The Sun. — London, England, 1834-02-28 00:00:00

, n ~c li clself• No doubt every hon. member in that house well understood the pressure of the malt tax on all classes, and • i t Was not the first time that he had hod occasion to call the attention of the house to the distress of the agricultural ! Josse s , and with itICS Maesty's s the di s t ress o f th e l a b our i ng j classes. speech had certainly led him to hope that anima mea sure frinn the Government itself would be brought forward on this question.—(Hear, hear, hear As th at was baron et h ad not the case, and at th rs e honouble introdced this shld supoit bins f o , be co u nsidered that motion he it would be for p the te of the government and the country at large, . that it should be acceded to. --(Hear, hear, hear.) The house was asked decde how much or how little of not to • the duty should or should not be taken off, but it sr aa asked to go into a committee, and inquire whether : h " Was practicable to repeal it altogether. Was there an oitnh.:::totabaetti. s i a n y that house who could put his hand upon he would refuse to go into a committee? He heart . the house would . by its conduct that trofin g for a committee show that they had the tc4ests of the country at heart. He hoped and trusted t bia motion would succeed. ' 4 ,2 Motion w as th en rea d f rom t h e c h a i r , an d, a f ter a e°ll h w 4Z er ablepause, no member rising, the question was put, - b a t :Yes having answered the calls put to them from L Mr* i ARBURTON rose (loud calls were made for Althorp but his Lordship not answering) : the on, member addressed the . . house . , and said, that had the nu b , • tintnubeen one for inquiring into general taxation, t he oid . o not only have supported it, but have been most ,1 1. 1„,? ,to Second ir. He, however, looked upon the ino- )1; 1 °li n'ever disguised it might be, as a nude by which •kn„illgriclturists sought to put their hands into the f „re', pockets—(No, )—to take away the revenue 4 ' l' t hem and pocket it themselves.—(No, no.) The Z e t of the hon. baronet's motion—setting aside all the atities of big speech—was to do away with the malt ti . ed renew the beer tax. To bear the hon. baronet's against wine and spirits, one would have thought Wrilloidg fa temperance society. He (Mr. W.) as any one to let the poor people have ~),Ltitalesonie a beverage as beer at a lower price, yet, t i ;,7 b. lie looked at the evidence given before the commit e*. . t Year, by almost all the clergymen and magistrates lin L :7°, they all attributed the mischief and demoralize of '°ieh had become so prevalent to the lowered price (No, no)—and to the beer-shops.—(Hear. hear. ) • e it ' at i of the hon. baronet was to take the tax from l'.. rm vers and to put it on the poor consumers. This °l l ie ttd to. ENETT denied that any evidence before the • tred-htee bad g one to at t r ib u t e d emora li z it i on t o the low s'sPrieo' r e ", c L e of beer. The complaint had been of the high dogs-',uter and the low price of spirits, which had .in beer t ae labourers to take the latter instead of drinking beta%,lle thought that the malt duty should be reduced . re thought that its reduction would enable ti e * O 4l e ,' ae lea to drink a wholessme bevetage. Nor pr „ d , '"o benefits be confined to them, for, under the I llteilt.:!Ystern quantities of barley remained on hand till tatit . " l4 was then given to the pigs, which, if the duty on • *el.,. reduced to a reasonable amount, would be ap dt -s,„ - the use of man. A substitut e for th e reduced *child be amply supplied by an increase on that of • • benl• Piland spirits. A reduction of this duty would not only • aih a t 6Tower s of barley, but the consumer would be equally dri4taged, and the poor roan who now was forced to I tea r i t wat er, would be enabled to drink beer. The only °rooms t o which th e l an d e d i n t eres t cou ld now resor t, haw be to institute low prices ; for assuredly the clamour • at t d - "' against the corn laws would produce their ultimate, to t tt_i ar f o t t he d i i r st p a r n i t ee r se; p ea l ; and the best way of providing the evil day, would be for the agriculturists to and this they could only do by pro , %Z it ! the repeal of all the taxes which bore upon pro.- . he. p e i ndustry. A s a su b st i tute for these latter taxes :::...7.lapeeroavrediadogf a property t a x, b eca u se it tax e d e v er y to his m eans o f payment . H e h a d f ur sthi!6 Y e ars bee n watc hi ng the progress of this tax, tor so , b ad Some y ears ago b een run d own b y t h e boil. had el b a mours of a num b er o f p ersons , most o f w h om a nd bl4: 4 l 3 t•rty at all, who not only assembl e d t oget h er by ey, ° ured against the tax themselves, but prevented, • Prop e - e -7 insult and outrage, poeople really possessed of atlf stoop and who were realy in favour of the 'N or "ktig others, from coming near, or expressing their been ; Li ° opinion : the property tax had in consequence hoped" down for the time, but it was now about, and he coineti:rilY, to be run up again. • that i t eEVANS took this opportunity of explaining do w tan : not through any desire of continuing the win s.' ! ft ward has P °4 big constituency that he had not brought °Y a d„ n ,,P r° Poeed motion ; but he had been waited on 4 4 , ae wank rain the parish of Marylebone to r, quest from., ` 1 7 .1 r:ng it forward, and by another deputation • tmtwe vcite, he l w itt o: VireBtcn inater, at which, by an unani present. , in g parish,Aat aSaimotiblareerrqUeBtell to abstain from pressing it at use tea also of this and an adjoin , Were of opinion, that, within ha d been expressed. They . ,kore than to the as sottet C o l ;ancellor would not repeal ;ltd that if either the house or window :he for t a i x n a b taxes, op. sone, it were better to get rid of that which v. 7,1 the heaviest. The house tax, it was considered, 4117 looked upon as the more oppressive and unjust one, f0 p 14 1 4 both COW,' not .l be repealed, it was thought better thh . a Present not to p ut f orwar d t h e l esser ones . On p l e eollot, and not through a want of desire to press e t,:ptal of the window tax, to which he strongly oh '. ilt b .7? be delayed his motion .—( Loud cries of " Qthstion, attl ik° , l3l " and “ Order.") He made this statement in befos s .° 'bow why he could not support the proposition eer — the house. If reduction could take place only to tantitcin amount, it was not to the relief of the agricul !tie , ii nereet it should be applied. The wants of the Ats o u ,d. tu ,timl bad been much exaggerated ; and with so zro.teas!dintiutts.:tyon otohdemte, • in -.111 4 Party in the house, when actual distress really ltef itteo2llnion interest with tFheivme, could not find it difficult to pro saixatdhstbioaf ra th ri e st h a o l u w s a e y s s h b ar e e a d olshits for attention and redress. tio o 1 DAVIES insisted that there was no distinc nits interests in the question before the house. It wit trh„ . _ a.questi on relating to those pests the beer-shops, allel e detuo ralising infl uence extended to a degree scarcely .. %s ol d in the time of Walpole, when it was found ne 1411!thort°thtae*llpirits so very . highly. It was a question aLltoprove domestic habits of the humbler classes should 2 0 1114 get and their characters exalted—whether they °f do or itt aate for the enjoyments of home, and those since temptations be done away with.—(Hear. 'to 7 t h e of the duty on spirits from Ils . . Bd. f %. ther e h • I,„glaud fr had been an increase in the consutup , ion of ' t Ts fr ont "I 3,400,000 gallons to 3,700,000 ; in Scut th ninetniniot°o millions to five; and in Ireland frorn two s el e L t noti m. °e t ; To get rid of this evil was the object the ,h e t 1 'le did not perceive to what extent t et : resionnnsiotereat would be served by the measure, as , tit 4 cti bt r ine : 11 of the beer tax would operate as . a couu , *al on c ec en; and concluded by repeating that At tu G18 134 ,; (18 e of jealousy in the proposition. su n - Rare i t a I INE said that the upholders of the raea • " on t h e c urious sort of support by throwing all the i i 7ted thatuonourable baronet who moved it. It ap .l4Mitte, t t he object o f t h e mot i on was to procure a (\ could ° inquire whether the whole or a part of the • cp ste ren t t iv (wed. the b oIe W"GILBY explained that it was a committee s o • sly use. ' li taug ht still contended that it was a singu it t - e s qful forward motion, which could not hope to be , on , He believed that any benefit accruing frots! its, N ol l be felt by the occupiers of clay land, and te 4 ti l t e i ttlt orel co afford no relief to the lower classes . of theh teli P d ant e i tflutt mitY. It would be of no service to d ttO~essipt t al e l : t i of. agricultural labourers, who . would fin th d emand. the price of consumption, but by IN -411 pr r elief He He admitted there would be some nlt tr t i en toilet, but as it would not be by any means in lit his the distress., it would end in disappoint . Ivarhtlatil t h e ° Pinion, the agriculturists would neverbe A 1)14i 'l"tOt and okl occupier s an d h o ld ers of l an d were lo r ont il k at tri t , e i h w Pt away.--(A laugh.) He would ex- Ca " tic • h ad been t o h on , gent l emen the cause of earn tit 'or t iin ° le Wh o By the old owners and occupiers he Pelt e d , (Platter were tied down by old engagements, who, hir oini ey .° of corn, which they bought, were Comt ism kn ot ;° Pay for four.--( Hear, hear, hear.) He °yell I tcn orsi e lt k l Paee of ten thousand acres in Stafford, Iter e ', L n to " had been born, and it was equally *h a ctier e w another hon. gentleman in that house, had 5 441 b e i a° not be found one of those occupiers 'l * th e d The ba s i n no t an twenty years ago. y but tie course of nature, or the change t.ouse t , and te tvere annihilated by the operation of s tklrr otved °l. i s tl ° Ow inmates of gaols, of poor vated Pap o , 4 "e my I u pos.—( Hear, hear.) They &d en . 'Nal to gol d 4 ,' l °° eY h, th uh it had been ti„ t hat ho se but the con -4,11 in etedaonnienfie confidence value; 1'1,,,7*--(Hear, hear ,) e'and bad been y their • *1,41 that sons Lad lately occurred in ieersclltrnpleatetPreated its indignation at any language nicteditoopteteast ofb-, or ceoan......tem(pt % nit! .) th at U . 4 breach of the public raids.— th n .. pots poo,. lndignation he participated, but he e a a te r, the act of 1819 as other bo r 4, 4 1 4 any set , greatest cruelty and injustice ever in tinily andhear.) It might have through ignorance, but why then had it been followed by that of 1826 ?—(Hear, hear, and Question. ) Colonel WOOD theirOit the hon. baronet trifled with a subject of the greatest iie ! 1):t ante. It was evidently im possible to effect the total t•• it, al, anti to raise a tantamount income would be hoprdess. If the house consented to re peal one half the malt rex nod impose-al five shillings per barrel on beer, it would not have the effect of inakino, beer dearer, and yet the ge.a.est possible benefit would accrue. If the house entertained 'lds proposition, he would have no objection to go into committee. Sir R. PEEL came down to the house under the im pression that the object was a proposition for the repeal of the whole of the malt tax, nor was he sure that he knew perfectly the true nature of the alteration, for the hon. ha tonet admitted that there would be but little relief conse quent op a partial repeal. Indeed he argued as if for the whole, and proposed other sources of income. Instead of a total repeal, it now appeared a motion for a committee of the whole house, in which it was to be presumed the hon. baronet intended to propose his specific measure. In the present state of the revenue, he (Sir R. Peel s would not consent to such reduction. Every gentleman present had a few nigh , s since heard the total surplus revenue calcu• lated at 2,600,0001. Of this it was to be remembered that 800.0001. was appropriated as the interest of the sum of twenty millions for the emancipation of the negroes, to which the honour of the I nose and of the country was pledged. There then remained 1,800,0001., of which it was proposed that 1,200,0001. should be appropriated to the reduction of taxation. The house would not, there fore, think that, with the other claims and demands which might occur, this sum was too large to meet the remain ing account of the country.—(Hear, and cheers.) He did not think the noble lord had overrated the amount of surplus at 1,500,0001., derived from the difference be tween the expenditure and revenue of last year; 500,0001. of saving was calculated on the estimates, and 600,000/. was reckoned upon by the noble lord as the increased amount of the duty on tea. He did not, however, think the noble lord could fairly calculate on such an additional amount to he produced from tea. He said so the other n•ght, and subsequent teflection hail convinced him that the noble lord had miscalculated in this respect. The noble lord calculated on the sale of 36 000,000 lbs. of tea during the present year. It was certainly great presump tion• for him to offer any opinion in opposition to the noble lord, but he was perfectly convinced that the noble I , rd would not realise the amount he anticipated. He was inclined to think the nehl- lord had made a great mistake as to this duty. The East India Company was not hk sly to realise in subsequent quarters a sale of 9,000,000 lbs. The noble lord was bound to off-r that tea at certain prices, and was not entitled to promote the sale of tea by reducing the upset prices. If, then, the upset ratices were retained, as they must be, he doubted much whether the noble lord could dispose of anythin4 like the amount of 36,000,0001 b . ,. so as to produce the sum of 600,0001. so sanguinely calculated upon. Neither had the noble lord taken into account the necessity for a larger establishment of officers which an increased sale of tea would impose upon the Government. There would be some serious re ductions to make under this head; for if the duty on tea were to vary according to its quality, they must have an increased establishment of excise officers to determine that quality. He certainly did not think there would be more than 2,600,0001. surplus; and this he would as a sincere friend to the agricuhural interest take upon him to say, that the agricultural interest stood a much greater chance of reducing its burdens by maintaining public credit than by coming to any resolution calculated to in jure it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") So far as personal interest could weigh with any man, it certainly was his primary of ject to support the landed interest ; and he de clared it to be his fixed and determined opinion, that look ing to the present state of the public mind, and the present prospect of diminishing the public burdens by diminishing the interest on the funds, there was a better chance of supporting public credit by a diminution of interest than by a refusal of taxes to this serious amount. Indeed he was astonished to hear no reference to the Four per Cents. in the speech of the noble lord opposite. The hon. baronet who brought forward the motion reminded him of an ob servation which be made last ye.ir, that those who came forward to propose %great reduction of taxation were bound to provide a substitute; and that, partially concurring in the truth of that observation, he bad thought proper to provide a substitute on the present occasion. —(A laugh.) Now, the lion. baronet proposed to lay an increased tax upon gin. For his part he had no objection to lay as heavy. a tax upon gin as was consistent with its collection ; but if, by laying an enormous tax upon gin, they were only giving a direct advantage to the illicit trader, they would neither increase the public revenue nor promote the public morality. With regard to the appeal of the bun. baronet in favour of the industrious classes, and his requisition that articles of luxury should be taxed more heavily, he had no earthly objection, provided the hon. baronet would show that the consumption of those articles would not be diminished in much greater propottion.—(Hear.) The hon. baronet sitting there would doubtless bring forward what be con sid. red to be most cogent arguments ; but when the hon. baronet came to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would find that, whatever it might be in arithmetic, when deal ing with the produce of taxation two and two did not always make four.—( Hear.) The hon. baronet would frequently find himself disappointed if, by increasing duties, he expected to increase his surplus. But with regard to any increase on that noxious fluid gin, not inconsistent with the interests of the public, be could have no objection. The honourable baronet had proposed many very singular taxes ; he might almost as well have proposed a tax upon mountebanks.—(Great laughter.) The honourable baronet was doubtless anxious to benefit the agricultural interest of the country, but lie bad thrown into the con sideration of the question a degree of ridicule and jocu larity of which, whether he (Sir R. Peel) referred to the importance of the question or the distressed state of that great interest, he could not but highly disapprove.— (Hear, hear.) The hon. liaro,,et did not object to the imposition of a property tax. Now, if he could concur with the hon. baronet that it was desirable, in the present state of the country, to impose a general property tax, he certainly would have no difficulty in concurring with the bon. baronet in his motion. But he, for one, would certainly deprecate any renewal of that inquisition.— (Hear, hear. ) Without the most overwhelming necessity he certainly could not concur in the motives which had induced the bon. member for Wilts to support the motion. The hon. member who spoke last bad no objection to a partial repeal of the malt tax, provided there wag an equi valent duty re-imposed upon beer. He entirely disagreed with that hon. Member. It was but a few years since they removed the tax upon beer; and were that duty to be renewed, the vexation of re-establishing it would very much outweigh any possible advantage that might be derived front a partial abolition of the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) He remembered well that the strongest outcry was raised against the beer tax, because it was said that it fell most heavily upon the poor, who were unable to brew themselves, and were compelled to purchase their beer of the brewers—(Hear)—.and that the repeal of the tnalt tax would only benefit noblemen and gentlemen, who brewed and consumed their own lker, but would be no relief to the poor classes, whose consumption of beer was much greater than theirs. There was, indeed, no other reason for abolishing the beer tax than a strong conviction that it was most unjust towards the labouring classes of society, and that what cost the brewer twenty per cent. cost the poor man at least 100. To reduce the malt tax and restore the beer tax would be merely taxing the same article in another form. He, however, begged it to be distinctly understood that he still main• tained his opinion that when the taxation of the country could be diminished consistently with the maintenance of public credit, the agricultural interest, considering its present reduced state, had the very first claim upon the consideration of the noble lord..—(Hear, hear, hear.) The proposition now made was too partial to command his support. But he would say, let a committee be appointed to consider what was the great effect of public taxation and local taxation upon the landed interest, and let the house, then viewing the question as a whole, see whether the burdens which they bore were fairly placed upon them. —(Hear, bear.) No one who thought the agricultural interest too much oppressed need objact to such an inquiry. —(Hear, bear.) He very much doubted whether the abolition of the malt tax would produce the relief to the landed interest which was generally imagined. The malt tax produced about five millions. The actual poor rates trom the land much about the same amount.—(No.) He was speaking strictly of the poor rate—of that part of the poor rates which pressed upon the land. Nor if be were asked this question, whether it would be of greater advantage to the landed interest to get rid of the malt tax of five millions, or to get rid of the poor rates, should he have the slightest hesitation in answering the latter.— (Hear, hear.) Suppose they could apply the produce of the malt tax to the provision of the poor out of the public funiis, would there tie any hesitation in saying which would prove the most effectual relief to the agriculturists ? Certainly, the removal of the poor rate would be an infinitely greater, more general, and more just relief to the lauded interest than the mere repeal of the tax upon liarley.--(Hear, hear.) In uttering these opinions, be did not intend to preclude himself from fully considering whether there might aut, with advantage, be a partial remission of the malt tax to the extent of the surplus which he noble lord could afford to bestow. He said afford to bestow, because he believed the noble lord had not .above 1,200,0001. to give away. He was not prepared at once to bay that taking off a fourth of the malt tax would ope rate as any great relief to agriculture. If only one fourth were reduced, all the vexation attendant upon the collection of the tax would still continue, He mud certainly bear in mind that we were living in a country where great quantities of barley were grown, hut he much doubted whether, by the remission of the barley tax, though he knew the barley growers were suffering, they would give relief to that class of the agricultwists who were most in want of it.—(Hear, hear.) Considering the manner in which the hon. baronet had brought the question f rward, and the deep importance of the interests at stake, he cer tainly hoped the whole subject would receive the early attention of the house (and certainly none deserved it more), with a view of establishing some permanent, system of relief. Though he could not at present concur in the total repeal of the malt tax, and though he thought the advantages of a partial repeal somewhat doubtful, yet he certainly considered that, whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, corp.i.tently with the state of the public revenue and the maintenance of public credit, make any remission of taxation, the agricultural interest had the very first claim to the benefit of that remission.-.-( Hear.) Mr. COBBETT was sorry that he should be corn pelted to differ in opinion from the hon. baronet (Sir 11. Peel). For lie could not conceive him to be guided by correct principles for the relief of the former when he stated that he would choose the abolition of the poor rates in preference to the repeal of the malt tax. He feared, indeed, that be had fallen into the same error as the noble lord had done when he stated that the poor rates pressed heavily on the occupiers of the soil. In what way, he would ask, did they press heavily on the occupiers of the soil ? It could not be said that they pressed more heavily upon them than the tithes. They cou►d, in truth, be only regarded as a part of the rent, and as such produced no pressure on the farmers. In illustration of this point, he (Mr. C.) said, he might as well call upon the house for relief from the payment of stamps at the Stamp-office. To say that the occupiers of the soil were the payers of the poor rates would indeed be false and absurd. They were no such thing. It was the consumer who paid the poor rates. Instead, therefore, of going into a general committee of inquiry into the natural and local burdens of the occu pier of land, as had been suggested by the hon. baronet, it would be more convenient for the house to consider one thing at a time, and in the mean time to take into their serous consideration the repeal of the malt tax. Those who maintained that all the profits arising from the repeal of this tax would accrue to the landowners had a very erroneous view of the subject ; for it was dear the money would be put into the pocket of the consumer, and into his pocket only. It was true many of the witnesses ex twined by the committee said that beer-shops were a great evrl,but many witnesses also give it as their opin'on that the proper remedy for this evil would be the repeal of the malt tax. Beer-shops were an evil, but the real cor rection of that evil would be the repeal of the malt tax. The amount of this tax was the great objection stated against it. Now his (Mr. Cobbett's) objection was not so much to the amount as to the mischief produced h 1 it. The first evil was that it drove the working people to the beer shops, and a still greater evil that it drove the farming servants from the houses of the farmers. They must all be aware what a great change had taken place in this respect from the old custom. Formerly the servants were kept and maintained from the youth in the 'arming houses, and no person would deny that they were touch better off under the care of the farmer and his wife than under that of their father and mother, because they were not so much indulged. This change of custom had operated a great and lamentable change in the charades and manners of the rural population, and the great cause of this was the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) One of the greatest sources of expense in keeping men servants in farmhouses was the beer they drank. Beer they must have, and beer they ought to have. They must have ale too occasionally, and they ought to have it.—(Hear.) This being the case, the farmer now—in place of keeping labourers in the house—hired the servants by the week, one boy for a week, another boy for ano ther, to save the expense of bee r.—(Hear. ) Another evil was, that the malt tax created a monstrous monopoly. Eight bushels of barley would produce nine bushels of malt. Now any farmer, were it not for this tax, could make his own malt as well as a maltster ; and what a great difference would it make to him, having his own barley in the house, if he could convert as much or as little of it as he pleased into malt when he had occasion for it. The price of malt now was 645. the quarter, or Bs. a bushel. The present price of barley was 245. a quarter, and the tax 20s. Bd., making together 445. Sd. Now the whole difference between this and 645. went into the pocket of the maltster. This difference went out of the pocket of the consumer in consequence of the existing restraints, and to pay for what was calbd the maltster's capital. What was the use of his capital in this way to the farmer ? If by taking off the tax he mold no longer employ his capital in malting, let him employ it in Brining, or in some other branch of industry. Let this be done, and malt might then be had at 445. Bd. in place of 645. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) objected to the motion because the 1,200,0001. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could spare would not be given to his constituents in the repeal of the house or window tax which affected them. But were they not affected with the malt tax also ?—(Hear.) Look at an artisan who sent out daily for his three or four pots of beer. Give him malt at 265. a quarter in piece of 645., and be would be a gainer by paying in lieu of it the house and window tax. He was in some doubt how he should vote upon this question. From the respect he entertained for the hon. baronet (Sir W. Ingilhy) i;e was desirous to support him, hut he was not favourable to a partial repeal of this tax. He felt convinced it would be productive of little or no good. One said the land was relieved by the repeal of the property tax, and that it was too much now to call on the house to relieve them by the removal of this tax also. It was not the agricultural interest alone that was eel eyed by the repeal of the property tax. He himself paid 1001. property tax on account of a certain publica tion which should be nameless—(A laugh)—and he was relieved to that extent when the tax was removed. Mr. CLAY was inclined to think that the motion was brought forward exclusively with a view to the benefit of the agricultural interest. The member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) proved very clearly that it would be a greater relief to the public to take off part of the beer duty than the malt tax. '1 he agricultural interest alone would profit by the removal of this tix. He would appeal to the house if that interest was not already sufficiently sustained by being in possession of the most grievous, the most unjust, and monstrous monopoly that ever existed in any country ? (Cries of " No, no.") Would those hon. gentlemen who cried " No" deny that the protecting duty on barley was not from 130 to 140 per cent. ? From inquiries he made that very day he was convinced of the accuracy of this statement. He would not oppose the motion provided the committee would have power to inquire into the corn laws as well as the malt duty. The hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett) said the consumer paid the whole tax. That bon. member was not correct in the price of barley, as stated by him. He inquired that very day, and found the prices of barley to be 275., 305., and 345., varying with the quality ; malt was 535., 555., and 58s. Mr. A. BARING said it was rather unfortunate for the cause which the hon. baronet (Sir W. Ingilby) advocated that he introduced it in the manner he did. In the first place, as to the mode of proceeding proposed by him, he thought the hon. baronet was wholly mi-taken. His first proposal was a total repeal of the tax. But having, as he supposed—and it was perfectly fair and consistent with usage to do so—made inquiry among various honourable gentlemen in the house, and ascertained their opinions, he !oak counsel of them, and seemed now willing to accept of a partial, if he could not obtain a total, repeal. When there was a question of the imposition or repeal of a tax the usual way of entering upon such discussion was in a committee of the whole house. The change, there fore, made by the hon. baronet in his motion was a dis creet one. For his part he invariably maintained in that house, and still maintained, that above all things the public faith of the count!) , must be supported. The question now under consideration involved a sum of four millions and a half. The last war left the country with a tremendous load of debt, and that debt, up to the pre sent moment, was but little diminished. The only relief was in that stock which bore a higher interest. He was then of opinion, and still entertained the same opinion, that the best mode of proceeding would have been to look steadily and perseveringly to a gradual extinc tion of public debt. Not having acted upon this principle was, as it appeared to him, the cause why the Govern ment was not now in a situation to come forward and propose something effectual for the relief of the great in terests that were suffering. With a moderate support of public credit there would at the prexent moment be no such thing in existence as Three and a Half per Cent. Stock. It would have been reduced to two and a half, and then they would have been called to reduce the taxes on wine, spirits, tea, and other articles of consumption. Consols were now at 90 ; that was at the rate of about 32 per tent., while Exchequer bills brought only 3 per cent. This difference of one-half per cent. stowed that the public itad great confidence in the short pecuniary engagements of Government. The reason of this was that they ne glected to make due provision for the debts contracted in time of war, with a view to their gradual and final ex tinction. They might.notv have been in a situation to relieve tteMselves to the amount of between 8,000,000/. and 9,000,0001. if they had taken care to kesp by them a slieht reserved fund. There were 20,000,0001. to be Paid this year to the West India interests, and the noble lord (Althorp) took the interest of this, correctly enott.b, at 800,0001. Four per Csnrs. Now this 800.0001. would not be more than 400 0001. if pubic credit was in that proper and healthy state in which it might and ought to have been. Had the 20,000,000!. been borrowed as a floating and not as a funded debt it might have been had at 2 instead of 4 per cent., and thus the public would have to pay but 400,0001. in place of 800,000/. The noble lord, however, did not adopt this course, and it was now too late to retrace his steps. Under these circum stances, and considering the opinions acted upon of late, he was compelled to deal with the question now before the house upon the principle that, while farthing surplus remained in the Treasury, to that extent the public must be relieved from taxation. The proposal of the hon. baronet to go into committee on the malt tax appeared to him a reasonable one. Those pen t'emen who might think that the repeal of it would give relief to the agricultural interest could not, of course, op pose the motion. It would certainly be desirable to get rid of the tax altogether. He made inquiry into the present state of prices as well as the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, and the information he received differed from that of the hon. member. That hon. gentleman had re course to the wholesale dealers for his information. If he inquired among small dealers in the country and in country towns he would find that the utmost price of barley per quarter was 255. or 265., and the price of malt from 60s. ro 64e. If, as had been said, the inhabitants of towns would derive advantage from it, that would be an addi tional reason for repealing the t ix. The price of barley being 255. a quarter, and the duty 20s. Bd., the real price of the quarter of malt a as 455. 841. Now, instead of malt being 465. a quarter, it was 61a. Thus there was a waste of 18s. in every quarter. It was one of the great problems in finance to impose such taxes that the cost of collection should be as little as possible. Here, however, they found that the actual charge for making malt, as was roost clearly shown by the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbeti.), was only 459, ; whereas the consumer in this country had an additional tax of 18s. a quarter im posed on itim for the charge of collection. He (Mr. Baring) thought that no person who had listened to the very luminous speech of the hon. member for Oldham could have a doubt as to the oppressive operation of that tax. The government, for the protect,l.n of the re venue, imposed restrictions us to the mode in which the article should be manufac ured. To carry on the business of malting with success it was necessary to employ a large capital ; tor in many instances the mal'stsr was obliged to pay large sums in advance to the Govern ment. He was also obliged to keep a large establishment, and was exposed to the most inconvenient, and in many instances oppressive, interference in the manufacture ; of course such interference, and the advance of capital, mak int; a very considerable additiolal charge to the consumer. A distinction had that night been drawn between the in terests of the agricultural population and the inhabitants of large towns. Now he (Mr. Baring) thought that drawing such lines of distinction could only be attended with mis chief. He had never seen nor heard of a House of Corn tnons—refermed or unreformed—that did not, in every question that came before them connected with the state of the labouring population, manifest the utmost anxiety to promote their well being. In towns the labouring classes ha] opportunities of combining together for the promotion of their own interests. Now that was not the case with the agricultural population. Many allusieus had been made to the operation of the poor laws in deteriorat ing the condition of the agricultural population. He ad mitted, that although the changes tnade in the principle of the poor laws was intended for the good of the labour ing classes, yet, instead of producing that result, those changes had rettuced them to a state of suffering in which, in many instances, they had little more than sufficient to maintain animal existence. Indeed, such was their condition that, although beer wascheap, it was so dear that itwas hardly ever within the leach of the poor man. He (Mr. Baring) "fiad no doubt that if the malt tax was removed it would in many instances induce the farmer to go back to the old system of maintaining many of his labourers on his re sidence. He thought that it was of the greatest im portance the malt tax should be repealed, provided it could be done without an infringement of the national faith. If he saw the least chance of the national faith being endangered by appointing the committee he should be guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he sup ported the motion. He thought that no person who calmly considered the subject would arrive at such a a conclusion ; on the contrary, he (Mr. Baring) was sa tisfied that it would be productive of the greatest good to the community. It had long been the conviction of his miud that the substitution of a tax on beer for the malt tax would be most beneficial to the consumer, as it would lessen the price of beer, and it would also enable the farmers, and in many cises the labourers, to brew cheep beer. He contended that if the noble lord put a tax on beer producing 2,500,000/., and took off the malt tax, there would he a saving to the consumers of be. .r to the amount of 2,000,000/.—(Hear.) He bad reason to believe that the repeal of the beer tax had not enabled the Government to make any considerable reductions as to the charge of supervision, and he did not be. lieve that if his suggestion was adopted it would lead to a very serious charge for collection. Again, at present malt paying duty to the amount of 500.0001. was con sumed by the distillers. Now, a tax to that amount might be put on spirits without any additional charge to the purchaser. He had also reason to believe that the constant interference with the distiller in consequence of the malt tax was attended with so much annoyance and trouble that the removal of it would almost justify the imposition of another 500,000/. on spirits. Indeed he had been told by a Scotch distiller that persons in that trade would wil lingly consent to have the duty increased from 2s. 9d. to 4s. provided the malt tax was got rid of. By adopting the course he (Mr. Baring) had suggested, the Noble Lord would get 2 500,000/. on beer, 1,000,000/. on spirits, and to that the noble lord Haight add the present surplus of 1,500,000/. Thus be would have 5,000,000/, to deal with. The noble lord certainly had not pledged himself to the repeal of the malt tax, but had committed himself to a certain extent; and he (Mr. Baring) was prepa-ed to admit, after what bad taken place, that it would be an ungracious thing if the agriculturists were to get relief by the repeal of the malt duty, and they left en the house tax. He really thought that by adopting the course he had sug gested the noble lord could take off both those taxes. The noble lord had promised that the agricultural classes should be relieved by an alteration in the poor laws. He (Mr. B.) did not wish to go into that question, but he would tell the noble lord, if he expected anything like extensive relief by adopting the regulations recommended by the poor law commissioners in their report, he (Mr. Baring) was sure that the noble lord would be greatly dp appointed. Lord ALTHORP, before he went into the general question before the house, was anxious to refer to an ob servation that tell from the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) with regard to the tea trade. lie (Lord Althorp) would here observe, that lie concurred with the right hon. gentleman generally in what fell from him, and he was extremely glad to hear many of the observations that fell from him. The right hon. gentlemen seemed to think that the new mode of collecting the duty on tea would require ' a large increase in the number of officers, and also a pro bable diminution in the amount of the receipts. Now lie (Lord Alrborp) did nut anticipate any such results. At any rate, during the present year, there was no necessity for going into the subject, as the new arrangements did not come into operation. His hon. friend the member for Essex (Mr. Baring) commenced his speech with express ing his opinions as to a surplus revenue. Now his bon. friend was aware that last year be (Mr. Baring) differed from him (Lord Althorp) in that point, and since then he had seen no reason to alter his opinion. His hon. friend bad said, and not for the first time in that house, that the reason that Exchequer bills bore less interest than the Funds was because there was an opinion that there was a want of security in the Funds. He (Lord A.) regretted to hear such an opinion expressed by a man of the experience and knowledge of his hon. friend. He (Lord A.) was satis fied that his hon. friend was entirely wrong in the view he had taken of the subject, and the reason he had assigned had nothing to do with the case. In his (Lord A.'s) opinion, the difference of price did not arise from any want of security, but from the greater convenience in purchasing Exchequer bills. His hon. friend had also said that if after the war we had continued to extract money from the pockets of the people, with the view of keeping tip a large surplus, .it the present time no interest would be paid on the funds. Now be did not agree in the opinion that had been ex pressed; but the consequence of not extracting more taxes from the pockets of the people with the view of keeping up a large surplus revenue was, that the capital of the country had increased, and the people were much more able to pay the interest of the debt than they for merly were. He (Lord Althorp) thought that govern ment had acted wisely in pursuing the course which they had, rather than in adopting the plan of his hon. friend. It was well known that he (Lord Althorp) had long made up his mind as to the impolicy of keeping up a large sur plus revenue, arid he was satisfied that it attempts bad been made to do so from the peace the result must have been unsatisfactory. His hon. Iriend then went to the question as proposed by the hon. member for Lincolnshire. He (Lard Althorp) felt pretty conAtlent, knowing as bed did his hen. friend the member for Linco'nshite, that the course which he would propose would he str tight and plain. But be (Lord Althorp) entild not help feeling that in the m. de which the bona. hail adopted in pro. posing the repeal of the malt tax lie was advised by a certain person who was a mob bettor tactieian than his hon. friend etsasOe:•(llear, hear.) 11, (Lord Altborp) oust say that his hon. friend lied adopted advice which was not calculated to forward his views, and he was sore that if his hon. friend had brought forward his motion ail he intended he would have been likely to have got more stippotters to his motion.—(llear.) Now what was the motion before the house ? It was for a committee of the whole house to inquire Whether a re ductioir could be made in taxation, and, incidentally, tfhat ,tactical reductions could be made in the expenditure. Now what were the topics which the house would have to consider? Different suegestions bed been made as to the course which ought to be pursued. One soggestion was that reduction should he made by taking away a 11 irtion of the interest of the national debt. Another was tem' far the expenditure of the country as regarded our establishments could be reduced to effect the object in view. Indeed it would appear the inquiries of the com mittee would extend to the while income and expenditure of the country. Again, some questions were to be con sidered as to the taxes which were to he placed on in commutation of some which it was proposed to take off. his hon. friend the member for Lincolnshire stated wh -t course he would pursue; and he (Lord Althorp) could not help observing on this part of the subject that his hon friend who spoke last did not take a view of the sulijset s r different from that taken by the bon. baronet as lie (Lord Althorp) had expected.---(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Ilia hon. friend the member for Wiltshire had suggested that a property tax should be imposed. Now he (Lord Althorp) would only say, if the committee was appointed, and took upon itself the imposition of taxes, it would, in ;mint of fact, assume the whole functions of the executive government— (Hear)—and it ought not to be forgotten that the inquiry was to take place before a cominitt. e of the whole house.—(Hear, bear.) For his (Lord Althorp'r) pert he did not see how by any prosioility such an inquiry could be conducted in such a way.—(Hear, bear, bear ) Ile recollected that some years ago his right hon. friend the member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thomson) brought forward a motion for the house to inquire into the whole system of taxation. Now what was the ground for op• posing that motion ? The right hon. gentleman who was 'hen Chancellor of the Exchequer, said dr tt no govei n ment could consent to a motion of the kind without a complete abandonment of their duty ; and the onlyground for supporting the motion w.s, that. the Government had not acted consistently with the interests of the country, and that therefore the house took the management of the finansial elfin-ft of the country out of their hand. There fore, taints such a view of the case, lie felt that it would be utterly disgraceful to him if he did not resist the mo tion to the utmost. On these grounds he hoped the house I would not consent to a motion which implied a censure . on the government. His hon. friend who had spoken last recommended that a tax on b.er should be imposed, and s ri I that it would not press on the consumer so much as the malt tax. Now he (Lord Althorp) would say without hesitation that that would not he the case as regarded the poorer class of consumers; and, in addition, it would be an unequal tax, and, therefore, must press more unfairly than the tax I.n malt. The hon. member for Oldham recommended that the house should repeal the whole tax. He (Lord Althorp) agreed with the hon member that it would be better to get rid of the whole tax than reduce it, ler if the whole was not got rid of, the expense of collec. ion and the vexation and difficulty in the way of the trade would s ill be retained. He agreed with the bon member that the full benefit would not be given to agriculture if they did not get rid of the whole tax, and, above all, as regarded farmers making their own malt. With re spect to the observations made as to the improvements that would take place in the condition of the agriceitural peasantry from taking off the malt tax, he !tad a few observations to make. It had been sta•ed that the agri cultural labourers would be indesed to brew their own beer, and, however desirable that might appear, he did not believe that a chr.uge of that kind would be brought about in the present state of things.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated that he did not believe that a repeal of the malt tax would produce such a state of things; on the con trary, he was satisfied that the labouring classes would find it more worth their w'r.ile to buy their beer of brewers, than to brew it themselves. Indeed, it was hardly possible for lasourers to make beer as cheap as those persons could afford to sell it who bad large capitals. —(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Althorp) was also much afraid that the system was at an end of farm servants living in the houses of their employers, and that it was not very likely to be revived. He did not believe that the repeal of the malt tax would be productive of any such result. With respect to the recommendation that a tax should be imposed on beer in lieu of the malt tax, he wished to observe that he very well recollected the 'argu ments urged with reference to the repeal of the beer tax. It was then shown that the regulations necessary in th• collection of that tax were most vexatious; and it was also proved to his satisfaction, that the consumers of beer would gain much more by getting rid of that tax than by reducing the malt tax, Indeed, he was satisfied that any attempt to re-impose that tax, or impose a tax of a similar nature on the country, would give rise to the most serious opposition. He (Lord Althorp) had said that the imposing a tax on beer in the room of the malt tax would be unfair, as it would throw a burden on the poorer classes of the consumers of beer. If the plan sug gested was adopted, a person with a large house in the country and a numerous establishment would be enabled to make his own beer, and at any rate pay but a small amount to the revenue ; whereas the poorer classes, who in nearly all cases would not have the means of brewing, would have to pay nearly the whole of the proposed beer t a. He (Lord Althorp) did not think that a House of Commons would ever accede to a proposition tending to such a result. His Han. Friend (Mr. Baring) had sug gested that there should be an increase in the duty laid on spirits. He (Lord Althorp) agreed, he believed, with almost every gentleman in the House that the utmost amount of duty should he raised on spirits that could be collected ; but be did not think that it would be possible to increase the duty with any prospect of increasing the revenue. From all that he had beard he was satisfied the adoption of such a course as that suggested would en courage illicit distillation, and which be did not think would tend to increase the morals of the people. In cor roboration of what he had just stated he would mention a circumstance to the house which must be in the recollec tion of many who heard him. In 1830 there was an in crease in the duty on spirits. Now it was calculated that the increased duty would produce 600,0001. to the revenue, whereas, instead of such a result, there was an actual falling off to the amount of 100,0001. He had reason to believe that that result bad not arisen from a falling off in the con sumption of spirits, but in consequence of the increase of illicit distillation. Under these circumstances, however desirable it might appear, he did not think that they could calculate upon getting any counterbalance for the reduction of the malt tax by increasing the duty on spirits. His hon, friend must, on reflection, recollect that the re duc.ien of the malt tax would in some degree oper tte as a temptation to the smuggler. The smuggler and fair trader would start on equal terms if they at present bought malt, and the smuggler would only save the amount of tits duty on spirits. It did not make any difference to the fair trader whether he paid the whole duty on the spirits, or partially on the spirits and partially on the malt. It, however, the duty on the malt was taken off, the smuggler would be able to avail himself of the benefit of the reduction, anti to make a larger profit by his illicit distillation. It was on this ground, therefore, he was satisfied that the adoption of the course suggested by his hon. friend would be productive of mischief. Seeing, therefore, the subject in that point of view, and feeling that going into the committee would be productive of no good, but that it would only occasion unnecessary alarm, and believing also that it was of the utmost importance in the present state of the finances of the country to maintain confidence in the na timid faith, he felt called upon to resist the motion. He repeated that the state of our finances did not warrant the reduction of the whole of the malt tax, and that taking off one-half or one quarter of the duty would be only so much loss to the revenue, without any thing like an equivalent advantage to the country. He was most anxious to give every relief to the agricultural classes, although he was not prepared to propose such relief as some honourable members connected with the agri culture of the country demanded ; but it was, however, his intention to recommend to the house that a number of minor fiscal regul ttions which pressed in a vexatious man ner should be got rid of. The adoption of that course would be attended with little loss to the revenue, and he hoped that, together with other arrangements, which he should not then go into, something effective would be done towards affording relief to that important interest. He believed that on a motion in another place a committee was appointed to inquire into this part of the subject, and an hon. gentleman, well acquainted with country matters, intended to adoptsa similar course in that house. He could assure the house he was as anxious as any man to do all in his power to relieve the country from the burdens under which it laboured, and all he could say was that, if any means of effecting that object without endangering the public credit or the real 6nanclal state of the country c. old be pointed wit, he f ir -ott. aeit as a Mini-ter Crown, should be most wiltia.e. to assent to its adoption. --(Hear, hear.) With these views, he hoped the mo tion, notwithstanding the altered shape in which it had Fatten brought forward. would he rejected. for without see their, way clearly a committee would be useless, and if they did see their way clearly it would be altogether un. mcessary. Under these circurnstaneee, he hoped and trusted the hence would resist the motion. Mr. HUAIE hoped that, whatever change watt effected, nothing would he done which would in any was' en. d.tneer the public credit.—(Hear, hear.) By the reference tohich the noble lord had made to the speech of the r'• ht ban. gentlemn the Vice-President of the Board of Trade he had placed himself in an awkward predicament, P,:'l4 if lie (Mr. Home) were to refer to a vote which the nolile ford had giv:n on a motion similar to the present that awkwardneles would not be lessened, for he would defy noble lord to explain the difference of the two cases. IF, instead of allowing conflicting interests to fight their e wn battles, the noble lord had made up his mind, as he ought to have done, to apply the surplus revenue he had LI band in the reduction of taxation, he never would have it ien placed in the difficulty in which he now stood. It teas an error to suppose that this was purely an agricul• toral question. He denied that it was so, and asserted that it would be advantageous alike to all classes. The rtipeal of 4,500,000/. of taxation would be good for all varties, whether living in country or town. If the malt • tax were taken off, the agriculturists must consent to spinet fir the free importation of grain. That, however, wee another question) but if they supported the present moo tien, he, for one, would consider them bound, nay, pledged, t, advocate the free importation of corn.—(Hear, hear.) lining satisfied that the time was near at band when t h e corn laws must be altered, he considered the in quiry proposed by this motion one Of paramount int eortance, and as the nob' , lord opposite—as his M ajesty's Government—had declined to do anything for the benefit of the people, it was the duty of that House to take the matter into its; own bands.—(Hear, hear.) He freely acknowledged that the motion of his hon. freted did intrench upon the functions of the noble lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if the noble lord threw the duty which he ought to perform upon that home they surely ought not to shrink from dischareieg it. No man c mid deny that the present system of taxation pressed most umqually, and that it was the bounden duty of that house to eye whether some better and more equit. Joie mode of taxation could not be devised. He did net hesitate to say that, if the committee sought far by the motion of his hon. friend was granted, instead of injuring the public credit, they sv.auld show how it tam! I be best sustairaed. IC was not true that the re mission of this tax, amounting only to 4,500,000/., weuld endanger public credit ; but, even if it were true, that was not the question which they had now' to deal with. The question was, could not the present sptetu of taxation be changed for one that was mote equitab l e? And if that house did not take the suhject into its own hands the country could not hope that any relief would be afforded to it. The subjt-ict of reduction could, however, ae better considered in a committee than any where else ; and if the noble lord would only call to recollection the sentiments he had formerly expressed he would not now resist the motion of the hon. baronet.—(Hear, hear.) Did the noble lord suppose that if he was able to show that no better tax could he substituted for the malt tax the house wcald not go along with him ? He (Mr. Hume) believed that no more in jurious tax existed ; but stall, if the noble lord reaid con vince a committee that it could not be gone without, they would not demand its remission. --(Hear, hear.) It had ever been his opinion that it was bad policy on the part of the government to rose the price of beer, and by that means to inerease the consumption of spirits. He knew of no :means by which tspirit-drinking could be get rad of 'tut by the removal of the malt tax; and if, on the one t t i t e ja fi t t j o t n i l v y ou th ld e b la e n e d g e u d a p u r y op a r d i v e a to n r jag b e e o , baud, it was said that the remission of that tax would be uosn t o th , e ve o r t y h e o r t , h a e s r se c r l t a e s d s of the community. It was idle to say that the btmefit would be partial. Both patties were implicated in the question of over taxation, and he believed that unless some thing was speedily done to relieve the country from the burdens which oppressed it the consequence would he most lamentable. One means of effecting that object would be the repeal of the tax upon beer. It was a mistake on the pars of the hon. member that the imposition of an addi tional duty of 2s. 6d. a gallon on gin would not lead to an increase of ilicit distillation. They had only to refer to Ireland and to Scotland to be convinced that the notion of his hen. friend on the point was fallacious. An addi tional duty of 6d. a gallott had been laid on Scotch and Irish spirits, and what was the result? Why, that illicit distillation was renewed to an incredible extent in the Highlands of Scotland and in several p ,rts of Ireland. Instead of endangering the public credit, or occasioning dissatisf xtiiin, going into a committee would rather fortify cie one and prevent the other. It would induce the country stil to place confidence in his Majesty's ministers, and convince the people that their complaints were not unattended to by that house. This was the opinion which lie entertained, and therefore he should vote for the inquiry. Mr. O'CONNELL must say that, if they refused tois inquiry, the rejection of the motion of the hon. baronet would am unt to a declaration that they did not intend to afford any relief to the agricultural interest.—(Cries of "No, no ") Hon. gentlemen said ''No, no ;" hut he would ask the house whether it was not on tfela elf of the agricultural interest that the inquiry was sought? This could not be denied, and he was therefore right when I.e said that refusing the committee would be tantamount to declaring that they (lid not mean to do anything ;or the agricultural interest. Perhaps the agricultural in erest lard no claim upon the sympathies of parliament ; but if they would look at the Agricultural Reports of 1831 and and 1833 they would find that that interest was labouring under accumulated distress. Indeed, it they would only refer to his Majesty's speech they would find the same fact stated, for although in that document the Ministers Et iumphed in the commercial prosperity that ob - rained, they admitted and regretted the existence of great agricultural distress.—(Hear.) The agricultural distress which prevailed in all parts of Ireland was disputed by Ito one ; but still it would appear that his Majesty's Go vernment had no intention to propose any measure for the relief of that country.—(Cries of "No, no.") The only tax proposed to be taken off was the house tax ; but the remission of that tax would afford no relief to Ireland. The I duty on glass and the window tax had been extended to Ireland ; but such was the poverty of the country tint they were found wholly unproductive, and consequently repealed. He stood there in behalf of the agricultural in terest of Ireland.—(A laugh.) Perhaps the naming of any thing connected with Ireland might create a laugh in that house.—(No, no.) Well, then, he supposed there was no laugh. But, even supposing the house and win dow duties were both repealed, he would ask how such a remission could benefit Ireland ? He had a right to call on that house to institwe such an inquiry as would re lieve the agricultural interest of Ireland as well as those of this country. But if no relief was intended to h af forded to Ireland, it would be only fair on the part of the Government to say so. The committee, if granted, would not be called upon to decide the amount of relief which •houlti be granted. Their duty would only be to paint out how that relief could beat be obtained. But although no direct taxes existed in Ireland, still taxation was severely felt in that part of the empire. One of the objects which the committee proposed by the hon. baronet should con sider was, whether it would nut be possible to convert the present system of taxation into a property, not an income, t a x —(Hear, bear.) He had no ditpoticion whatever to lean on one part of the empire more than another. But of this he was convinced, that a property tax ..lone would be of advantage to Ireland. He knew he should be assailed with brutality out of doors, and met by attacks in that house; but still he would declare the sentiments which he had before expressed, and affix ou others the coarge of gross robbery which had been committed by the public creditor on the public debtor. Tne public debt had been created by one species of currency, to be paid in mother, and therefore he insisted that robbery had b 'en committed on the one band, and that national faith bad been violated on the other. Was it " cant" then to say that the national faith had not been violated ? It was clear that both p trties should equally suffer from the transitions which had taken place in the currency, anti ti at the debtor should not he placed in a better situation than the creditor; for they should recollect that the debt was contracted in a paper currency, and that the creditor required be paid in a metallic currency. But to show that it was not cart to say that the national faith had not teen violated he had ()lly to refer to the proposition of the ruble lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer for imposing a tax on the transfer of stock. He did nut wive to digress from the question before the house, but be could not help o'rserving that the right hon, gentleman opposite (Sir J. Giaillani) had gone farther than even he O'Connell) ever thought of going. —(Hoar ) Yet he (Mr. 0 Connell) lied been charged with political profligacy for proposing reduction of live per cent., notwithstanding the right mourable gentleman had, in a pamphlet pub ished 1;), otm, declared that the claim of the tundholderi shoulti o reduced to the extent of 2 per cent.—(Hear.) 11 04 t re noble lord could allow such a political prr.fiigate as Hula lion. gentleman to sit so close beside limit he „gr. O'Cuunell) could not understand ; far if there was