with a view, in the end, to procuring the repeal altogether? (Hear, hear.) Sir, no one would urge that argument more forcibly or more pointedly than the hon. member for the West Riding, and I call upon him to be consistent with his own principles, and apply the rule for the benefit of the agriculturists. But, sir, upon this question of malt, we are not without authorities. There are three authorities in this house who should always be referred to with the greatest deference and respect on such a matter. I cannot take a greater authority than the hon. gentleman who first advocated the repeal of the corn laws in this house, and who, in fact, may be considered as the primary mover of the great change which has taken place. I mean, the hon. member for Wolverhampton. That hon. gentleman had expressed his conviction that the advocates of the corn laws were ready to get rid of the malt tax. (Hear, hear.) Then came the authority of the right hon. baronet the member for Car lisle, who said that the malt tax enhanced the price of beer and diminished the demand for it, that a tax on barley land had the same effect as if the land had been stricken with barrenness ; and who added that if the corn laws were repealed he felt convinced the malt tax would not survive three years. Now the last authority which I shall quote is that of the hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden.) I wish especially to quote the authority of that hon. gentleman, with a view of showing to the house how consistent the hon. gentle man has been upon this subject. The hon. member for the West' Riding of Yorkshire put the question upon even higher ground than that upon which it was put by the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle or the hon. member for Wolverhampton. The hon. member for Wolverhampton put it upon this ground, that even 4,500,0001. were nothing, if the remission of this duty only had the effect of widening the sphere of industry in this country. The right honourable baronet the member for Carlisle put it upon this ground—that if we continued the malt tax, we would ultimately strike the barley land with barrenness. But the hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire 'put the question on still higher ground, for he said, "It was a debt that was due to the farmer since we had repealed the corn laws." (Ministerial cheering.) Now, mark ye, those observations were made by the hon. gentle man so late as the 20th of January, 1849. But the hon. member went on to say—" We sympathise with the far mer in this emergency. We say that we will not tolerate the imposition of any tax for the protection of corn ; but we will co-operate with the farmers in getting rid of that obnoxious impost the malt tax." (Loud cheers.) Now mark these words, " for we owe the farmers something, and we will endeavour to repay them." (Continued cheers.) And yet when this discussion comes on, the honourable gentleman rising in his place denies the repayment of the first instalment of the debt to that suffering class, although it may ultimately be accepted as a compromise of the whole. This portion of the budget, at all events, the hon. member had given us room to suppose would meet with his approbation. I now approach the third question raised during this discussion. I mean that relating to the re-adjustment of the direct taxation. Assuming lam right in thinking that the remission of the duties upon tea and malt are beneficial—assuming I am right in thinking that these duties are remitted consistently with those great principles upon which you have established commercial freedom, let us now see whether we may not legitimately carry into execution the objects resulting from the adop tion of those principles by the mode in which we propose to adjust the system of direct taxation. Sir, the hon. gen tleman who last sat down told us that this system of direct taxation was the first step towards a great commercial re form. (Hear, hear.) I then say that the addition which we propose to make in the system of direct taxation will enable you to complete a great commercial reform. (Hear.) You put this tax on originally, not merely, as it was said in the course of this debate, because there was a deficit. There was a deficit it was true ; but it did not require you to put on 5,000,0001. of taxation when 2,500,000/, would have been amply sufficient to meet the deficit. You put on the direct tax, not merely to get rid of the deficit, but you also put it on to effect this great commercial re form of which you have spoken. It is true we have no deficit now, but the addition which we propose to make to the direct taxation is intended to complete that great com mercial reform. What is the direct taxation with which we mean to deal ? The house tax and the property and income tax. We deal with the house tax by increasing its amount, as compared with what it was in the year 1851, but not as compared with the ten preceding years. We extend the area on which the house tax is to be assessed, and we vary the relations of the property and income tax. Well, now, what is the first great objection taken to this proposition of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? It was an objection first raised by the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood). That right hon. gentleman, in speaking of the house tax, says we are introducing by this Budget an o pp ress i ve amoun t o f direct taxation. Now, I say that we are remedying an injustice which you had perpetrated and justified during your long tenure of office. When you repealed the win dow duties, you substituted for them a house tax of an unjust and unequal character. In 1850, your window duties, which was a direct tax, yielded 1,900,0001. The house tax, which you put on as a substitute, and which yielded only about 600,000/, we propose to increase to about doubl e that amount. This, we think, will remedy the admitted failure which the right hon. gentleman had committed when he substituted his partial and unequal house duty for the window tax. Well, then, do you ob ject to this tax upon any philosophic or scientific grounds, or even upon any economical principles ? Remember the reasons which influenced you in taking off the window duties. They were two principally. The right hon. gentleman adverted to one of them—namely, the improve. ment of the sanitary condition of the country. The other was, that it pressed unequally and unfairly upon different classes. Was it necessary, however, that you should have sacrificed 1,500,0001. of your revenue ? Your remedy w as to substitute a direct tax which did not interfere with the sanitary condition of the people, and which was not un equal in its operation. If you had brought forward our op ition of a house tax as a substitute for th e w i n d ow proposition you would have done all right. (Hear, hear.) You would have done that which all the best political eco nomists concur in saying was your wisest course. They all tell us—and we have repeatedly heard the fact reiterated durin ,, the present debate—that the house tax is the first direct impost which you can place upon the different classes of the country. (" Oh, oh," from some members of the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerialists.) Well, then, if you will not admit that word " all," I will say that the best political economists, from Adam Smith to Mill and M'Culloch, say that the first income I da you can impose is a house tax, for these re asons — 7o the rent a man r ece i ves f or hi s h ouse i s the best t r a l tioss i of what he has got t o s p en d . B u t th ere ar e two ad d i reasons which I shall h ere men ti on. (Hear, he3rithssl first is, because a house tax does not interfere becaus e branch of domestic industry, and the second isi oon' the subject of the t ax being visible, tangible, ant .t 0 coaled, there can be n o d anger o f f rau d. In both rteor it ;is greatly superior to any other tax upon pro income, which must necessarily in some instance' 50injo0g tiously and unequally. I have collected from tile fh e rell that have been expressed it is your opinion that till the nothing unreasonable in increasing direct taxeL is cs( 4 shape of the house tax, so as to make it extand hat 101. value, and the property tax to extend it to "i' t i s $lO l another objection is taken to this propositi° ll ' t nnl par that it will h ave th e e ff ec t o f di s f ranc hi si ng a vas n w l i oro of the constituents of this country ? Now, fr tn° hose, does this a rgumen t come ? Why, from th ese s hoal° favourite theory i s th a t t axa ti on an d representation t 10 /. go together. They are the persons who wish _ r iot householders sh ou ld re t urn mem b ers t o that house , rile of the possessors of an income fairly considered as " i° e t boa! 100/. shall constitute the great bulk of the constitu:..,.tot in this country. Now, I have no hesitation in sa r At is g, o if you proceed on that principle you will be i, it)o greater blow upon our representative system tns_eif yen ever before received. And for this reason, becallsflocY pursue that system under which an untaxed con,s"hose, of this country will be returning members O th t e w ir s :::: i l the representatives will take such care of constituencies as to impose no tax other than tha t does not press in any way upon them. Why , au intsill et position is utterly p repos t erous, an d canno t be l o l lop for a single moment. Well, there is one otherobjee t l ° to e r efer I have heard. The objection to which lam abo ut iebon s was made by the hon. baronet the member for garY tt (Sir B. Hall) in his address to his constituents. ` s til t this :—that we should h ave ex t en d e d thi s tax te lower amount th an 101. N ow I thi n k if th e prolY' s ,,,,tioo , my right hon. f r i en d, ma d e i n re f erence t o direct tax at has any one merit greater than another, it is this - % a for is putting the direct taxation of this country uP e- re and reasonable footin g . If, on th e o th er hand, th e n of measure more objectionable th an ano th er in the t o direct taxation, it is that one which compels a P e ;010 ° contribute towards the revenue of the country' , ii t means axe such as may be fairly considered insuffic!,oo, provide for himself the neces sar y ar ti c l es of snlolso not (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Now, I s ides' think there is anything unreasonable in that pro and There is a minimum under which, I think, in 011411 tiro° in justice, we ought not to compel a contribution t ( l ) .` o tirg taxation. That minimum should be viewed as l n ' 1 ,11 0 , means capable, not merely of providing the individ_l r ts articles of subsistence but also the or dinary eow t / Or existence. Well, I think that we have upheld tb s I pro' ciple, first by extending th e proper t y t ax to „,resolo perty of 501. a-year, and th e h ouse t ax to Iv' : Irorl;' The honourable member f or th e W es t Riding 0 t haveshire has complet e ly u p se t all the arguments tw' sn d is' been urged against the exten s i on o f th e property hole' come tax by the hon. membe rs on his side of t f the That honourable gentl eman h as s h own th e fairnes s o - 0 01 15 distinction which we have recognised between p re or y for and fixed incomes so cle ar ly th a t it is scarcely nee es f me to answer the objecti ons ma d e upon thi s portion *l o b right hon. friend's proposition. Ido not, howeve r, to shrink from the se o bj ec ti ons . Th ey are , I tfoloititba cipally two. Th e one was t a k en b y the noble longif member for London, th e o th er night, and was a t e the pressed in the argu men t s use d b y hi s f ormer colleag l 111° right honourable baronet the member for Halifl a , • the other was taken by th e r i g ht h onoura bl e gentle_.,,,„ objt member for the Univ ers ity o f O x f or d . These 'tad tions of such a formidable c h arac t er th a t if they e° ti ° sustained, I think that they wou ld materially " e i c r • eu character of the budget which h as b een anno unced JOO right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer'olo' noble lord the member for L on d on says th a t we ha vo c hon' rially increased the numb er o f exemp ti ons . The rig J ssi ° gentleman the member for th e U n i vers ity o f Clxi ( nkros t, that we have broken faith with the public creditor. 1 s Ol first of all, I beg the house to bea r i n m i n d, whil e gong dealing with the first objection, what are the ex,„,,e r l y sr,° of the property and inc ome tax ' at present. f , these :—You exempt every property in Ireland, s laes' classes and descriptions, when the owners of it are re siring in that country. Y ou exemp t , th en, every perso n rees mi of less than 1501. a-yea r . Th ese are th e t wo grea t elg ss „ - ting exemptions. But what are ou rs ? I ns t ea d of oxen every class in Ireland, we f or th e fi rs t ti me e xclude these exemptions the offi c i a l sa l ar i es an d th e f u nded 5 ' tants in Ireland. In that res p ec t we have, theref,s°r e ric° 4 minished the number o f exemp ti ons. W e have "011°4 the point of exemption in reference to precarious inrtcto to 1001. instead of 1501., and in respect to fixed Pr°P e , c for 501. instead of 1501. H ow th e no bl e l or d th e memo London could gravely say then that we have gr ° creased the number of exempti ons I canno t unders og oo (Hear, hear.) The n o bl e l or d m i g ht en d eavo ur t° but that these alterations were not equ it a bl e i n themsel i tilr o I think we ca n d e fy even hi s great abilities to show have increased the number of exemptions. But 11 0 ` v „ l a ce we dealt with this income t ax ? Th e variations w- s tic ll made are not of an ex em pt or y c h arac t er , but a t e l e citl l ; as we think will p u t th e t ax upon a more j us t an tbs t table footing than it was heretofore. It is said U o 'villl , we have benefited the farmer by those propos itions. 01, 1 what have we done but thi s ? W e h ave sa id this , tw eeo since the repeal of th e corn l aws , the proportion 11 eent profit and rent is not as it was before. (Tokens of 7; 0 0 from the Opposition members.) Now these are Oil into which you will have to go in committee un tri to' subject ; and, I believe, that it will b e th en demo n, e 0 i that the proportion between p ro fit s an d ren t i s not w was before. (Hear, hear.) For that reason, as well as P 0 11 unjust way in which the tax had pressed upon the f i ber we propose an alteration in it. Well, we propose an tai der alteration in reference to the income of a clergyman of 1001. Why have we done this ? Because the i nconi e t ber clergyman under 1001. is, in fact, analogous to an4,l' s is" professional income ; for you m us t remem b er that "*",, 115 come tax depends not only upon his life, but also health and strength. If his health and strength fail l• he must provide a su b s tit u t e . W e therefore 'title' clergyman receiving und er 1001, a year i s as muc h eel 110 to consideration as an y p ro f ess i ona l man. (Hear, horl'ecia third proposition in referen ce t o thi s t ax i s th a t of red jo re a fourth of the tax upon precarious incomes. W it h ltbo° 6 we done this ? Becau se , u p on th e reason i ng o f ot lety who are best acquainted with the subject, we have, ibeit tri es , toted that, in referenc e t o th e salaries of professional the members of this cl ass oug ht a t l eas t t o l ay by fo l co, successors or old age one-fourth o f th e i r incomes. „3,,„11t ceive that that is a j us t principle upon which we Wir t proceed. I therefore thi n k th a t I h ave s h own , or 11 ,,1 deavoured. to show, that when th e no bl e l o rd tat increasing the number of ex em pti ons , he ought ra t ' ijor, have said that we h ave demonstrated the number, ° tbs qualities in the present tax, and have redressed e vils have been alway s pointed out in the imposition 01 tb eter°' come and property tax, ev il s w hi c h everybody feel s ' et iie , body admits, and everyb o dy says oug ht t o be via n obl e Having done this, I think that the argument of th e , ;iO , lord, in reference t o th e a lt era ti on we propose in t h l i boll r cannot be supported u p on the ground of an increas ti er ber of exemptions. I now proceed to a much more lie taut objection, made by the right honourable gf i l v tao°' the member for the University of Oxford. That righ t , 1 ! c gentleman says that we have broken faith with the P t creditor. If that proposition be made out, I say .„twi DO, budget ought not to stand for a single moment. - 00 _„ 11 is eo" we broken faith with the public creditor ? That arty has been put forward in two points of view—fir"As r e ' gard to Ireland ' • secondly, as regards England. t ob°, S gards Ireland, it is said we are taxi ng th e f un dholder fro"' we are not taxing the land. The inference dra vill ,„ PO; that is, that in no case are we justified in taxing th e 11°,' holder unless we tax persons who are in a similar „co ire in regard to the amount of their property, and th ,ol ' A lto breaking a national agreement. Now this I deny o p' gether. I deny that the Irish fundholder is a° 4 70 ,0 !,, tion any more than an English fundholder, upoo i „.; is n tional engagement, or any legal obligation, ,r g roP,,l, exemption upon one ground only, and that is, w e i , s p. il'e of residence:in Ireland. The sth and 6th Vict., c i :,4lol° in reference to the property tax, puts the tax in s„, e " - 11: 11 _, t : upon all profits arising from annuities, dividendf i ,'; &c., payable to any person, company or society, wh e ' l ;ll o ', corporate or not, and charges as public revenue, tios . ' property at sevenpence in the pound withoutide u T e oel c When you come to the rule that constitutes tlies' n jo tions in section 88, you will find that the sole gretim the exception of the Irish fundholder is reside ll yie:,,; schedule C you will find that the rule for assessing come tax, and for charging all d u ti es p aya bl e to th e blo 1r) revenue under the act, extends to dividends PNi r e10 1 1; 0 _ Ireland for the use of all pers ons no t res id en t in,' e at',l (Hear.) The amount of the di v id en d s pa id t o tn e creditor in Ireland for the year ending the sth jui l was 1,350,4621., of which 1,247,3901. were e l t ,l o ( j, leaving a tax of over 100,0001. per annum as paP"friol3o( paid by the Irish stockholder. I ask my right bo n ; n ot r o therefore, if this is a national obligation, why it ' s _...tb e , universal application ? It is residence that exenir s ; „ tisn, is no national obligation, as with so many millions t ""a tion there ought not to be. (Hear.) Well, sir, that is u rig i ' , If this be a great national engagement such as In „g' 7 la ll .,"; hon. friend represents it, is Ireland any part of 1 ",110 If Ireland be so, why is the English creditor tax e :„ c o ( 31 ,4 land? The fact is the exemption is not in the nav"„,01 11 4 national engagement ; but it is because the person fly , are living in Ireland—a country so gre a t, rcj tressed that it ought to be exempt. J-m ,„„ - ( iliol e r, is the sole ground on which the Irish 11 ""f s rtP ii t resident in Ireland is exempt. But I will iv e ,f t e The argument of the right hon. mem b er for kid°, 'fof to show that he did not approv e o f th e extend the income tax to the land of Ireland, because when borr'ji was just recovering from a great and g r ievous et u lia d ment, it was not a time to tie another weight 3 , 1 e r° o , se s y, neck of that country. I think th a t argume nt 15 P ohl , c • one ; and I think it would be a very ques ti o ns b oe notwithstanding its apparent e qua lit y, if the b ° 0013 posed that tax to the land of Ireland at this c i roffi sir, 'l e r But, that argument does not a ppl y t o sa larie d no, to nor to fundholders, because the embarrasennen tend which the land has suffered so sev ere ly d oe s not e x f o ref k i l e them. As the matter stands, the extension. tiler ibf proposed by . my right hon. friend the Chaneeo e t f bf Exchequer is perfectly just ; while, as propos e t ja hon. baronet the member for Marylebone, it w , ° ,,eielt,lit' tie around the neck of the land in Ireland, P s ' - We * 1 as it is from a distress nearly u n p ara ll e l e d, the ic i i clo alluded to by the right hon. member for Halifax. , Now, sir, with regard to the E ng li s h f un dholde i r il l e P io my right hon. friend brok en f a i th with them ? done so, it can be only on one of two grounds : e l c , 0 0" 0 1 the first plabe, on the ground of a parliamenta r YLl4br, or in the second, on the ground of a moral, eq u „,T i ghn t• legal obligation. I ask the right hon. gentl ei ' l ' -- ont y-e he puts it now on the Mr. GLADSTONE was understoodto reply t i ° tive. ground of a parliamentary ehe 10 11 '0 11 Mr. WALPOLE—Y ou (lid on the last nighu.,teta o ao' the contract ? It was sa i d by the right hon. ge n 'ijet now placed this impost on the public creditor• has been done since the days of Mr. Pitt ? Th e P ot otO i t o , ditor has b een t axed 3 per cent., 5 per cent., an d °co as high a s 10 per cent. (Cheers.) I (to not comPl i ,zi e broP t i j o the b y e a i i n i g ia p m u e t n o ta n ry ; b e t o i n t t y ra ou ct ca b u y no i t in s po ay s t i h ng at for 16 this t ; c t..,,,l i t first time. So much for the Parliamentary e" the 11 1,1 0 therefore, there is no contract, the of o wl i t hon. gentleman must be on the moral, an d l e , g yog ground. If, however, you put it on that gro 1 , 11 1; es , it on a u n i versa l f oo ti ng , app li ca bl e a t an t (10 0°9 0' places, and t o a ll p erso n s . B u t w h a t have YOI. ove r have,li' antnaxuemd, while e you l arg i e i h creditor t — l the se c t r i e l t e li_to sin r a r tor under that amount. (Cheers.) If it 0e.,,e-hst 1115(1 te e hx n e g erm a e le ot i r n et ent it is general in its application. cl i ty ? :15f c 1;,,, 54; he k :m ve all y ern i to (Ch t ee ax rs. t ) he you also tax capital. You contract with eontri'eveie of creditors to pay three per cent., and you __ On & vol e another to pay a higher sum ; but every e tin' lie °ris co" 7d. in the pound from the holder of termina_ ,i 0 you take a portion of his capital as well as . of,_; ; ,,stidr,io Bluatrgiserthta 000, m (C a h y ee b rs e .) just ß iz o a th ble op ; era bu t t io i n t s w zy b , ondoottetr,