The Sun. — London, England, 1865-04-28 00:00:00

HIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1865, time not only calamities of a rarer kind, but the ordinary calamity of a bad harvest would either greatly reduce the improvement in that item, or even destroy it altogether. Now, as regards the state of the balances, on the 31st of March, 1864, they amounted to £7,352,000, and on the same day in 1865 they were £7.690,000, showing an increase of £338,000. The advances for public works, which usually contributed to feed the balances, had lately become a drain upon them. The advances made were £2,069,000, and the repayments £1,706,000, showing an excess of advances of £303,000. The debt paid off in the year has been—of Ex chequer-bonds, £300,000; of Exchequer-bills, £2,100,000, and of stock purchased with surplus revenue, £939,000, making a total of £3,338,000. The capital value of Tannin able Annuities extinguished is £2,006,000, making a grand total of £5,340,000, subject to a deduction of the amount raised for fortifications, which has been £726,000, leaving a real reduction of debt to the extent of £1,614,000. (Cheers.) I have ventured to state to the committee what is the real condition of our debt as a whole, because I have to take, so far, blame to myself, although I might share it with those who have gone before me, of never having on previous occa sions stated the absolute amount of the debt. We are in debted, in fact, to the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, for having adopted a very simple, but effectual, method of showing the full amount of the national debt. Our ordinary practice has been to look to funded and un funded debt alone, and to make no allowance for the very heavy sums which we have been liable to pay prospectively in respect of Terminable Annuities. In the statement of the debt now presented by the Board of Trade from year to year —the Statistical Tables—there is included the full capital amount of the Terminable Annuities which we still have to pay. I have that full account to the 31st of March. Of course, the effect of this arrangement is that our debt is somewhat larger in amount than we believed it to have been, but for a comparison of the total debt of the country, I can give the particulars of the funded and unfunded debt, and the capital of the Terminable Annuities, if it be desired for the purposes of comparison. I may state that on March 31, 1859, our total debt was £825,934,000, and on March 31, 1865, it was £808,288,000, showing that since March 31, 1859, there has been a diminution of debt to the extent of £17,646,000, or nearly, on an average, £3,000,000 a year. (Cheers.) The estimated capital of Terminable An nuities was in March, 1859, £18,856,000, and in March, 1865, the amount had risen to £21,778,000. But, after de biting the account of 1865 with that augmentation, and giv ing credit for the reduction of the funded debt, which is very large—some £ll,ooo,ooo—and for the reduction of the unfunded debt—about £7,soo,ooo—the result is that the total reduction is not very far short of £18,000,000, a sum which may sound, and does, sound well; but at the same time, I cannot say that it is a very brilliant result of our labours to find that £3,000,000 a year are taken from our debt, considering the enormous amount of that debt and the difficulties in which we might possibly be involved if we were ever again engaged in a struggle for existence, and I cannot say that as legislators we have as yet risen to a sense of the full extent of our obligations with respect to a reduction of the debt. (Cheers.) Now, when I turn from the revenue of the last year to the movements of trade, there is but one particular branch of trade upon which I need trouble the committee with any remarks, That is a trade in which this house has felt a peculiar, a natural, and an abiding interest. I will, therefore, just refer to the condition of the paper trade. lam very far from denying —on the contrary, I greatly deplore it—that the period of transition has been for many members of that trade a period of very great severity. Of that I make no doubt whatevet. At the same time it is right to say that the paper trade, as a trade, not only has not left the coun try, but it shows no intention of leaving the country ; on the contrary, it evidently means to strike its rodts deeper and deeper here, for it calls continually from year to year for the importation of more _materials from abroad, while at the same time the consumers in this country are sup plied with paper more largely andmore cheaply than at any former period. (Cheers.) The importations of paper and paper-hangings from abroad have risen from the insignifi cant amount at which they stood six years ago to no less than £447,000 in value in 1864, while at the same time the importation of materials for paper making rose from 13,700 tons in 1859 to 20,400 tons in 1862, to 44,000 tons in 1863, and to 67,000 tons in 1864. (Cheers.) It will be observed that this cannot be accounted for by the disappearance of cotton-waste, because for the last year or two, at any rate, the supply of cotton-waste has been tending to increase. It was in 1861 and 1862 that the supply of cotton -waste 'was at the lowest ; but, while the supply of that material from our manufactures has been somewhat reviving, here is that immense increase in the importation of other paper making materials from abroad. [An Hon. Member—Rags.] Rags aro included, but I do not distinguish between rags and other materials for paper making, of which there are a great variety. No doubt rags only form a small proportion of the whole, and raw vegetable products represent the mass of the imports. But that is a remarkable fact. Such has been the advantage of the stimulus given to the search for new materials for the manufacture of paper (cheers) that the owners of cotton-waste now complain that they can only obtain half the price for that material which they used to obtain. That is the state of the case, and speaking of the papermakers as a class, I may say that it is not be cause less paper is made that cotton-waste does not fetch the same price as formerly, but because the papermaker has found that be can obtain cheaper materials from other sources. A gentleman who himself produces a large quan tity of cotton-waste has informed me by letter that in 1860, when middling cotton cost him sid. per lb., he could get 225. per sack for his sweepings, yet now, when ho was paying so much more for his cotton, he could not get more than 9s. a sack for the waste. (Cheers.) I will now notice our trade with France, which is also a subject of special interest to this country, and there I find an increase. It varies, and although the export of British produce has slightly diminished since two or three years back, yet the total increase of trade with France has been steadily on the increase on imports as well as exports. In 1859 the total amount of our trade with France was £26,431,000, and in 1864 it was £49,797,000 (cheers), showing an in crease of £23,366,000, or nearly 90 per cent. And there has not been a single year in that period in which, if we take our exports of all kinds together, our exports to France have not shown an increase over the preceding year. In com paring the condition of our relations with that country, I would desire to occupy a moment in removing a common misapprehension. It is believed, and it has been used by some of us as a consolation under the burden of our great expenditure—it is believed that the public expenditure of France is much higher than the public expenditure of this country. That belief is erroneous. It is brought about by the mode in which the accounts are rendered, and in which local charges in France are passed through the medium of the Imperial treasury. (Cheers.) I have no account later than 1862, because, as is well known, although the French ac counts are perfect models of scientific precision and clearness (cheers), yet they do not appear—the final accounts do not appear until considerably in arrear of the period to which they refer. But for the purpose I have in view it will do just as well to take this account. In 1862 the apparent ex penditure of. France was £88,493,000, but of that expendi ture a large proportion was forpurposes of a local character, and for purposes which do not at all appear in the Imperial expenditure of this country. The expenditure of France in that year, for the purposes of comparison with that of this country, was £60,815,000, and the expenditure of this country in the year 1862-3—the nearest period I can take —was £70,352,000, or an excess on our part of about 91 millions over the expenditure of France. The accounts, I think, now stand somewhat better. We have made a little progress since that period in reducing our charges. lam not quite sure that our neighbours and friends across the Channel have as yet been so fortunate, although they ap pear to have at length a prospect of obtaining the desired end. As regards the whole trade of this country, I stated last year the immense amount which it had reached. I think the total then reached was £445,000,000. It has since undergone a large further increase in the year recently passed. The accounts of the year ending 31st December, 1864—for we do not take notice of the financial year as regards trade—those accounts show that our imports amounted to £274,000,000, and our exports to £213,000,000, or a total of £487,000,000, being an increase of more than £219,000,000 since the comparatively recent period of 1854. And here I come to a point of very great and clear interest which may deserve a few moments' attention. There is, again, a misapprehension that while the increase of the trade of this country of late years has been undoubtedly a remarkable increase, yet that it has been less than the in crease in the trade of foreign countries. That is a matter which somewhat touches not only the reputation of the Parliaments of England, which for the last 25 years have attached so much consequence to the removal of shackles from industry and commerce, but also appears to press ma terially upon the wisdom or necessity of continuing thatpo licY for the future. It is quite true that the trade of France exhibits a la rger re l at i ve i ncrease of late years than ours has done, but I wou ld venture to- say it would have been strange indeed if that had not been the case. And why ? Thi; trade of France languished after the close of the great war, and especially after th e was ti ng an d crushing depopu lation of the last years of that war, which destroyedalmost one-half of the labouring and productive power of the country. It was not surprising, then, that for 30 or 40 years that great country should have remained in an un natural position as r egarded its trade. It is not wonder ful, then, that the tr a d e o f France should show greater relative increase than that o f England, which has a grea never t lost the energy and vigour o f h er commercial orai and which happily has never b een subjected to supcehswen;eeP ing losses of her best blood throu g h t h e desolating influ enceence of war. (Hear, hear.) lam only a bl e to compare the exports, but they are quite sufficient and effectual for the purpose. The exports of France in 1854 ware £78,000,000 and in 1863 they were £141,000,000, bein g an i ncrease of 81 per cent. The exports of the United Kingdom in 1854 were £116,000,000, and in 1863 £197,000,000, an increase of no more than 70 per cent. I grant that if that fact stood alone it would authorise you to say that a country which had done little in the way of relaxing its commercial laws had achieved relatively more than a country which had done much and had made great progress on the road of commer cial freedom. But when we look at the absolute increase we find that while France has added £63,00.0, 000 to her exports, England has added £81,000,000. But if we want to have a fair comparison we should not take a country like France, placed under circumstances so abnormal in consequence of the ruin and ravazes of war ; let us take two neighbouring countries with free institutions, which have not undergone the same sufferings, which have been in a more normal condition, and which have been free from war and revolution —and it is difficult to find countries on the Continent which have been free from war and revolution—let us take Belgium and Holland. There is no con ,try which has benefited more fully and more enormou ;ly than Belgium from the application of the railway system. The in crease in the imports of England, as I have shown, from 1854 to 1863 has been 71 per cent., but the imports of Belgium, one of the most flourishing countries of the Continent, only grew in the same period from £28,000,000 to £40,000,000, or 43 per cent., and the exports of Holland only grew from £24,000,000 to £30,000,000, or 25 per cent. With regard to Austria it is difficult to make a favourable comparison. It is really lamentable to find that in a country of that vast extent and with that immense ca pacity the exports, which amounted to £11,000,000 in 1844, in 1858 (though there had been a great increase) had only risen to £22,000,000. Let us hope that my right hon. friend who is now in Vienna engaged in the good work of com municating to Austria the results of our experience may succeed in persuading the Imperial Government—not that it is a matter of vital importance to England that they should alter their tariffs, but that it is of vital importance to themselves—(hear, hear)—and that if they will act in that spirit with a view to their own interests, we shall be perfectly satisfied with the share of the benefits which must necessa rily redound to us in a process which always "blesses him that gives more than him that takes." (Hear, hear.) Upon the whole I come to this conclusion—that we have indeed derived enormous, almost boundless, advantages from the inventive spirit which has distinguished the present age and from the application of new principles of locomotion. I believe that the railway companies have received from the public for the services they have performed above £30,000,000 sterling, and I thinkit would be a moderate estimate to say that a further sum of .00,000,000 represents the addition to the wealth of the country which has been gained by the introduction of the railway system, after making every allowance requisite for the capital invested in other modes of locomotion which have been either wholly or partially paralysed by the introduction of railways. After all that has been said on the subject these figures go to show that immense advantage has also resulted from the apparently simple but in practice sufficiently difficult process of re moving the bars, fetters, and obstructions devised by the perversity of man himself from the path of human indus try, and trusting to the simple expedient of freedom for the development of the productive power of the country. (Hear, hear.) It is no small honour that as in regard to locomotion, so in regard to the freedom of trade and industry it has been given to this country to lead the vanguard of civilisation, in the words of one of our old poets,— " To serve as a model for the mighty world, And be the fair beginning of a time," .., I (cheers)—of a time richly fraught not only with economical advantages, not only with results which can be exhibited in statistical tables, but fraught more richly still with results which lead to the union of class with class, and even, as we may hope, of nation with nation throughout the earth. (Cheers.) And in closing such a survey I hope I shall not trespass too much if I avow that I cannot forget the man who bore a larger share than any other man in realising this system which has been so beneficial to the country. Well and nobly has testimony . been borne to him in these walls, and it may be impertinence if I presume to repeat that testimony, but closely associated as I was with Mr. Cobden in all the transactions connected with the conclu sion of the commercial treaty with France, I cannot forbear from rendering such a tribute as is in my power both to his character and his acts. (Hear, hear.) The praises which have been bestowed upon him here and the sorrow which has been felt for him by his countrymen have spread all over the world. (Hear.) Those praises have been re-echoed and re-echoed cordially in every foreign land,and there is no civilised country which has not claimed to share with us in the honour we have paid him. (Cheers.) Mr. Cobden requires no eulogies from me. His memory is part of the inheritance of his country—(hear)—and this I feel that, along with the recollection of his distinguished services, there will always survive among us a remembrance of his character, so true, so manful, so courageous, so simple, so unselfish, so devoted, so genial—a character which has added as much lustre to his greatest actions as it has re ceived lustre from them. (Cheers.) I come now to the Esti mate of the expenditure and revenue for the service of the year which has just opened. The charge of the funded and unfunded debt for 1865-66 is put at £26,350,000,the Consoli dated Fund charges are £1,900,000, the votes for the army, £14,348,000 ; for the navy, £10,392,000 ; the collection of the revenue, £4,657,000; the packet service, £842,000; and 1 the miscellaneous civil services, £7,650,000. This last amount is not yet precisely fixed, but it cannot vary much either one way or the other, and I have no doubt this sum will suffice for the total amount of these charges. That gives a total charge of £66,139,000, which is £1,110,000 less than the estimates voted in the year 1864-65. I will next take the revenue for the coming year. The Customs I put at £22,775,000, the Excise at £19,030,000, and in that estimate of Excise allowance is made 1 for a considerable deduction from the receipts we h ave had this year on the article of malt. The St am p s I p u t a t I £9,550,000 ; Taxes, £3,350,000 ; Income-Tax, £7,800,000; I Post-office, £4,250,000; Crown Lands, £315,000; miscella- I neous receipts, £2,650,000; and China Indemnity, £450,000. In the miscellaneous receipts which come to our credit this year are included several sums mentioned iu the first page 1 of the Army Estimates, and which are there taken credit for as forming virtually a reduction of army charge. Formally they are not a reduction of any charge, because the money will be voted and repaid, but virtually and really they are, because they will come back to the credit side of the account as well as going into the debit side. They are chiefly con -1 nected with repayments from India and the col o nies. Th e I total estimated income of the year is £70,170,000, and the total estimate charge £66,l39,ooo—showing a probable surplus of £4,031,000, or about:£4,ooo, 000. (Cheers.) I come now to the difficult question of the disposal of the surplus —(hear)—and I will first call the attention of the committee to several small changes which it will hardly be necessary for me to take into account, as they will make no change in the balance and income and expenditure since they are of too insignificant a character, and will probably balance each other. It is proposed, with regard to the transfers of shares and conveyances to make a change in the steps of the duty payable on those transfers for the convenience of parties, so as to enable them more precisely to adopt the amount of their transactions to the sum they have to pay, instead of driving them to make two conveyances in lieu of one, for the sake of effecting a small saving. It is proposed that the anomaly which now exists with respect to the duty on scrip certificates and receipt bonds shall be removed, as it is found to lead to inconvenience. At present the duty does not apply where the loan on the com pany is in a foreign country, but it does apply to all domes tic transactions. As I am opposed to protecting the Eng lishman against the foreigner, I am equally opposed to pro tecting the foreigner against the Englishman. (A laugh.) It appears to me that if the transaction have reference to a person living in this country, the stamp duty ought to be the same in one case as the other. (Hear.) An application has been made to the Government, which I think is a pro per one—it is that the stamp on the letting of small teue ments for periods less than yearly should be reduced. It is now felt to be very burdensome. The stamp, so far as the sum paid conveys an idea of it, is not very burdensome —for it only amounts to 6d. ; but when we come to consi der that in many places houses are let at such low rents as 2s. 6d., 35., and as. 6d. a week, it appears highly probable that the payment of the present stamp may have the effect of deterring people from using it. We, therefore, propose to reduce the amount from 6d. to ld. in the cases of these small lettings. (Hear.) In the case of the present minimum duty levied on property under £5O we propose to make an alteration. We propose that if the property only amounts to £5 the duty shall be only 3d. instead of the present £5O duty of 2s. 6d., and from 3d. we shall go upwards in pro portion to the amount of the property. (Hear.) We propose to give relief to certain gentlemen who labour under an anomaly. How this anomaly arose I don't know. Special pleaders and conveyancers now pay the same license duties as attorneys and solicitors; but the latter are allowed one half the duty for the first three years,while special pleaders and conveyancers have not that allowance. We propose to give themthe benefit of it. Then, with respect to the stamps on ecclesiastical licences, we propose to make a reduction. It appears the present licences are so high as either to be felt as a burden or to prevent the use of the stamp alto gether. We propose to make an alteration with regard to the stamp on what is called the " charterparty," and this will be a matter of some importance to several ports, espe cially in the north of England. The present duty is ss. ; but we propose to reduce it to 6d., subject to the condition of having the document drawn in accordance with a printed form, and then put on stamped paper. We think it better to have a 6d. duty which we shall get rather than a ss. duty which we may not get, except in a fe;/ instances. (A laugh and "Hear, hear.") We also propose a change in respect of policies of marine insurance, to the effect that policies issued abroad shall not be recoverable here except they be stamped within a certain time ; and we propose, likewise, to wake the time for reinsurance in England less limited, as the existing limitation is found to be attended with inconvenience in the case of time policies of marine insurance. The last change we propose in respect of as surances of this nature is one to make more equitable the arrangement of the stamp duties on assurances given by certain companies for three purposes. Two of these hang together, but the third does not seem to be so closely con nected with the other two as they are with each other. There are three classes of companies—one assuring a pay ment on accidental death, the second a payment on per sonal injury, and the third a payment on the breaking of plate-glass. (A laugh.) Those assurances are somewhat alike, and the duties paid on them require an alteration which will bring them more in harmony with each other. Now, "paulo majors canamus." (Hoar, hear.) I QOM to a great subject which, one evening this session, received the attention of the house and formed the topic of an inte resting debate. I refer to the malt duty. (Hear, hear.) When that subject was under discussion on the occasion to which I allude my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, on the part of her Majesty's Government, expressed their sense of the great importance of the ques tion, and stated that it required careful and laborious con sideration at their hands. My right hon. friend stated so fully and clearly the reasons which prevented the Go vernment from agreeinu to the resolution moved by the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Sir F. Kelly) that though possibly he did not satisfy all who heard him, he must at all events have convinced many that we were justified in the course which we then adopted. In approaching the consideration of this question I will begin by deprecating an argument which has been constantly put forward by those who advocate the repeal of the Malt Tax. It is constantly stated, "In all your resolutions you have done nothing for the class of agriculturists." (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Well, I should like to know the class for whom you have done anything. In my opinion the most marked of all the characteristics of our legislation of recent years is that we have been steadily endeavouring to restrain ourselves from the vicious habit of looking to classes, and to as steadily legislate for the interests of the country generally. (Cheers.) I know there are constitu encies in the country by whom the opposite view has been taken, and by whom gentlemen who were disposed to place confidence in the present Administration have been re jected, on the ground that her Majesty's Government were in favour of a policy injurious to the interests of the agri cultural class. But I want to know in what instance we have asked Parliament to surrender, or in what instance Parliament has consented to surrender, any portion of the revenue of the country which is the property of the coun try on any other interest but the broad and comprehen sive interest of the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe that legislation for the benefit of a class is a mistake of the grossest order. In the first place, it is a betrayal of our duty to the nation, whose trustees we are, without distinction of class; and, in the next place, such legislation confers far less of ultimate advantage, even to the favoured class, than the share which they would derive from wise legislation im partially applied and spread over the whole community. (Cheers.) I think that the only proposal we have made which has at all favoured a class—and I don't say it was an un fair one, because we had to deal with a peculiar case—was one in regard to which you, Sir (Mr. Dodson), must take your share of the responsibility, though we ourselves are ready to take our share of it also. I allude to the measure for relieving the hop growers from the duty which they had to pay. I propose to discuss, in the first instance, with the permission of the Committee, the important question of the amount of relief which the removal of the malt duty would confer upon the consumers of beer. It is stated, and stated seriously, that although the malt duty only brings £6,000,000 into the Exchequer, yet the cost of that duty to . the consumers is .£20,000,000. I think one distinguished gentleman in this house has elaborately stated so, and has supported in argument that bold proposition. We are re proached with being a beer-drinking nation, and we are told that the use of that excellent liquor deadens the imagina tion ; but if there be conformity between the practice and the preaching of the advocates of the repeal of the malt tax the latter assertion would appear not to be well founded. There seems to be no deficiency of imagination on their parts when they feel justified in asserting that a tax which brings only £6,000,000 to the Exchequer costs £20,000,000 to the consumer. When we come to that I shall endeavour to show in a few minutes what is the real amount of the burden caused by the malt duty and by the licenses imposed on the traders, in addition to the cost of the beer itself. The next accusation against the malt duty is that it seriously restricts the application of malt for the feeding of cattle. I am persuaded, however, that, as far as the purposes of serious discussion are concerned, we have heard nearly the last of that charge. (Hear, hear.) A long series of experi ments have been made which have incontestably esta blished this proposition—that if malt is to be used bene ficially in the feeding of cattle it must be used only ex ceptionally and occasionally. It is for particular cases, and is not intended to be a substitute for any of the great modes of feeding generally in use. (Hear, hear.) If, how ever, it be held by any person that malt is valuable, whole sale, for feeding cattle, I say that under the Act passed last year there are ample means now existing of sup plying it for that purpose. Twenty-eight malt-houses were opened for the purpose of preparing malt for feed ing cattle, after the passing of the Act of last year. Out of those eleven are closed—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—some of the remaining ones are doing an active business, and others, I believe, are doing but little. Now, shall I be told that this result has been caused by the burdensome and restrictive character of the regulations which are imposed by the Excise on those houses ? There is no evidence of that ; but there is this significant fact on the other side—that not one of the persons who have closed their malthouses have alleged that their having taken that course had any connection whatever with the regulations• of the Excise. Their reason merely is that they have not found a sufficient demand for feeding malt, and that they find it more profitable to use their malthouses for the pur pose of preparing malt to make beer. I have here the names of several of those gentlemen who have permitted me to quote their letters stating the cause of their having closed their malthouses ; and in not a single instance has the closing been attributed in difficulties arising from the re strictions imposed on the trade. The next charge against the malt duty is that it operates injuriously upon the price of the middling am i l lower barleys. (Hear.) That is a charge of great importance, and to it I will presently, with the permission of the Committee, give my attention for a few moments. I think the last serious charge against the duty is that it discourages brewing at home. Now, it is impossible that that charge should be maintained by those who say that the malt duty, although producing only £6,000,000, yet, through the medium of the brewer, costs the consumer £20,000,000, because the man who is to brew at home will be relieved only of his share of this X 6,000,000, while at present he now pays a share of the £20,000,000. It is evident that if alf these factitious additions are made to the burden of the malt duty before the beer comes to the consumer, the present system is that which offers the highest possible premium upon brewing at home, because, instead of paying these enormous sums, in which he is taxed through a factitious medium, all that a man has to do is to pay 21s. or whatever it is per quarter, and then he can brew for himself. (Hear.) Now, what is the question before us ? Are we asked to consider the abolition of the malt duty or its reduction? I put aside the question of the abolition of the duty. The abolition of the malt duty would be the death-warrant of the whole of our system of indirect taxation. It is idle and futile to the last degree to suppose that having beer made free from taxation you can tax. wine and spirits on the one side or tea and sugar on the other. The consistent man who supports the repeal of the malt duty is, if I may presume to say so, the sly but deter mined foe of indirect taxation. I can quite understand the speeches which are made by such gentlemen in favour of the repeal of the malt duty—" Take it away," say they, " it is a very imprudent and improper tax." They make speeches in this House which are received on the opposite side with loud cheers, and they are on these occasions welcomed as allies with remarkable cordiality, the gentlemen who so welcome them not perceiving that the real end of all this must be the imposition of the whole burden of our taxation upon property. (Cheers.) The repeal of the malt duty is the death-warrant of indirect taxation. (Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, that the question before us is not that of the re peal, but that of the reduction of the malt duty. Now, con fining the question to the reduction of the duty it must be admitted somewhat weakens the argument, because you still have all those magical terrors which are connected with the operation of our Excise; and, morethan that, you have all the real disadvantage which amounts to something, and which must continue as long as you maintain a system of Excise at all. I take it for granted, however, that the practical question is, at what cost can we make such a re duction of the malt duty as will sensibly lower the price of beer ? That, I hope, states the question fairly and honestly. (Hear.) To answer that question we must ascertain what is the proportion of the present price of beer which is really due to taxation. I say now " to taxation," and not " to the malt duty," because, although the bulk of the taxation consists of the imposition on malt, there is also the com mutation of the hop duty, which comes out in the shape of the brewer's licence : and there is a trifling charge for the maltster's licence, of which account may be taken. Now, Sir, this is a subject on which it is not possible for me to ask the Committee to accompany me through all the details of the inquiry through which we, however, have patiently passed. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade stated that the malt duty imposed upon beer a tax of 121 per cent., and I am able to say two things—first of all, that I believe that that state men of my right hon. 'friend was a rigidly just one, in every sense of the word, for the purpose of comparison with the duty now imposed by law upon tea ; and secondly, that very high authorities connected with the trade, men inti mately conversant with all the details of the brewing trade, have, upon being applied to, given the very figure that was mentioned by my right hon. friend—viz, 121 per cent. as the value of the malt duty. The other minor duties of which I have spoken would not make an addition of more than from one to two per cent., so that undoubtedly upon that showing, the duty would not amount to more than from 14 to 15 per cent. However, I think it is possible that that may have in view the price to the consumer, and I will take it upon the barrel of beer ; that is the fair way for the purpose of comparing it with the chest and half chest of tea ; and having, on the one hand, caused the officers of the revenue drpartments to make a most careful and sifting examination, and having, on the other hand, conferred with those whom I believe to be best informed, and who, at my request, have kindly gone with great care into the details, I am prepared to allow that the taxation upon beer, as sold in barrel, of which all but one or two per cent. is the malt duty, may, for the sake of argument, be taken at 20 per per cent., and I think I am safe in challenging any attempt seriously to impugn that statement. Well, then, sir, if 20 per cent. is added to the price of beer by the duty upon malt, how much must we take off that duty in order to pro duce a sensible effect upon the price of beer ? I mean the price to the consumer, because, although thus far I have been speaking of the price per barrel, the great bulk of beer is not ultimately sold in the barrel but by the pint and quart; and I do not think that anything which would reduce the price less than a farthing a quart ought to be regarded by Parliament as a sufficient object to induce us to interfere with the malt duty. I think that is a moderate statement. Some might go beyond it ; but I will assume that you must reduce the price by a farthing a quart. What is the reduc tion of the malt duty that would be absolutely necessary in order to reduce the price of beer by a farthing a quart ? We must reduce it to somewhat less than one-half of the present amount. It is now 2s. 81d. a bushel, and it must be reduced to ls. 2d. a bushel in order to give to the consumer a reduc tion of a farthing a quart in the price. (Hear, hear.) Now, what would be the cost to the Exchequer of such a reduc- 1 tion ? because when the advocates of the repeal and the strong advocates of the reduction of the malt duty come to this question of the cost to the Exchequer, they have a dangerous habit of dealing in generalities, and of saying that in one way or other, especially by increase of consump tion, the cost would be very greatly reduced. I will state, first, what would be the first cost and then what would be the effect of the increase of consumption. The proper time at which to reduce the duty, if it was reduced at all, would, I think, beyond all doubt, be about the Ist of October. That is the period at which the stock of beer in the coun try is the lowest ; and it is, therefore, the period at which we should have to pay the most moderate amount of draw back. At that time we should have to pay drawback on about 15,000,000 bushels of malt, costing £1,160,000 ; and we should have an estimated loss of duty charged for the remainder of the year of £1,320,000. That is to say, that we cannot touch the malt duty for the purpose of giving to the consumer one farthing upon the quart of beer at a less cost to the Exchequer for the first year than £2,480,000. But that is not the worst of the story. That is the cost of the first year, but what will be the cost of the second year? According td the estimate formed at Somerset-house, the cost of the second year of the reduction from 2s. 81d. to Is. 2d. would be X 3,360,000. I might almost rest upon these figures ; they are far more eloquent than any comment that can possibly be made upon them ; but I must touch upon one topic that might possibly be raised, and that is the increase of consumption. We may be told that there would be a great recovery arising from the increase of consumption. Now, sir, what I venture to say is this, that in the case of malt not only would there not be a great re covery from increase of consumption, but that there would be no recovery at all ; and, on the contrary, it is probable that the increase of consumption, with whatever other ad vantages it might be attended, and I am not considering that, I am looking at it as a fiscal question—that the in crease of the consumption of beer would in all likelihood be attended with a further loss to the Exchequer. Gentle men may hear these words with some surprise, but the explanation is this—lf there is a large increase in the con sumption of beer, a portion of that increase displaces the consumption of spirits. (Hear, and cheers from the Opposi tion benches.) Very good ! Oh, set out upon your mission of philanthropy, and I am ready to go with you, perfectly ready to go with you, but then I beg you to find me the money from some source. (Cheers and laughter.) We are now, sir, looking at this question from the driest point of view, that of pounds, shillings, and pence ; and after all, setting apart the hustings and the poll and everything else, it must at last come to that. Now, supposing that of every additional thousand pounds laid out upon beer after this re duction one-fourth part displaced spirits, and I do not think that an extravagant estimate, I believe that more would dis place spirits ; but taking it at one fourth, what would be the gain to the Exchequer ? Why, sir, it would take £8 laid out upon malt after this reduction to bring into the Ex chequer what X 1 laid out upon spirits now brings in ; and if £2 worth of spirits are displaced by the additional con sumption of £8 worth of malt, it follows that we lose, and lose heavily, at every reduction that takes place. But I will not argue the question between malt and spirits fur ther than this, that I have made good, and more than made good, my propositions—that if the malt duty is to be re duced it must be from 2s. 81d. to Is. 2d. ; that with such a reduction you must in the first year lose in round numbers X 2,500,300, that in the second year that £2,500,000 will be raised to more than £3,250,000, ' and that you must lay your account to a further loss in consequence of the increased consumption of beer, and the consequent displacement of spirits. Now, I am bound to say that I cannot put out of sight in dealing with this matter the Irish and the Scotch question. (Hear.) In think that in the nature of the Scotch there is great patience, and in the nature of the Irish great vivacity —(laughter)—and I believe that the patient and the viva cious would combine together were we to reduce the malt duty for the benefit of this country, and would say, " In some manner or another—you may find out the way for yourselves—we insist, if you reduce this tax for the ad vantage of England, upon your doing something for us.'' To the three other sources of loss, therefore, which I have mentioned a fourth would be added, arising out of the de mands of the representatives of Scotland and Ireland. That, I am sure it will be admitted, would not be a very hopeful prospect for us in a financial point of view. (Hear.) What, let me ask, are the grounds for this great innovation, this dangerous inroad on our established fiscal system ? Is the consumption of beer declining ? Is the trade a dying trade ? Has the Englishman changed his nature ? Has he ceased to supply himself with a sufficiently liberal proportion of this excellent and truly national drink? On the contrary, the figures allpoint upwards. The members of the present Government and the right hon. gentlemen opposite, too, may claim the honour of having each done a good deal to promote the consumption of malt by means of the burdens laid on the consumption of spirits, and what has happened? I find—l cannot give the returns for Ireland, but for the purpose of what I am about to state that is not material-- that in 1841 the consumption of malt in. Great Britain was 1.701 bushels per head of the population, while in 1863 it had risen to 1.793 per head. .Now, that, I think, furnishes evidence of a very handsome growth. (Hear, hear, and a ; laugh.) But - how stands the case with spirits, on which year after year during the period to which I am referring additional burdens have been laid 1 In 1841 the consump tion per head of spirits in Great Britain was -763 gallons; while in 1863, to my great joy and satisfaction, it sunk to -645. The case, then, as represented by those figures, is not such a very hard one after all; but there is another way of putting it. It may be said— " It is, perhaps, true that things, as regards the consumption of malt, are a little better now than they were some years ago ; but, then, let us go back to the good old times of our forefathers and see how the matter stands." Well, adopting that course and going back to the year 1722—(a laugh)—for I dare say that will be far enough, I find that the consumption of beer in England was 6,000,000 barrels—or at the rate of a barrel per head, for the population at the time was only 6,000,000. In 1830 the consumption was 8,000,000 barrels, and in that year, I regret to say, it had sunk from one barrel to two-thirds of a barrel per head. In 1864, however, so powerful were the restorative processes which had been introduced, and so much had the consumption of beer been assisted by the legislation which took place with regard to spirits, and otherwise—we go back, with a population of 20,000,000, to the good old scale, and consume 20,000,000 barrels, or exactly the same quantity per head as in 1722. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I see before me my hon. and learned friend the member for Suffolk, and my right hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire, whose able and elo quent addresses in bringing this subject befoul the house were overspread and coloured by a tone, I will not say lugubrious, but somewhat tragic--and I am slue they will feel their arguments are capable of being qualified in an opposite sense to that which they intended, and that the facts of the case are not so unsatisfactory as they had been led to believe. (Hear, hear.) But what, let me ask, is now the consumption of beer in England ? In some instances it is astonishing. I am about to relate an anecdote in con nection with this point, which I may preface by saying that I have many good reasons to look upon it as authentic, though I confess I was disposed to be a little itcredulous , for the moment when I first heard it. The authority from which it came, however, entirely forbids the continuance of any, such feeling. The subject of my tale is a labouring man, whose ordinary avocations are on the river Thames, and require great muscular exertion.: An accident occurred to this man's hand, and he went into an hospital at the east end of London. One of the surgeons there dealt with 'his case, but the result was not quite satisfactory. The surgeon accordingly said he should wish to open the hand, but that before he performed the operation he was anxious to be assured that his patient was in every sense of the word a temperate person. He asked some persons who knew him whether he was temperate, and they informed him that he was. He put the same question to the man himself, and he said, "Certainly, I am temper and have always been so." "What quantity of beer: do you you usually drink ?" asked -the surgeon. The reply was, "Never more than eight quarts a day." (Loud laugh ter.) I inquired, that being the consumption of a tempe rate man, how much an intemperate man might be supposed to drink, and I was told that the quantity ran from 12 to 16 quarts a day. (Laughter.) But if, including the whole population of the country, hon. gentlemen will have the goodness to take the number of barrels of beer brewed annually in England, to reduce them to quarts, to make a fair deduction for the population of Scotland and Ireland, who drink but little beer, for women, who drink but a small proportion relatively to the men, and for young persons under 15, who likewise drink but a very small proportion of the quantity consumed, they will find that every adult male in England consumed not far short of 600 quarts every year ; and when you take into account the pauper, the criminal, the sick, the wealthy, too, and that very large and respectable class who pass under the sobriquet of " tee totallers," all of whom come more or less into calculation, I do not think the demand for the repeal of, the Malt-tax can be supported by the argument that access to a sufficient quantity of beer is extremely difficult, or that the consump tion of it is gradually dying away. (Hear, hear.) More than £40,000,000 starling is, as far as we can learn, laid out by the population of England every year in the purchase of this valuable beverage. So much, then, for the consumption of beer, which I think I may fairly say is not declining, but is steadily on the increase. (Hear, hear.) But what is the case of the producer—because, although I deprecate class legislation, I should like to see whether the producer of barley is suffering any hardship ? I will try the point by the fairest of tests—l am not now dealing with the question between the better and the worse class of barleys—and these are, first of all,—what is the average price of barley rela tively to that of wheat now as compared with former years? and, secondly, what is the price of barley absolutely during the same period ? Taking the average price of bar ley relatively to that of wheat, I find it to be as follows : For ten years before the repeal of the beer duty (1820-29), as 541 to 100 ; for ten years after the repeal of tho beer duty (1830-39), as 571-7th to 100; for ten years further (1840-49), as 581 to 100; for ten years further (1850-59), as 621 to 100; for the year 1864, as 74, to 100. ! Then you will say that the price of wheat has gone down greatly, and that thi s standard of comparison is not a fair one; but taking the I price of barley without any reference to the price of wheat, I find it stands thus :—Ten years before the repeal of the , beer duty (1820-29), 31s. 10d.; ten years after the repeal , (1830-39), 325. 5d.; ten years further (1840-49), 325. 9d.; 1 ton years further (1850-59), 335. 2d.; while the average price for the five years ending 1864 was 345. 4d.; so that the price has regularly and progressively been tending upwards, and this greatly suffering interest—and I am now speaking of it as a whole—when its grievances are examined into • turns out to be the victim of an increasing consumption and a higher price for the raw material. I for one cannot see how, under these circumstances, the producers of barley can be regarded as having any just cause for complaint. But there is another topic to which I wish to advert : I allude to the relative taxation of malt as compared with other articles—a point which I look upon as of great con sequence, although the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire found fault with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade for the comparison which he made on the subject. Compare the taxation on beer with the taxation on spirits. Beer is taxed at one-fifth, or 20 per cent. ; spirits are taxed at 4-sths, or 80 per cent. If you want to mark your moral indignation at the use of spirits through the imperfect and defective medium of fiscal arrangements, I think you cannot well go further than a rate of taxation under which whenever a man is disposed to lay out ss. he only gets ls.-worth of spirits for it, while the other 4s. go into the Exchequer. Upon that side there fore there is no injustice in the taxation on beer. What is the case as compared with wine ? It has been said that the duties upon wine have been reduced practically to nothing, a duty of ls. a gallon amounting only to 2d. a bottle. But the relation which the wine duties bear to the whole of the wine imported into the country has been examined by the very competent gentlemen who look after that branch for the revenue, and it is found that while beer is taxed at 20 per cent., wines of all descriptions, from claret and cham pagne downwards, are taxed at 27 per cent. But even that is a very fallacious way of stating the case ; for the tax on • clarets and champagnes has no relation at all to the price of beer; beer sold by the pot is not in competition with • clarets and champagnes. If you want to estimate the rela . tive taxation you must take articles capable of coming into competition with one another; you must, therefore, take the poorer and lower wines capable of being sold at prices somewhat approaching that of beer, andtherefore of coming into competition with it. I have inquired into the charac ter of the wines consumed by the poor, who are the great . drinkers of beer ; and one of them is called Hamburg sherry. (Laughter.) The people of Hamburg have the reputation of being adulterers of wine —(hear, hear, and a laugh)—but it is always to be borne in mind that, according to their own view, they understand the chemistry of wine, and what we call " adulteration" they say is nothing but scien tific mixture. (Hear, and laughter.) The price of Ham burg sherry is ss. a gallon, duty paid, and of that 2s. 6d., or 50 per cent. is duty ; beer is only taxed at 20 per cent. (Hear.) Spanish red wines have recently been imported to some extent, and the same observation' applies as to duty ; upon them. The common sherries from Cadiz pay about the same rate—that is to say, they are sold at ss.pergallon, the duty being 2s. 6d., or 50 per cent. The common clarets imported from France for popular consumption are sold, . duty paid, at about 2s. a gallon. The duty upon them is ls. a gallon, or at the rate of 50 per cent. This class of wines, therefore, which might enter into competition with beer, is . subject to a taxation of 50 per cent. ; while beer itself contri butes but 20 per cent. • (Hear, hear.) I pass now to another view of the question. Malt lies, we may say, half-way between the stronger liquors, such as wine and spirits, on the one , hand, and tea on the other ; and appealing, as I do, to gen tlemen who make honourable manifestations of the strength • of their disapproval of the consumption of spirits, I appre hend I shall find a way to their hearts without any difficulty when I plead for moderation in the impost on tea. (Hear.) If beer ought to be taxed more lightly than the wines which compete with it, and more lightly than spirits—as I grant it ought to be—then I put it confidently to the house, ought , tea to be taxed more heavily than beer ? (Hear, hear.) I ask attention to that proposition, because it is one which entails consequences. If the principle that tea ought to be taxed more heavily than beer be sound, then it is desirable to uphold that distinction ; but if the principle be unsound . I then it is very desirable that it should be exploded. The • tax on beer, as I have already stated, is about 20 per cent.; ' the tax on tea cannot be stated at less than 40 per cent. The short price of tea for some years past has not been above ls. 6d, per lb., sold by the chest ; a few days ago it stood at Is. 3d. If we take the price at Is. 6d., the tax upon tea will be at least 40 per cent. ; if we take the price at ls. 3d., the tax will be about 45 per cent. Under the circum i stances of such undue relative taxation, I ask what ground is there for making the vast sacrifice of revenue that I have shown would be entailed by reduction of the malt duty ? And do I not further show that up to this moment we have failed to do justice to the consumers of the article of tea ? (Cheers.) It is alleged that injustice is done rela tively to the lower and middle classes of barley as compared with the higher classes of barley by the present system of raising the revenue. I have shown that there has been a progressive and steady rise in barley, not merely year by year, but ten years after ten years ; and I might easily contend that the lower and middle classes of barley have participated in the advantages of these improved prices. ; But I admit that the incidence of the malt duty does not press on barleys of the middle and lower qualities. (Hear, ; hear.) The duty is laid on a measure of malt, which 1 for the purposes of this discussion is just the same as if ; laid on a measure of barley, and a bushel of barley of high quality will naturally yield mor6 malt than a similar quantity • I of barley of lower value. We have been asked whether it is not possible to devise something in the nature of a remedy for the inequality created by the operation of this system, and I am happy to say we have found a partial remedy at least, and which I hope will prove something more than a partial remedy. It would be very unjust to alter the form of the duty absolutely from a duty by measure to a duty by weight. because many persons might not wish to adopt the 1 substituted system, and the growers of fine barley espe cially might believe that their interests would be affected. But what we think may be done, and what we shall ask the house to do, is to give to the maltster the option, if he thinks fit, of having the duty charged by weight. (Hear.) Hon members will at once perceive the operation of the proposed plan. Those who wish to be charged by measure will not be subject to any change ; but in other cases a certain weight will be assumed as the yield of a bushel of barley of such quality as is now ordinarily used for malt, and the duty paid by that weight will be the duty payable here after by all the malt that may go to make up that weight. I hope it is not too much to expect that the effect of that change will be to improve the position of the middling and lower barleys in the market, by giving them fair play as compared with the higher barleys, which now undoubtedly derive something of a factitious advantage from the form. in which the duty is laid. (Hear.) This measure, it is right • that I should add, will not form any part of the taxation of the year, but will form the subject of a bill that I shall have the honour to lay on the table. Perhaps it may be said that the prospect I have held out is a* prospect of the indefinite continuance of the malt duties. On that subject I I do not profess to offer any opinion. But I do venture to point out that our position with reference to the repeal of I indirect taxation is scarcely as good as it may possibly be : a short time hence. Down to the present time we have felt , it a paramount obligation to apply whatever measure of relief we felt ourselves in a condition to give towards th,e reduction of the Income-tax. (Cheers.) Supposing the re- ! Iduction of the Income-tax now to have reached its term— (oh, oh) —or when it has reached its term—(hear, hear, and I a laugh)—it is evident that the state of thi ng s, an d th e p o - I sition of the House of Commons with regard to the remis sion of indirect taxation will be different. (Hear, hear.) The Income-tax having been abolished, or redueed to a point at which the house may deem that it is not called upon to ( do any more in that direction, this house will be free to deal much more largely than it can do at present with indirect taxation. I do not presume, however, to hold out any pro spect, or to offer any opinion on this point, nor do I ask the I committee to imply any such opinion. My business, and that of my colleagues, is simply, from the case before us, to arrive at the best conclusion we are able, and we have arrived at a double conclusion. First, that it is not in our power, with justice, to ask the house to absorb so very large a portion of the surplus of the present year as would be absolutely necessary, together with the further burdens that would be entailed, to make a partial remission of the Malt tax ; and secondly, as the result of that examination of the relative weight of taxation to which we have been invited, we are of opinion that the first and best step we can ask the house to take is to do an act of justice which has hitherto remained undone, and to place the duty upon tea in the same position as the duty upon beer. (Hear, hear,) Con sidering it our duty to make a proposal on this subject, we have thought it better to make a proposal of a decisive character, such as will afford to the consumer the benefit of a considerable reduction. Taking what is called the long price of tea, we find it is usually delivered out of bond at 2s. 6d. That is somewhat higher than the present rate ; but if it should be lower so much the better; and we feel that if we can reduce the duty by so large a sum as 6d. in the lb. we shall cause a reduction in the whole price of 20 per cent. This reduction, with the increased importation which it will no doubt occasion, must give a powerful stimulus to the consumption of the article, and will, we trust, place this most valuable and most healthful of all the luxuries of the poor within the reach of many who now do not enjoy it at all, or only enjoy it in a very limited degree. (Cheers.) Under this head I make a very considerable proposal, and I do so on this account, because if the committee when it comes to vote upon it should agree to the change, it will not be in our power to make any other proposal bearing upon the subject of indirect taxation during the present year. The estimated consumption of tea, apart from the reduction of duty for the yaar 1865-6, was 92,000,0001 b., the loss upon which at 6d. in the pound—supposing it were all loss—would amount to £2,300,000. I have taken, however, the recovery upon that loss to be £225,000, and I think that with favourable circ =stances it may go higher, but no higher figure could be taken in conformity with the usual prudent rule in the department which is the best judge of the subject. That would cause for the full period of 12 months a loss of £2,075,000, but a portion of the year would elapse—and in deed a month has already elapsed—before the change could come into operation. And here I may take the opportu nity of saying that if it be agreeable to the committee I should ask them to vote upon the resolutions I am about to submit on the subject upon Thursday next. On the assump tion, then, that 1-10th of the year would have elapsed before the new duty would come into operation, and therefore de ducting £207,000 from the £2,075,000, the loss for the finan cial year by the reduction of the duty would be £1,868,000, and in the year 1866-7 there would be a further loss of £207,000. The next subject -upon which I have to trouble the committee is the question of the Income-tax. (Hear.) Now, I think that if this Parliament was challenged as to the reason why it has not dealt with the income tax in a more sweeping manner than it has done, it would be easy to point for an answer to ft single one of the many figures which I laid before the committee at an earlier period of my ad dress, showing that £12,000,000 a year have been added to the expenditure of the country. But, allowing for the relief from the Annuities in 1860, I think we may say that £10,000,000 a year has been added to the public expendi ture. Therefore it would not be just even if it were possible to have deferred all other remissions of taxes for the pur pose of applying their whole force to the reduction of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly if we had done that we might now be in a position to extinguish that tax ; but I don't think it would be conformable to the equity and fair dealing which usually distinguish the proceedings of this house if any such plan had been pursued, independently of the fact that a wide-spread opinion prevails—which, for aught I know, may be the opinion of the majority of the house, but upon that point 1 don't undertake to say any thing—that the income tax is a tax fit to be permanently retained. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) My own personal opinion has little to do with the matter. All I meant was that if this house had doubts as to the question it is a sub ject of great importance which in another Parliament may have to be considered. But at all events I think it perfectly clear with regard to the fulfilment of that pledge which some hon. gentlemen are pleased to regard as an obligation contracted by me personally and not affecting anybody else. I do think it is appropriate to the function of this Parlia ment, and the Government is of opinion that it is part of the duty of this Parliament that we should do what we can towards the reduction of the income tax. (Cheers.) It is in our power to make a proposal which will leave the income tax within manageable limits. The Income-tax at present is at the lowest point it has ever heretofore reached—l mean practically at the lowest point. It is perfectly true that for a moiety of one year it was 5d., but for the other moiety it was at 7d., and the yield for the year has never been lower than 6d. Well, we propose to ask Parliament to remove from that tax of 6d. one-third of the amount. (Loud cheers.) If that proposal be accepted—and I confess I don't anticipate its rejection—(hear, hear)—the effect will be to reduce the annual yield of the Income-tax to £5,200,000. That would be the amount of the tax, and that would be the condition in which we should hand it over to the new Parliament. I think that £5,200,000 would be the produce of the Income-tax at 4d., for the value of the penny has progressively risen. It was once my duty to state for your pleasure that the value of the tax was one million for each penny ; it is now my duty to state, and it will give you no less pleasure to hear, that each penny of the income-tax produces £1,300,000. (Cheers.) By giving an income-tax at that amount over to the hands of the new Parliament, I think we shall accomplish a double object. If it be the pleasure of that Parliament to deal with it with a view to ex tinction, the amount of the tax will have been brought within such limits that it will not be beyond their reach to adopt mea sures which would enable that object to be gained. But if, on the other hand, it shall be the view of Parliament and the people that it is wise permanently to retain an Income tax—an Income-tax at a low rate—as part of the ordinary financial provision of the country, that is the rate at which we believe it may be most justly and wisely so retained in time of peace, and in the absence of any special exigency. (Hear, hear.) A penny of the Income-tax produces, as I have said, £1,300,000. The final loss to the Exchequer, therefore, and the final restoration to the public from our proposal will be £2,600,000. Of that sum a loss of not quite two-thirds will accrue in the year 1865-6—namely, £1,650,000 ; the loss of the remainder or £950,000, will not accrue till the financial year 1866-7. So much for the Income-tax, and now I come to the only remaining resolution with which I shall have to trouble the Committee. There can be no doubt on the minds of those who hear me, even before I speak it, that I refer to the subject of fire insurance. (Cheers.) I may remind the House that on the 21st of March it arrived at this resolu tion :—" That, in the opinion of this house it is expedient that the reduction of the Fire Insurance Duty made in the last Session be extended at the earliest opportunity to houses household goods, and all descriptions of insurable pro perty." On that resolution the house divided with the fol lowing result :—Ayes, 137 ; Noes, 65. Among the " Noes " were found many gentlemen who have been the steady and invariable and constant supporters of the repeal or reduc tion of the Fire Insurance duty—(hear), and also many members of the Government, who in asking the house in effectually not to adopt the motion, did not grapple with it upon its merits, acknowledged the fairness of the judgment which the house had been pleased to give, and only depre cated what they thought—but the house did not think the same—a premature declaration. (Cheers.) I have thus re ferred to the resolution, and in some degree analysed the di vision for the purpose of showing that little room for doubt has remained upon the mind of the Government as to the course which they should take. Indeed, the two sums which I have given—£l,B6B,ooo for the Tea Duty, and £1,650,000 for the Income-tax, amounting together to £,3,518,000, show that there remains to us but a narrow mar gin. At the same time that margin is sufficient to enable us to meet the express wish of the House. (Cheers.) Now the measure of last year will require notice for a few mo ments. The portion of the duty with which we dealt last year was essentially distinct from the portion with which we did not deal in this respect—that the former was a tax upon trade, upon industry, and therefore virtually a tax upon consumption, whereas the remaining portion is a tax upon property. But let not the house be afraid that in stating that distinction particularly I am about to venture upon it as an argument for a difference of rate. The desire of the house for an uniform rate has been clearly and un mistakably expressed, and we have not the smallest idea of disputing it. (Hear, hear.) The experiment of last year has not yet been fully tried ; it has only been nine months in operation, and we have not as yet got so much as a full year's receipt of the new duty upon stock in trade ; but as far as it goes it does not enable us to be very sanguine as to the ultimate results of the reduction in producing a re covery of revenue. There seemed to be high authority for taking a more sanguine view at the time ; but although my estimate was framed upon a moderate recovery— namely, an increase of 10 per cent., which was included in the annual increase, the result has shown a figure even less. It was stated, and stated strongly, by hon. gentle men in the discussion of last year that when we came to deal with property the result 'would be more satisfactory, and that a larger increase and a larger recovery of revenue would take place in regard to that portion of the tax. How that may be I don't presume to say ; but undoubtedly as far as stock in trade is concerned the re- I mission has not been very successful in its results. Still, I do not grudge the reduction which has taken place, be cause that tax, as applied to stock in trade, was compara tively a tax upon industry, and the benefit of the remis sion is certain to find its way to the consumer of those articles which are the subject of the tax. It has been usual to say in the House of Commons that the tax on fire in surance is a tax on prudence. In such arguments as I have ever employed, so far as I can recollect them, in resisting motions for the repeal or reduction of the duty, I have not defended the tax upon its merits, but I have felt doubtful as to the sanguine anticipations of recovery upon which most of those motions have to a great degree been founded. However, I think that the definition of the tax as a tax on prudence may be amended, and that we may call it with greater accuracy a tax upon property with a double exemp tion—the one being an exemption in favour of improvi dence, and the other an exemption in favour of those large holders of property in the form of houses and buildings who are able to take their chance and perform the function which is called "insuring themselves." I must say that no part of the argument ever used on the subject of fire in surance has appeared to me so strong against the present state of the law as this, because it is said, I think un answerably, " If you are to make insurance against fire the means of imposing a duty upon property"—and my hon. friend (Mr. Hubbard) showed clearly that the duty of 3s. per cent. was equivalent to an income tax of 7d. in the pound upon houses and buildings—" it ought to be im posed equally, Sand there ought not to be a virtual exemp tion on behalf of large holders of property." I think that that is an argument to which there is no reply. (Hear.) Now, as I have said, the general expectation of the house is that if we make the reduction which is pointed out by the resolution adopted on the 21st of March there will be a considerable recovery of revenue. Whatever recovery there is will undoubtedly be a very great good, because it will indicate some approach to equality in the• imposi tion of the tax, and it will show that the inducement to self-insurance is operating with less force than that with which it has heretofore operated. We, therefore, at once admit, but especially under the authority of the house, that the experiment is perfectly well worth trying ; and as we have still remaining in our hands the means of trying the experiment, we will propose a resolution to that effect. If the experiment should succeed ; if, relatively to the amount of reduction, the recovery should be large, then, as I have said, a great good will be accomplished. If the experiment should fail, then undoubtedly it may be the duty of another Parliament, and of other Governments, to look further at the question, and to say whether fire insurance ought not to be placed on a footing yet more liberal and free. (Hear, hear.) I know there are those who hold that insurance against fire is a thing which ought not to be encouraged, because it is an encouragement to carelessness. I take it, bowever, that the house has adopted the opposite of that proposition, and desires to see fire insurance placed upon the best possible footing, and carried to the greatest pos sible extent. It may, therefore, be the duty of some future Parliament, and of some future Government to consider the question, if the results of this measure should not be satisfactory; and if it should be found necessary to give a further relief at some future time from the duty on fire insurance, undoubtedly the house will be disposed to look at the elements of which the duty is composed—one of them being a tax upon property, which must be considered in conjunction with other taxes upon property forming part of our fiscal system ; and the other a tax on insurance, which is purely a commercial operation, and ought to be looked at in regard to the nature of the risk rather than the value of the pro perty to which it applies. I come now to the estimated finan cial effect of this reduction. The revenue from fire insur ances in 1865-6, apart from any change, was taken at £1,450,000. We propose to reduce the duty to a uniform duty of ls.6d. from June 25. We shall add to the resolution of the house a further change of minor consequence, which was not indicated in the resolution, but which lam - quit° sure will be universally approved, and that is the reduction of the duty of is. upon the insurance policy, which is quite distinct from the 3s. imposed annually on the renewal of the policy. That charge of is. forms a serious impediment to small insurances. In the larger and even in the middling insurances, the company takes upon itself the payment of. is., but in insurances from £3OO downwards the company requires the insurer—and it is not at all unnatural —to beer this charge. The consequence is that the man who is in' suring £lOO has to pay 4s per cent. upon his first year, and the man who insures £2OO has to pay 3s. 6d. We therefore propose to substitute for the ls. duty a ld. stamp, but at the same time to require the ld. stamp to be put upon the receipt given for the money, which the spirit of the pre sent law requires, though I am not sure whether it is en forced. The financial result will then be this :—For the half-year we should receive the old duty. The _old duty was taken at £1,450,000, and half of that would be £725,000, which we should get. The yield of the new uni form duty of ls. 6d. we take at £930,000. That is a reduc tion of £520,000 by the measure you are now adopting, after allowing for an increase of 10 per cent. upon the de scription of insurances we are now going to reduce. One half of the old revenue which we should get would be £725,000. On the remaining half-year we should ge t £465,000, and putting these two sums together we hav e £1,190,000, showing a loss for the present year of £200,0009 and in the next year of £260,000 more. I can put together very simply the results of • the several changes which vie ask the house to adopt. Fiist, I will give the total amount of relief which these changes will give to the public vib e° they have taken full operation. The relief given upon te e will be £2,300,000 ; upon the income-tax, £2,600,0 00 ; 'O en fire insurance, £s2o,ooo—the total' of these figures, repre'd senting the whole of • th e o p era ti ons you are nowcan e upon to sanction, will be £5,420,000. I now come to the loss which we should have to experience in the financial year already commenced. The loss from the reduction on tea would be £1,868,000 ; from the reduction in the incom e ' tax, £1,650,000; and from fire insurance, £260,00 0 . T he total loss for 1865-6 would thu s b e £3,778,000. In 18 66. ' there will be a further loss upon tea of £207,000 ; upon the income-tax, £950,000 ; and upon fire insurance, £260,000; showing a further burden for 1866-7 of X 1,417,000, or ate° loss for the two years taken together of £5,195,000. The figure at which we have to look most minutely now is the total amount of the loss for the present year—£3,77 B , ooo ',. A That has to be deducted from a surplus which I st ew ; at £4,031,000; and the remainder, a s li g ht sur plus wh ich I ask the committee to p erm it us t o re t a in in °". hands, will be £253,000. It will be seen that, deducting that surplus from the burden of loss to be laid upon al : year 1866-7 by the legislati on p ro p ose d f or th e present Ye a r there will be a sum of about £1,160,000, which we are n e ,.l imposing on the resources of that year, and it may be as k ' . whether that is a prudent measure. My answer will betite fold. In the first place, when you deal with taxes uponPre: party, it is absolutely inevitable that you shall to a CO extent affect the balance of the year succeeding that r, which you immedi a t e ly l eg i s l a t e . Th a t i s my fi r st answ e But I likewise say that, looking to the state of the country' and the fact that the increment of the revenue would, nr the natural and ordinary course.of things, come to a la r s o sum, I do not think that the committee need scruple on w it score of prudence to accede to the proposition I am r, to making. There is, however, another request whieltl_l ho to make of the committee, and which I trust they ' o ' l ' i l l disposed to grant. It is that they will join with ne of shielding against invasion the modest sum of a quart°, a million, which . I ask th a t we ma y b e p erm itted to retap-00 (Hear, 'hear, and a laugh.) Sir, we have been like pera° 4 enclosed within certain precincts while outside the c 1", we have seen crowds of hungry claimants. The more P r for perous the country is the larger the surplus availab le ho the remission of taxes, the greater is also the number vt demand remissions. We see them on all sides and of kinds— circumstant fremitu denso, stipantque frequentes." We have let in those who we thought had the strong ° claim. But there remain many behind. There are customs duties with which it will be still desirable to dea l ' (Hear.) It i s ni t necessary to name them ; but there , the duties upon raw materials and other duties Whit doubtedly it would be mos t d es i ra bl e t o repea l. But I h e r the committee will think with us that we have acted wi% e in giving a heavy reduction on the great article of tea rat 't than in restrictin g it t o w h a t we should have been ah10 ,,, 0 afford in small and l ess p ercep tibl e amoun t s. (Hear.) - es there is the claim to th e a b o liti on or re d uc ti on of the d il " 1- i l on public conveyances. That is, I think, a claim for wh i tt , there is much to be said ; an d g l a d s h a ll I be whe n ,p -time comes that a favourabl e ear ma y be given to the r f - t il plicants on that subject. (He a r.) There is also the P ow % o f claim of those who are connected with the busi nes s marine insurance. I cannot say that I think their - 7 be by any means so urgent ; yet at th e same time it „;700. within certain limits a fair subje c t f or f u t ure conswe;--1 Sir, there are other cl a i ms i mme di a t e ly h ang ing ove r li g -8 . 0 respect to which I t rus t th a t th e h ouse w ill su pport declining to make f ur th er i nroa d s upon th e E xc lieclil - And now I have in view a matter to which I was 101cle f. , r ; stood previously to refer—a proposal that will be made the relief of a particular class from a duty to which il l % have for some generati on s b een accus t ome d . I an' snnif that if the house is prepared t o en t er upon th e que stion," the relief of one particular class from duties which it , 0 pays, whether in the shape o f an annua l li cenc e, or in - c i shape of a stamp upon admission, it must be Pr e P 3r i e r to deal with the whole body o f th ose i n t e rests in °1 ", 1 e ,0 to satisfy the demands of justice, and to deal Wit h f whole body of those interests, or to deal with a n y : r them, is neither compatible with financial prudenc e, 13- / with the elementary principles on which the cond uct- e, Parliament in fiscal matters should rest. I trust, the re f° for Sir, that we shall have that support from this house which I have asked if it thinks that our proposals are ti ro the whole reasonable and just, and carried to an Ol en ; wide as the circumstances in which we stand Warr an ,„ i 'le must confess that I cannot but entertain a very sn u b . : to be lle io hope as to their acceptance. I am so sanguine as that the immense difficulties I have described as be h to the way of any effectual dealing with themmal t 0 „ o r have made an impression even on minds which were f ay " es , ably predisposed towards its remission. It is a great St ! 0 faction to myself, as it is also to my colleagues, to be il 4 that the proposals we now make are proposals whi ell ,f o f not be unacceptable to hon. gentlemen on the other sl" - 10 , the house. (Hear, hear.) They are few, they are a im 0, they are intelligible. They might probably have be en , 1 1 1 0 parted in fewer words than thos e o f an y Budget th n ' auk ever dealt with an extended remission of taxation. ar e Sir, strong in the persuasion, first of all, that thei that likely to win the approval of this house ; and secon d ' t ioil they will likewise obtain the favourable verdict of the r I9- 0 ,) over whose interests it is our duty to watch. (L o ud ch ee d i The right hon. gentleman concluded a speech of 21 1 1 ct duration by moving one of the r eso l u ti ons for givil i g e e to his scheme. • gyp, The resolution was p u t f rom th e c h a i r an d carrie d dis. Mr. WHITE compl a i n ed o f th e enormou s expen - , 1 of the country, and expressed his opi n i on that no G a w . i, e icil ment was deserving the support of the couutil brought estimates before the house exceeding si stf lions sterling. kcellvt Mr. BENTINCK criticised the speech of the Cha ll ` fr e eir of the Exchequer, urging that although the right boriao tleman would not reduce the malt tax on the grow 13 0 10 it would be a boon to a class ; he had legislated foll o tti by conferring a substantial boon upon the special involved in the production of penny ne w spapers. r ° o o o own part he would rather s ee the Frenchman taxed than the beer of the Englishman. of mditio,:ag Mr. MARSH suggested that the anomalous co. If the timber duties was a subject well worthy the COISI tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. t tl l . Mr. SHERIDAN was somewhat disappointed t h , tl right hon. gentleman had not dealt more liberally °l aud' fire insurance duty, which he thought ought to be to a uniform rate of ls. per cent. V v , t io o Mr. Du CANE and Mr. BARROW advocated the redll-r. of the malt tax as a matter of simple justice to the fitr,. D o e o re, Sir F. CROSSLEY gave a general approval to tu'i:;ol‘; positions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but cve4 have been better pleased had the fire insurance dot,' reduced to ls. per cent. Lord G. MANNERS did not offer any objection tDa portion of the budget, but expressed his regret tlt A"tof Government had not held out even a remote hope theft would accede to the claims of the agricultural illter pp - reducing the duty on malt. CA t" Mr. SCLATER BOOTH and Mr. SERTEES also a - ° the case of the barley growers. 0 1 , Mr. MAGUIRE spoke of what he termed tifis'to blunder committed by the Government with reg'a' rd 0 14 , importation of rags, and said that the paper make'', p ar; willing to bind themselves not to raise the price 4. ° li gin on the consumer if the Government would repair they had made. The hon. gen tl ema n also took exc e r - r the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exche4noo of ignored the claims of the Irish distillers to a re ductl ula duty BASS upon g whisky. Mr. ave it as his opinion that the budg e ' A t 1 3° meet with the general approbation of the country no t 0 ' same time he regretted that the Government lind - dais tempted something towards removing the wide-Sp, ra ta satisfaction felt at the maintenance of the present lII' r ll of duty on malt. g eee Mr. R. LONG hinted that, at the forthcom in g oft ' • election, the " country party" would make the rel'e- a malt tax a conition for re. election. 10, , The ontomot report progress was then agree'. the house resumed. iea 0f,9 The other business on the paper was disP° 9 the house adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock. The quotation of gold at Paris is about 16 per Mi lle P . (3 3 the short exchange on London is 25.174 per £1 st er i f:ei comparing these rates with the English gint P. , 0 1 ,4 .,, • ?a. too. per ounce for standard gold, it appe.rs th . 11. rat; d er more than 1-ILth per oent. dearer in POO London. - 2 0' London : Prin'ed and Published by W 11. I,lA3l'''. No - of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at THE SUN 0 11 1 a lit/ Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in lbe Aliddlcus.—Friday, April 28, 1815. F