The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-06 00:00:00

PERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5. Their Lordships mgt at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. _ Oa the motion of the Bishop of OXFORD, this Bil passed through Committee. THE PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND: BILL. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved an amend ment, that the measure should commence to take effect on the 9th of August next. Lord srANLEY opposed the amendment, and pro posed that the Bill should not come into operation until the Ist of June, 1351. In his opinion it was quite pos sible, considering the various stages through which the Bill would yet have to pass, that it might not receive the Royal assent before the period fixed by the Noble Marquis for its being carried into effect. But even thoueli it should be passed by the 2d or the 3d of August, it would in that case be impossible for the clerks of the peace in Ireland to make out those lists, and to effect those other arrangements which they would be required to effect before:the 9th of that month, if the proposal of the Noble Marquis was adopted. The Noble Marquis further prop )sed that the re gistration under the Bill should take place this year between the 29th of November and the end of December. Bat that would be a most inconvenient period to adopt f)r the pup use, as the days would then be nearly the shortest, and the weather nearly the se verest in the year. He had further to observe that after the passing of the measure some technical objection might be successfully urged against carrying it into operation ; and in that case it would be found extremely I advantageous that they should not have caused it to come into effect until after Parliament should have again assembled, and should be enabled to remove any such technical objection. He had another reason to advance against the propo-al of the Noble Marquis. According to that proposal the registration under the Bill would not be completed until the month of January, and the parties registered would be entitled to vote in the month of February following. But the re-registry would com mence on the first of June;_ _so thatetbe.re_woutd be only lay in p s;sing that Bill would be a consideration of suffi cient import ince, nor was it necessary that it should come into operation on the Ist of June, 1851. He ob jected to the insertion of the words "20th of July," and proposed that other words should be substituted. The Marq iis of LANSDOWNE thought any altera tion like that proposed by the Noble Lord ought to be proposed at the last stage of the Bill. Parliament had already during two sessions determined on enlarging the constituency of Ireland, and the effect of the Noble Lord's proposition would be to postpone the passing of a measure on that subject for another year. Lord MONTEAGLE and the Earl of WICKLOW were understood to support Lord Stanley's proposition. Earl GREY said the proposition of the Noble Lord opposite, if adopted, would have the effect of preventing the new franchise and the new registration from coming into operation until the end of the next session of Par liament. The Crown was armed with a certain power— namely, that of dissolving Parliament. The Noble Lord's proposition would even interfere with that, be cause in case of a dissolution between the periods re ferred to, the new Parliament was to be elected by a body of electors which had been already condemned. Lord STANLEY b:iefly explained, and asked the Noble Marquis to postpone that question. As for his alteration he could not postpone it until the last stage, for all the dates depended upon it. He had a strong ob jection to the inconvenient time at which it was pro posed the registrations should take place. He said he should be obliged to take the se'sse of the House upon the question a; to whether the Noble Marquis's words should be inserted or not. The &viol Sr. If ANS thought there was a good dQal of force in the observations which had fallen from the Noble Lord. Earl GREY thought the 13il1 might be made to corn merv:e on the Ist of June, 1851; but the second regis tration need not take place until June, 1352, and thus they would have a registratio❑ on a proper basis. Lord NIONTEA.GLE did not see much in the objet. tion as to the present period of registration; but consi dered the last suggestion a fair compromise. After a long and desultory conversation, in which many Noble Lords took part, it was understood that the question was to be postponed for the present for reconsideration, but without detriment to the progress of the Bill. Tho MArglis of LANSDOWNE then proceeded to propose some verbal amendments in line 35 of the 3d clause. The Earl of Sr. GER, VIANS said he had introduced a 1111 into the other House of Parliament, in which there was a short clause giving a 51. franchise where a freehold existed. Ho suggested that example to the Noble Marquis. The Earl of ST. GERMANS brought up the clause re ferred to and handed it to the Marquis of Lansdowne. Lord REDESDALE-was understood to support the principle of a franchise where there was a freehold and occupation. The Marquis of L A.NSDOWNE was then understood to-I%re') to insert the words " shall be of the net annual value of 51. over and above all charges thereon." After a conversation in which Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Stlnlcy, and other Noble Lords took part, Lord MONTEAGLE said it was of essential import ance to Ireland to increase the number of small proprie tors; but then they should be in the occupation of the land. Lord BEAUMONT suggested a means by which the manufacture of improper voters could be prevented, by a slight change in the working of the Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW had no apprehension that fictitious votes would be created, because before that could be done a person would have to make a convey. once of his property. Earl GREY said the object of the Noble Baron would be obtained by leaving out of the clause the words " at a rent," and substituting tho words " or under lessee." Tho clause, as so amended, was then agreed to. On clause 6, Lord STANLEY said, though he had an amend ment to this clause, he, nevertheless, wished to direct the attention of the Government to a difficulty with respect to it, which would equally have arisen if the 8/. qualification had been retained. The present clause did not relate to the borough franchise alone, but to the mixed franchise of counties and cities, and provided that any person rated with respect to any lands, tene ments, or hereditaments, to the value of 81., should be en titled to a vote. By excluding house occupation, a county franchise would thus he created on a ratin of 81. only. He did not wish to raise the borough franchise to a 151. rating; but, at the same time, he did not wish to lower the county franchise to the same amount as that for boroughs. Another pint required attention. It was provided in the that in boroughs persons should be entitled to vote on an 8/. rating, if such per sons had paid the p.)or-rates due by them. Now, under the poor-law, as it at present stood, persons who occupied a house of the value of 8/. only, were exempted from the p % ymentlof poor-rates, these being paid by the lessors. --(Hear.) The result would be a class of voters who might vote without having paid any rates at all. The Earl of CARLISLE said there was another clause which provided that all these 81. occupiers should eay.kieir own rates. !ken agreed to. f; , :NE ' f r i• V:?,\, ~ said this clause Would enable per .._'''..... la" i low , fvr Grove l s *3 jo i nt °couplers. LW dicl pot e,..:-.-------1 a s Lord FOLEY presented a petition from the inhabi tants of St. George's Hanover square complaining of the defective state cf the sewerage. The Marquis of LONDONDERY presented a peti tion from Sunderland in favour of the Small Tenants Rating Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented several petitions in favour of the County Courts Extension Bill; also several petitions in favour of a real Ten Hours Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions complaining of agricultural distress. He hoped the House of Commons would do their duty to-night, and repeal the malt -tax, and then the agriculturists would hare justice done to them; also several petitions against the relay system. The Bishop of MANCHESTER presented a petition against the relay system. Earl GREY presented several petitions in favour of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill. Lord S I'ANLEY presented several petitions in favour of a real Ten Hoere Bill. EXHIBITION OF 1851. Lord CAMPBELL explained, in allusion to what fell from the Noble Lord last night, that his Hon. Relative had signed an address in favour of the Exhibition, with out any allusion to Hyde-park as the place in which it was to ba held. He lamented that the trees had bee❑ cut down, and he did not lament it the less because a new grove was to be planted in lieu of it. The Earl of GRANVILLE could not draw back from the statement he made yesterday, which was, that in the month of April last, two months after Hyde-park had been fixed upon as the site of the exposition, Mr. Campbell bad signed an address stating that the pro posed exhibition would be most beneficial to the metro particularly to the western part of it. He had also to state that Mr. Justice Cresswell had stated that he thought that the exposition would be most incon venient to himself and his neighbours, but that he had never given any opinion as to its legality. Lord CAMPBELL said that his relative had signed an. address, in which no reference had been made to the site. Mr. Justice Cresswell's opinion would be best gathered from the petition to which he had attached his signature. The Earl of WICKLOW said that there was a locality in the neighbourhood of the Regent's-park, near the railway, admirably adapted as a site for the exhibition. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished to know what understanding had been come to with Foreign powers in the event of any malicious injury being done to the property of foreigners exposed in the exposition. In Edinburgh some years ago damage was done to goode, but as no buildings were demolished no damages could le) recovered. He wished to know if they were to act on the precedent of D Pacifico ? The;Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no doubt but that if, in the case alluded to, the son of the Secretary at War had joined in the spoliation, compensation would have been given. DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. Lord BEAUMONT asked if it was true that the ne gotiations which had for the object the termination of the differences between Denmark and the Duchies had been successful ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he had the sa tisfaction of stating that under ttfb mediation of this country a treaty had been concluded settling all the dif- ferences existing between Denmark and Prussia. THE UPTON- CUJI-CEIALVEY MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL. _ _ THE SUN, object to a bonlifide joint occupancy, but the clause as it stood would lead to the creation of faggot votes. He obj-cted to a person who he'd premises rated at say 241. having the power of putting in the names of two other persons as voters under that holding, though they might have no real interest in it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to say that he had no objection to any amendment of the clause, such as that suggested by the Noble Lord. Oa clause 9. Lord STANLEY said that in several of the boroughs of Ireland there was a class of Si. householders, whose rights of voting were preserved by the Reform Bill. He wished to propose the insertion of the words:—"or 51. householders qualified to vote;" and to strike out the words relating to persons qualified to vote in respect of habitancy. After a few words from the Earl of CARLISLE, The clause, as so amended, was understeod to be agreed to. On clause 15, Lord S I'ANLEY said they had now come to a clause on which he proposed to raise a question of coneidertable importance, as to whether there should be an option on the part of the voter as to whether or not his name should be placed on the register. It was proposed in the Bill that the clerk of the peace should in the first instance send to the clerk of each union a list of the existing re gistry, excluding from it persons entitled to vote from occupation, whose names might be struck off by the clerk of the peace. It was proposed by the Bill that the transmission of the list by the clerk of the union should have the effect of placing the names of those voters on the registry who had paid their rates, whether they were inclined to become voters or not. He wished to propose an amendment to alter the mode of proceeding so far as that the clerk of the peace should prepare the list of the existing register, and should transmit so much of that register as related to the respective baronies to the clerk of the union; but instead of excluding all those persons whose franchise depended on occupancy, he should transmit a separate list of all such persons, who, if not rated to a certain amount, shall be struck off the list. The clerk of the union should then return to the clerk of the peace the list of persons on the registry by virtue of ocotipancy:with the words "objected to" before those persons not properly rated. The clerk of the union should not be called on to introduce into the register any new name whatever; but all persons not on the register, or all persona objected to by the clerk of the union, would be at liberty to make separate claims. Those persons would make their claims according to the prac tice observed in this country, and, if unobjected te, their claims would be allowed. According to his proposal, the duties of the clerk of the union would be limited to objecting to persons whom he might find on the register without having paid their rates, but he would have no power of placing new names on the register. The Noble Marquis had expressed the other night his opinion that great indignation would bo excited in Ireland by the - weather of persons who would be without a vote in consequence of the 151. rating being adopted. He wished to ascertain the value which the people of Ireland placed on the exercise of the franchise. Were they anxious to obtain the franchise? He had no wish to give the voter the trouble of attending to defend his vote. He should leave the onus probandi on the person who objected to it. All that he required was, that previous to having his name placed on the re gister, he should express a desire to have his name placed on it. If the people of Ireland were so indifferent to the franchise as to refuse to sign an application for it, not only would there be no injustice in not placing their names on the register, but there would be great injustice in forcing them to register.—(Hear, hear.) Everybody was aware of the influences which might be brought to bear in Ireland en the voter with respect to his fran chise. If a man's name was on the register he would be pressed upon by the priests or the landlords, and between the two he would be placed in the most painful circum stances. He admitted that in the exercise of the fran chise every voter ought to act conscientiously; but to say that it was a solemn trust, and that a man entitled to the qualification was bound to claim it, and to insist on the right of voting, was as absurd as it would be to say that it was incumbent on every one of their Lordships to at tend from the commencement of the session to the end without exercising any option. A Noble Loin—And the appeals in the morning.— (Laughter.) Lord STANLEY—Yes, that he must attend the ap peals in the morning, and never abstain from voting on any question.—(Hear.) The question for their Lord ships to consider was this—would they compel a man to be a voter or not ?—(Hear, hear.) By compelling him to become a voter they would, theoretically, perform an act of injustice ; but practically they would be sowing the seeds for constant ill will and constant conflicts be tween the landlord, the tenant, and the priest. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was of infi nite importance that that class of persons who, from their possession of land or other property, were considered entitled to vote fur Members of Par liament, should, without any effort or exertion on their part, be placed in a position to vote. He believed the adoption of the suggestion of the Noble Lord would lead t i a considerable restriction of the franchise. The Noble Lord had spoken of the position of Members of their Lordships' House. Now, he wished to remind the Noble Lord that this Bill would not compel a person to vote, and that it would place him in a similar position to that of a Peer or a Member of the House of Commons. The elector exercised the right of voting, not fir his own good but for the general good of the community. It was a trust conferred upon him, and the right could not be jutifi-d on any other principle. It was fre quently the case that those persons who were the best qualified to exercise the trust were the least desirous petually endeavouring to acquire an interest in the representation, and their proceedings often tended to bring the representation into the worst possible state. He believed the effect of the amendment would be to increase the influence exercised by particular indivi duals in particular constituencies, and in some parts of England and Scotland, where the register bad not been attended to, the remedy had been taken into the hands of the managers of different parties, depending upon local int3rests; and when by any accident that local interest ceased to operate, the effect was that the registry dropped altogether, or was confined to a very small number of persons; and he knew one case in which it was limited to between ten and twenty per cent. He trusted their Lordships would not agree to the amend ment.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM said that what applied to Eng land did not apply to Ireland, the state of the two coun tries being so widely different. In this country, scarcely any one entitled to register abstained from obtaining the right, but in Ireland it was perfectly the reverse. The question then arose, whether there were not reasons which induced persons to abstain from registering. Now, if a man was deserving of being ietrasted with the discretion of electing legislators, surely he was entitled to exercise the minor discretion of saying whether ho chose to vote or not.—(Hear.) But the matter did not rest there, for if the Legislature once compelled him to have the right to vote, why not compel him to exercise that right ? (Hear, hear.) It was said this was a duty. But was Out a man compellable to do his duty?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis said that those whom he wished to possess the elective franchise were just these who now abstained from it, and not jobbers, of whom, he was sorry to say, a good deal was known in Ireland, some thing in Scotland, and not a little in this country. Now, was it not very hard that a parson not wishing to job should not be allowed to live quietly and peaceably under the shelter of his own roof, but be compelled to become a politician?—(Hear, hear.) It was very desi rable no doubt that such persons should vote, and he would do everything to tempt them, but would not com pel them, when they had good reasons of their own for keeping in the back ground.—(Hear, hear.) But if that part of the argument of the Noble Marquis was good fur tnything, why not carry it further, and compel the freeholder to register as well as the tenant? He looked on the measure as neither more nor less than making the legislature ancillary to the power of the priest.—(Hear.) Earl GREY said he had never heard a speech so en tirely founded on a misunderstanding. The Noble and Learned Lord seemed to think that the Bill would com pel a man to vote, but there was no compulsion in the case.—(Hear, hear.) Now what was the state of the THE PARKS. case? In 1832 the system w,ts altered, and registeration became necessary. When the Reform Bill was intro duced, it wag meant to have a registration requiring no personal interference on the part of the voter. And why was that altered? . A deputation from Manchester waited upon Lord Althorp and said, "You require us to send in a list of freeholders; we have no means of knowing them." Now that was a complete answer to the latter part of the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord, and it was on account of the impossibility of the parties called upon to make out the lists being able to distinguish between a freeholder, a copyholder, or a leaseholder, that a personal claim was made neces sary for the purposes of registration. But in boroughs that was nut the ease, the overseers being re quired to m a k e out the lists from the rate books. By the Registration A ct o f 1844 placed on the register Without part. It was said th a t the voter any application on his might desire to escape from the necessity of vot i ng; his exercise of the franchise w as a dusty answer was, that the ht to which ought to shrink, and that it was nrootodteel should be desirable that a thoseen voter which no man a necessary to enable him to exercise the question then lu r he was antitled.—(Hear, hear.) T whether the same principle did not extend t titled to the elective franchise. It was a great mistake on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, arising no doubt from his not having sat in the other House since o the registration system was adopted, to suppose that there was a aeneral disposition on the part of the voters to put in claims; every one who had aught to do with contested elections knew that nothing was more difficult than to get voters to make their claims; and hence had arisen the machinery:of registration societies on both sides of politics, in every borough and county in the king dom. In the counties, if committees were not formed, .and great activity displayed, a large proportion of qualified persons were always omitted from the re elster; and it was to remedy this that recourse had been had to the registration societies, by which a con tinual agitation was kept up from year to year. The effect of the clause under discussion would be to secure the registration of all qualified persons, instead of par tisans only. It was impossible to deny that electors in Ireland were much exposed to undue pressure on one side or the other—from the landlord or the priest; but he only remedy for this tyranny was largely to increase the number of electors—(Hear, hear.) A body of 20 or 30 might easily be marked out and coerced, or punished if they refused to be so; but where the voters numbered hundreds, this would be impossible--(Hear, hear.) The dense sought only to carry out the principle of the Re 'orm Bill, which was also the old principle of the English .onstitution—that every qualified person should have a vote without the necessity of making a claim, and he was convinced that this was the only sound footing on , which the county franchise is Ireland would be Awed, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1850. rates, and income-tax, and of the unjust operation of the malt-tax, and preying the House to grant them relief.— (Hear, hear, from the Protectionist benches.) An HoN. MEMBER presented a p tition from West bourne, iu Sussex, against the admission of Jews to Par liament. Sir W. JOLLIFFE presented a petition from a place in Sussex praying for the repeal of the malt and hop duties. WOODS AND FORESTS.-REVENUE FROU Lord DUNCAN gave notice that on Tuesday next he should move a resolution that, as it appesred that during the period of the last seven years, from 1842 to 1849, a gross income of 2,446,0001. had been derived from the public parks, and that out of this 774,000/ had been paid into the Exchequer, and 1,800,0001. withheld for manag ing this department, it Is expedient to pl ace thi s b ranc h of expenditure more directly under the control of Par liament, and that the sums necessary for their manage ment should be voted with the rest of the estimates. PARTY PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND. The LORI) MAYOR of DUBLIN wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he had received any infirrnation that the Orang emen of the county of Down were in the habit of paraiing• bv night, playing party tune s, such as the " B o y ne Water" . and "Crappies l'e down? '' —(Laughter.) There was some fear in those districts of a repetition of the Dolly's Br4e affair on the 12th of July. Sir G. GREY said that he had received no such in formation, neither had his Right Hon. Friend the Secre tary for Ireland received any on the subject. As t > any expected disturbances, the Lord-Lieutenant would no doubt exercise the powers placed in his hands to prevent any repetition of the disturbance. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion that the House at its rising adjourn until Monday, Sir G. GREY said that he wished to correct a mistake into which he had fallen last night, in speaking of Mr. Denison having signed an address which he had re ceived. Upon looking again at the petition, he found that that gentleman's name was not attached to the address. Lard BROUGHAM said the land-tax schedule was the register before the Reform Act passed. Earl GREY said it frequently happened, nevertheless, that parties were prevented voting through having omitted to get their names inserted in the land tax sche dule. At present the greatest inconvenience arose in English counties from the necessity of each voter making a claim. Lord REDESDALE said it was unfair to county voters to be obliged to send in a claim, whilst borough voters were exempt from that necessity, as well as those county voters who voted in respect of their rating. The principle of claiming to be registered was the only fair one and ought to be made general. Lord MONTE AGLE said, if ever there was an inge nious invention to overthrow the agricultural interest in Ireland, and to give the town population an unjust su periority, it would be the present step. He had fre quently heard those men who wore political agitators state that a registration of agricultural voters would be fatal to the liberal interest. The Earl of GLENGALL said, when once a voter was put oa the registration list in Ireland he was com pelled to vote, and he could assure their Lordships that that vote would not be an independent one. He would recur to a case, the truth of which hid been sworn to in the law courts. At one of the elections for Carlow 120 voters were seized by a large body of men and carried out of the county. They were tied up and put into boats and transported t) another county, until they signified their willingness to support another party in whose favour they generally voted. Their wives were also ill treated. The Noble Lord went oa to describe similar scenes of violence arising from similar causes. Lord EDDISBURY said the effect of this would be to ere ate an annual instead of a septennial agitation. The amendment arose from a dislike to Irish represen tation, and the leas that country was represented the more pleasing it was to their Lordships themselves. This was not the way to govern that great and generous people. The time might come, if this measure were re• jetted, when their Lordships would have to assent to a more sweeping measure of reform. They had been obliged to do so with regard to East Retford, and with regard to an Bs. duty on corn.—(Bear, hear.) The Eal of ST. GERMANS said the amendment, if carried, would render the Bill a mockery. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For Lord Stanley's amendment ... 53 Against it ... ... 39 Majority against the Government... —l4 The various clauses of the Bill being then agreed to, Lord STANLEY gave notice that he would not op. pose the adoption of the report, or the third reading 01 the Bill as amended. THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL. Earl GREY having moved the third reading of this Bill, Lord LYTTELTON said that that measure had been somewhat altered in Committee; but he entertained some very serious objections to it even in the shape in which it then stood. He believed that by passing it in that shape they would be foregoing the best opportunity which could possibly present itself of effecting a real reform in our colonial system. The great principle which he wished to see established, was the principle of local self government in the colonies. It had been said that there were no materials in the Australian colonies for a second chamber; but if any such deficiency existed, he attributed it solely to the policy we had hitherto pursued of refus ing to those colonies those free institutions, and that control over their own local affairs, which were en joyed by the people of this country. It appeared to him that it was a most unfortunate error to vest the power of the Crown over our colonies in a Minis ter of State residing in this metropolis, when it could bo much more advantageously vested in the governor of each colony. It should be remembered that a governor was under the control of the Crown quite as much as a Cilonial Secretary in this country; and with a view of adding to the dependence of the colonial go vernoas or the Crown, he (Lord Lyttelton) would pro pose that they should be paid out of the funds of the mother country, instead of out of the funds of the colo nies. The disallowing power vested in a Colonial Se cretary in this country was a power unknown in the ancient colonial charters granted by this country. It might be said that the colonial authorities would be enahled to suspend the machinery of government; but that was a theoretical objection which might be urged against the working of our own constitution just as much as against the working of a colonial charter. There was no public opinion in this country to act upon the Colonial-office, which was really the depositary of all power in celonial affairs, and the power which it pos sessed was of an irresponsible nature. The only way to give the colonies the real right of legislating for themselves was to destroy the power of the Colonial-office. The colonies relied on the faith of Parliament, and would be content only with the best security which, considering the nature of things, it was possible for them to have. With respect to a vast ma jority of subjects of local importance no dispute could possibly arise amongst the colonies themselves. They had an excellent analogy in the example of America, by which they could legislate for these colonies. How was it proposed to settle all disputes that might arise? Why by a reference to the Colonial-office alone. According to the analogy to which he had referred, namely, the United States, such questions were settled by judicial tribunals. —( Hear.) The colonies, he maintained, would have con fidence in a judicial system, but would not have the same confidence in the decisions of the Colonial-office. He could not help thinking that in course of time the Aus tralian colonies would obtain self-government for them selves.—(Hear, hear.) In Canada it had been obtained by a large and powerful community. Our American colonies could not be treated in the same look at our colonial empire as a great machine alone for our own benefit or for the advancement of our trade. He always wished to look at the question thus—. namely, to see what kind of people we could make of m ou o r ti c o o n lo f n o i r st t s h . e t l - h l i e rd w r o e u a ld din n g ot o d f iv t i h d e e t u he ill, Ho b u u s t e b u e po w n would certainly say not content when the question was put. Ea"l GREY said, that on three or four occasions he had addressed the House at great length on that subject. He could only then repeat the arguments which he had adduced on former occasions; but, as he did no t fi n d anything in the argu me nts o f his Noble Friend to alter his views, he hoped their Lordships would agree to the motion before them. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Their Lordships adjourned at near a Quarter to Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. _ _ _ The following Bills were read a third time, and passed : River Lea Trust. West Cornwall Railway. Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the minutes of evi dence taken before the Committee on the River Lea Trust Bill be laid btfure the House, ald that so much of it as relates to the quality of the water of the River Lea be printed.—Agreed to. Mr. E WART moved that it be an instruction to the Select Committee (preliminary inquiries), to consider the expediency of altogether releasing Members whose constituents were locally interested in opposed private Bills, from forming a part of the Committee on such Bills. Mr. W. PATTEN said the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House on two former occasions, when it underwent ample discussion, and on eseh occasion the House affirmed by large majorities that it was necessary there should be a certain amount of local representation on all private Bills, except rail way and divorce Bills. He suggested that the Hon. Gentleman should postpone his motion, and he (Mr. Patten) would bring the subject before the House in some other shape. Mr. E WART acceded to the suggestion of the Hun. Member and agreed to postpone his motion. After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn. PETITIONS. Sir J. DUKE presented two petitions from the ward of Farringdon Without, one against the window-tax and the other praying for a commutation of the land -tax. Several petitions were presented against Sunday la bour in the Post-office. Mr. MILES presented several petitions from clergy men and others azainst the Jews Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition complaining of agricultural distress, and praying that farmers might be released from the income-tax, and other burdens which pressed upon them ; also a petition from Dover against the Jews Bill. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented two petitions from Rochdale in favour of the Friendly Societies Bill. Major BERESFORD presented a petition from a place in Essex, praying that the present Post-office regulation might have a fair trial before it was abandoned. Mr. JOHN ELLIS presented a petition from the Mid land Railway Company against the Rlilway Audit Bill. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented sixty-two petitions from different parishes in Lincolnshire complaining of agricultural distress and praying for the repeal of the malt-tax. Mr. BROWN presented a petition from the solicitors of Prescot, in Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty. Mr. JOHN NEELD presented several petitions from places in the county of Middlesex, praying for the re peal of the malt tax. Colonel SI BTHORP presented a petition from Lin coln against the admission of Jews " and all unbelievers" into Parliament. _____.,.... 111 r. HENRY DRUSDIOND presented a petition from the county of Surrey, praying for the repeal of the malt tax. Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from the notaries public of Landon against the certificate tax. Viscount NEWPORT presented a petition against the admissinn of Jews into Parliament. Mr. K. SEYMER presented a petition from a Savings' Bank, in Dorsetshire, against the Savings' Bank Bill. Mr. WADDINGTON presented a petition against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Sir J. TYRELL presented sixty petitions from places in Ess, x praying for the repeal of the malt tax. Mr. HENLEY presented similar petitions from Ox fordshire. Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from Chorley, in the county of Durham, against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Sir EDWARD BUXTON presented a petition from a place in E33(IX against the admission of Jews into Par liament. . Mr. NEWDEGATE presented a petition from North Warwickshire, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a return to agricultural protection. Lord BROOKE presented a petition signed by up wards of 6,000 of the most respectable inhabitants of the southern division of the county of Warwick, complain ing of agricultural distress consequent upon the with drawal of protection, of the unequal share which the imere l 4 Pearl 14 the pour-rated, ASSISTANT-SURGEONS IN THE NAVY. In answer to Captain BOLDER°, Sir F. BARING said that the Government had issues erders regarding the furnishing of an extra cabin for the purposes of study for these officers, but they had not yet been carried out. He was as anxious as possible to give new cabins to assistant-surgeons, but unfortu nately it was not possible, by a vote of the House, to increase the accommodation on board a ship. Many officers connected with the navy doubted very much the wisdom of the vote which had been come to by this House. PRUSSIA AND DENMARK. Mr. DISH A ELI—I wish to ask her Majesty's Go vernment whether they have received any information as to the conclusion of a treaty of peace between the King of Prussia and the King of Denmark, and, in the event of their having received such information, whether they will inform th• House in what capacity the King of Prussia signed the treaty, whether as sovereign of his own dominions, or on the part of the Germanic Confederation, or in both those capacities? Lord PALMERSTON—I am enabled to inform the House that the Government have received a dispatch from her Majesty's Minister at Berlin, enclosing a copy of a definitive treaty of peace which was signed on the 2d instant, and concluded between thej King of Den mark on the one hand and the King of Prussia on the other, acting in his own ballad and also on behalf of the Germanic Confeleration, and that treaty was to be rati fied in three weeks.—(Hear, hear.) DISTURBANCES AT DOLLY'S BRAE. In reply to Sir W. VERNER, Sir G. GREY said he had not received any com munication from the Lord-Lieutenant respecting the prosecution of parties concerned in the late disturbances at Dolly's Brae, and therefore he was unable to say whether any proceedings against those parties were at present pending. SAVINGS' BANKS BILL. . _ Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether the Chancel lor of the Exchequer intended to proceed with the Savings' Banks Bill, and if so, whether he would fix a day fur its being brought on? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had stated last night, in reply to the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that he hoped to proceed with the Bill before the end of the session, but he was not able at present to fix a day for the purpose. REPEAL OF THE MALT DUTY. Mr. CAYLEY presented a great number of petitions 'rons different parts of tho country praying for the repeal of the malt-tax. Mr. PORTAL presented a large number of petitions from Hampshire to the sate* effect. Mr. CAYLEY then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the malt duties, and in doing so ho asked the extreme indulgence of the House, because averse as he always was to intruding himself upon its attention, it was still more difficult for him to explain as clearly as ho should wish the object of this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He brought this motion forward entirely upon his own responsibility, without any promise of support from any quarter of the House, nor could it be considered a party motion, for his Noble Friend at the head of the Government and another member of the Government in the other House had declared that they could not give their support to a motion which threatened to rob the revenue of so large a sum.—(Cries of ' Hear, hear.") He was, thereeore, instigated by no other mo tive than a conscientious conviction that in the present depressed state of agriculture, and under the loy our late commercial chictigeg,e'vi l ttlEeZMAVY.Dtintd imposition of the old system or a modified system of pro tection, nothing could conduce so much to the well-being of the agricultural interest of this country as the repeal of that oppressive tax which he now sought to abolish —(Hear, hear.) Taxation was never a very popular thing in any shape—it was a still less popular thing when it was not only oppressive but inquisitorial and partial, as this tax was.—(bear, hear.) What was taxation?—(A laugh.) After all, it was nothing but a nation having run up a long score, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being paymaster, who called upon us all to pay what was known by our shot. —(A. laugh.) After half-a-the gentlemen had in dulged themselves at an entertainment the bill was called for, when sometimes four or five o f t h e half-dozen were ready to pay it themselves, but though that might hap pen once or twice in a way, it would never, if the saint plan were adopted on every occasion. —(A laugh.) What he complained of with respect to this tax was, that it was more oppressive upon agricultural than any other tax that nad been imposed upon British in duAry.—(llear.) After a long period of protection British industry and agricultu re were deprived of that protection under which th e y h a d thriven for so l t o h n e ga constant per habit io d of t time.—(Hear, meHear, h ear.) It had been state, for wh a t purpose he could hardly imagine, that the corn-laws were the subject of late enactment, and that 1815 was the period at which they were enacted ; but it was perfectly well and it ended in known that no less a price for 170 years prior to 1849 agriculture was given than 48s. per quarter for wheat —(lleer, hear.) In 1670 that system beg an, February last year; though it was true in 1815 a higher range of prices had previously existed, and a higher range of protection was established com thuornegh thought was fairly those com mensurate with that higher range of prices. ionedth u a n t der be w ca h u ie s h e entitled to justice, and after that long system of t w il e e r e circu mstances m ent tion entitled perhaps to some'hing even more than pr o u e c s tice, and, if they tequired it—which they did not —to to some more tender consideration, if he might use that term. During that long period of protection the landed interest of this country was c hi efly in power,an d so long as that interest pr eva il e d their motto had been "Live and let live."—(Hear.) (The Hon. Member here read an extract from Mr. Porter's "Progress of the Nation," to show that protection was first extended to the woollen manufacturer.) He was stating those fact s with the view of showing th a t i t was no selfish polic y, on the part of the landed inter es t, wh i ch establised the system of protection.—(Hear.) On the contrary, it began with manufacturers. From 1770 t o 1825 there was, a discriminating duty between Indian and English cot ton manufactures. English cottons were introduced into India at a rate of 5/. per cent. duty; whilst In dian cottons were admitted into England, from 1770 to 1825, at an average duty of 751. per cent. Having thus shown that there was a precedent in the conduct of the agriculturists towards the manufacturers, which would justify them in their present claim, what he asked for now was for nothing but justice, and he thought he could show that the present duties, which he wished to remove, were unjust. He had great authorities to quote upon this subject. The Right Hon. Member for Ripon in 1839 had said that after the repeal of the corn-laws the malt-tax would not survive one year.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton had at the same time spoken of the malt-tax and the corn-laws as indissolubly joined together. There was also another autho rity which he could quote, if under the pre sent circumstances it would be dee erous for him to do so; but as he could name no higher authority perhaps the House would allow him to mention the late Sir Robert Peel, who had expressed his wish that he should use his malt untaxed. He would now proceed to men tion the absurd penalties which were imposed upon this tax. Such was the evil effects of the present imposts, that the preparation of malt and brewing had become a great monopoly, small capitalists being unable to encounter the losses to which those particular trades were liable. There were fewer maltsters now than there were five years ago, and it was a well-known fact that eight out of every nine public-houses in the metropolis belonged to brewers. The malt-tax not only crippled the trade of those who prepared it, but deprived the poor of obtaining a cheap supply of their most wholesome beverage. This was notorious to all prize cattle societies; indeed, the value of it was shown by the willingness of farmers to pay 7s. a week for the washings of distillers. Nor would this be considered fair upon any other manufacturing interest. In former times, when the duty was lower, a malt-house was attached to every farm-house, and if this tax was repealed there would again be a malt-house joining every farm-house. Well, but this tax was said to be a tax on the consumer ; so it might be, but if they taxed every other branch of industry—the lawyer or the phy sician, for instance —cent. per cent., did they think the country would stand it; or di.l the House imagine the lawyer or the phy s i c i a n would do so much business as when he was untaxed? He did not dispute that taxa tion was necessary, but th e gravamen of his complaint was that this tax was unequal and unjust. The House was not aware of the extent of the exemp tions enjoyed by manufacturers from duties on articles used in their manufactures. Thus, for example, in the article of soap, they had enjoyed a total, and now en joyed a partial exemption. The Hon. Member here re ferred to the following statement as to the use of soap (Vl' klatintifticittres;-. Former rates on soap used in the manufacture of— Hard. Soft. Woollen goods 2id. per lb. ld. per lb. Flax or cotton Silk 3d. „ 14d. „ Linen 3d. „ 141 Amount of allowances in the year 1832, 100,294/. 7s. 3d. From May 31, 1833, the allowance was reduced one-half, and on the 15th of May, 1840, 5 per cent. added. Present rates— Hard. Soft. Woollen goods .... ..... and 5 per cent. and 5 per cent. Flax and cotton ..... Silk Linen Amount of allowances in 1849, 85,2861. 17s. 7d. Then, again, as to the duty on paper, as to which there bad been great complaints. The Hon. Gentleman here referrel to the following statement as to the EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER, Year. Rates of Duty. Amount of Duty Charged. 1835. Millboard glazed paper, sheathing paper, button board, 84:-.—lst class, 1!. Bs. per cent. ; 2d class, 1/. Is. per cent Pasteboard-Ist class, 1/. Bs. per cent ; 2d class, 14s. per cent.. 1836. The same rates as above to the 10th' Oct., 1836 From 10th Oct., 1836, all kinds of j paper, lid. per lb. 1837. All kinds of paper 11d. per lb 555,942 15 7 1838. Do. Do. 584,164 2 8 1839. Do. 1840. All kinds of p a p er per • lb 610,290 18 0 and 5 per cent. from May 626,663 10 64 15, 1840 ... 1841. Do. Do. 1342. Do. Do. ... 1843. Do. Do. ... 678,888 3 54 1844. Do. Do. ... 718,392 6 4 1845. Do. Do. 815,371 8 IA 4 1846. Do. Do. ... 1847. Do. Do. 1849. Do. Do. ... 867,120 11 74 There bad been a good deal said in a leading journal which greatly influenced the councils of the country (the Times), as to the extent to which this duty affected it; although, according to the argument of that journal on the malt-tax, the duty should be immaterial to it, being " paid by the consumers," that is, the purchasers of the paper.—(Hear.) However, a copy of the Times weighed four ounces, and the paper tax upon it was one farthing and a quarter. The stamp was only one penny, and thus the total duty on such paper was not three half pence, that is, less than 25 per cent.; whereas the malt tax was 100 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) It should be re collected, too, that for the penny so paid on the stamp the paper was carried free; whereas the farmer had to pay the carriage of his malt.—(Hear, hear.) And as to the advertisement duty, it was disposed of by a single observation, that there was at least one paper containing solely advertisements, which showed that they were of themselves remunerative. Now, with reference to what the farmers thought of this tax, he held in his hand a letter of Mr. Ellman, of Sussex, who, after referring to the opinions of his father, who lived to a great age, and whose memory went back to the time when cottagers brewed their own beer, stated, as some prof of the very injurious effects of this tax, that the barley grown on his farm, near Lewes, was now nearly unsaleable, and that, in his opinion, nothing could benefit the farmer more than the repeal of this odious impost.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member (whom, from the low tone in which he frequently spoke, we bad the greatest difficulty in hearing) also quoted from a pamphlet written by a captain in the navy, who was also an ex cellent practical farmer, to the effect, that whereas he could grow seven quarters of barley per acre on his land, for which he got 91. 165., of which the Government took 71. 4s. sd., and yet it was said that this tax was paid by the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) But even if it was, were not the agricultural labourers the chief consumers of beer? And yet these were some of the parties whom they boasted of having exempted from the payment of the income-tax, though they threw upon them the payment of a ten times heavier burden in this tax upon malt.—(Hear.) But there were other ways in which this tax operated injuriously, and among them might be named the fact that farmers had now their labourers much less in their houses than used formerly to be the habit, a circumstance that was mainly to be attributed to the excessive duties levied on malt, and the conse quent dearness of the beer they would have to give them. Now, malt liquor was, and always had b een , trom the earli es t p er i o d o f th e history of this country, the class of drink peculiar to the nation, and such, in deed, was the national taste for that beverage, that it had required all the oppression of Chancellors of the Exchequer and Excise officers to limit its consumption. —(Heer, heir.) But this tax, which was as much as 100 per cent. on production, was, as the subjoined statement would show, a tax of some 500 per cent. on the poor consumer:— Price of Beer to the Poor, with no Tax on Malt and £863,439 1 5 790,677 9 10 with Tax. A bushel of good malt will produce 12Ibs. of samba ri❑e matter, and will make 36 gallons of good whole some beer for the cottager'a table. With the tax off, suppose the price of malt ... ... Brewed at home ... 49. a bushel, s. for llb. of hops ss. for 36 gallons, or a fraction over lid. per gallon. This beer at any public brewery would be 81. per gal lon, or 245. for a 36-gallon barrel—saving 500 per cent. The yeast and grains would pay for the brewing. The cottager could also malt for himself. In In t, iii - lililiVbrei4 h rig, g Mai t . h N 0. 1 i. t 6c t Uilne aro all nved to one barrel of ale of thirty-six gallons, and re tailed of this quality by publicans at 6d per quart. If no Tax. Three bushels of malt at 45.... Threw pounds of hops at 15.... ... 12g. ... 3s. Total ... or lid. per quart for ale instead of id. or nearly (i. e. within a farthing of 500 per, cent.)—(llear, hear.) The following table would also show the operation of the tax on consumption at two distant periods, for England and Wales:— Population. Bushels Duty Consumption of malt per per bead. made. bushel. bush. gal. 730 ... 5,687,993 28,410,421 Os. 6d. 5 0 845 ... 16,711,725 30,508,840 2 7 1 6 2-3 Which makes a difference in the consumption of 300 per cent. The following was an extract from the manu scripts at Euston, written by the Duchess of Grafton, mother of the present Duke, who gave him (Mr. Cayley) this extract. It was supposed to have been written in the year 1792:—" The two great oppressions which the poor labour under are the low price of wages and the exorbitant tax upon malt. The duty upon malt in a political, as well as in a private view, is a most cruel grievance. The cottager, who could formerly brew his andTowhni shepartook little can ne cask n f hisof beer, home-brewed returned liquorfro m w h i i t s h day's his l family.ur o and his thirst great; his family at h ome can a ff or d hi m longerdo, but the ale-houses ar e o p en nothing but water, and he is tempted to spend the best part of his wages upon himself, which formerly was to l c 7 k 9 . 2 " :— Ezc ß tr u a t et th fr is om is ta n ti o n ra e l r l ip l t o ap f p c li o e u d n t t o es t s hecommon of Euston, see," she added. " Let the minist er t ax a ll t h e luxu ries of life, but let him not encroach n p on th e su b s i st . ence of the most useful part of the creation ; but unfortunately the cry of the poor cannot easily penetrate, and the sufferings of the country cannot be thought of in a great city. Heaven and earth will be moved to repeal a shop-tax, or, indeed, any tax that principally affects the opulent London tradesman; they are too near not to be treated with respect; but still our people are happy, and as long as we are governed by a parent, and not by a despot, we need not fear the influence of incendiary writers." Ho then went on to observe that it was impossible this tax could be continued under their altered commercial code.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would take it into his consideration how severely, under the competition to which the farmers of this country were now exposed, this excise system pressed upon the industry of the people. The Noble Lord might depend upon it that if he did not take steps to remove this tax ere long it would be found to be wholly intolerable. Our agricultural industry could never be carried on under the pressure of this taxation. He did not see why their home industry was to be selected for taxation.—(Hear, hear.) A report of the Committee of the House of Lords upon the state of beer-houses showed how they tended to the increase of crime.—(gear, hear.) He might observe that amongst the petitions presented by him there was one signed by 92 clergymen, and it was not to be supposed that they would have consented to place their names to it if they were not convinced that what they asked for would tend to the spread of morality. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee stated that upon consultation with ten clergymen the conclusion all s k amn ufe e an: n au n t e otir spirits, oi g f tln e s w n r , l r o a m e t s fn d e -. ,ha , l come to as to the best means of diminishing drun datbt eo e e atr repeal_de evidence(aßevenue,a ffac o ese f at rot as sh e hf eealamai Mr. John malt-tax.—(H ear.) - eaf t rar a ose x o fwvva ( c hnoe Member consumption hm . ) ac phata ainiooar on the Ministerial benches.) ' He heard some Honourable Member say "hear, hear," but did that Hon. Member know why the consumption of tea had increased so much? It was not because it was to be considered as a substitute for beer. It had increased because of the diminution of the duty. He referred to the following extract from Mr. Senior's pamphlet:—" We now purchase annually in China about 30,000,0001105. of tea, at about Is. a pound. On the tea so purchased we im pose, in different ways, taxes to the amount of about 200 per cent. Were we to repeal that taxation, and the price in China were to remain unaltered, our consumption would probably quadruple." The duty on tea was re duced from 43. to is., and from 730,0001b5. it had in one year increased to 2,358,0001b5. The consumption then in a few years rose to 17,000,0001b5. The increase arose from the reduction of the duty on tea, and so it would be with malt, and so it had been with coffee. In 1791 the consumption of coffee in Great Britain was 1,247,2761b5. It was the same or thereabouts in 1795, at which period the duty was raised from 6d. to Is. Id. The result was, that in 1796 the consumption fell off to 396,9531b5. There were fluctuations in the duty up to 1804, when the duty Was raised and the consumption decreased; so that in 1808 it did not exceed that of 1791. In 1809, however, the excise duty was lowered from is. Id. to 3d. per lb.; and the costoms d u ty f rom 611 to 4d. per lb. The re. sult was— Consumption. 1808 ... ..„ 1,069.6914 1809 9,251,837 Increase in on l y ear , after reduction of dutiei, 800 per cent. It had not superseded thu taste for malt. The reduction of the duty on spirits had increascd matt con f that article, lie IYA3 LOW referring par sumptiou ticularly to Ireland. In 1823 there was a reduction of the spirit duties in Ireland. What was the result? In 1822 the number of gallons was 2,328,387; in 1823, when the duty was reduced, the number of gallons was 3,348 505; in 1824, 6,090,315 gallons; in 1825, 9,262,744 gallon , . This was an increase in four years of 400 per cent. in consequence of the reduction of the duty.— (llear ) At and previous to the beginning of the 18th century every publican in Scotland (being every man who chose to embark i❑ the trade) brewed his own ale, and the resort to his house depended on the quality of his liquor, which—when thunder or witchcraft did not in terfere—was generally excellent. Tne strong ale was re served for holydsys and the tables of the great; but the two-penny (so called because it was sold at 2d. the Scotch pint—equal to nearly two English quarts) was so much esteemed as a national beverage that it was inserted by name and guarded by peculiar privileges in one of the articles of the Union. Another article, how ever, in the same Act secured to the Scottish brewery an Excht.quer Court; and this, conjoined with the enor mously-increased malt duties, so lessened the exhilarat ing qualities of this ancient ale that it has now lost its fame. I❑ its stead a kind of small drink is brewed, but it is destitute of all the qualities which were so often ce lebrated in Scottish song, and is scarcely superior to the trash termed table-beer in the workhouses of the metre polis. What had been the effect in Ireland, which was now a whisky drinking country? In 1792, 5,000,000 bushels were consumes, when the duty was 7111. per barrel; but subsequently, when the duty was 3s. 61. per barrel, the consumption fell to 1,733,000 bushels. Sub sequently there was a decrease of the duty and the con sumption rose to 700 per cent. In England the taste for beer continued, because the spirit duties here conti nued high. They were lower in Scotland than in Eng land; and lower in Ireland again than in Scotland. Let them now see what had been the effect of this reduction. Thus stood the consumption of spirits at one time in the three countries:— In England ... . . 4,352,000 gallons Scotland ... 1,277,000 gallons Ireland ... ... 1,330,000 gallons In 1845, this was the consumption for the three milt. tries :--- England ... ... 9,000.000 gallons Scotland 6,441,000 gallons Ireland ... ... 7,240 000 gallons The increase in England was twofold, in Scotland five fold, in Ireland sixfold.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member then entered into a calculation to show that upon an acre of barley the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the publican, and the maltster took 401., whilst out of the same acre the landlord had 255., and the tenant-farmer might be said not to receive anything. The sum which the malt ster, publican, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got out of an acre of barley :—Suppose the acre produce on an average five quarters of barley, and one quarter of barley to produce one quarter of malt. One quarter malt (good) equal to 961bs. saccharinP, which equals three barrels of ale, or 321bs. gravity before fermentation. Al low seven gallons waste for the fermentatian, leaves 10 gallons for sale. 1 qr... 101 gale. at 6d. per quart .. £lO 2 0 5 qr.. 505 gals. ditto including f taxed cost £5O 10 0 hops i untaxed... 10 14 0 1 qr. of malt, present price about ... £2 14 0 8 lb. of hops, average price .. 0 8 0 5 qrs. of malt with hops Deduct malt and hops £3 2 0 ~ £l5 10 0 ... 15 10 0 £35 0 0 The spoil divided between the Chancellor of the Ex chequer and publican out of an acre of barley—besides tithes, poor -rate, and local and general taxation. Out of this acre of barley the landlord's share is about 255.; the tenant's share 15s. perhaps; the sharp of the maltster, brewer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nearly 401. (391. 165.) The duty on British spirits was 61. per quarter on raw grain. Now, if they repealed the duty they could not expect less than treble the amount of the present consumption. By trebling the consumption they would add to the demand for malt 10,000,000 qrs. He told those who talked to them so much of theimprove ment of agriculture, that in prohibiting the further growth of barley they interfered with the laws of nature. Their oppressive taxation interfered with the laws of na ture ; it prevented the people from farming their lands to the best advantage, and in that manner which was cal culated to make them most productive.—(Hear.) It ap peared to him that of all other measures short of a re versal of our present commercial system, there was none that could so materially benefit the interest of the Bri tish farmer as the repeal of the malt•tax. Notwith standing the increase of price in oats and barley which would result from that repeal, it need not be feared that foreign corn would come in to prevent such a rise of price, for the English barley was so superior in weight and saccharine matter that it would always command a higher price than foreign barley. The Seal barley, of which we obtained 100,000 quarters last year, sold from 214. 6d. to 235. per quarter; Danish barley from 17s. to 20s. per quarter; while English average barley sold at 235. per quarter, and the best English barley at 25e. to 275. per quarter. They had, therefore, little to fear from the import of foreign barley. The repeal of the corn-law had not had so great an effect as had been an ticipated upon the barley market, on account of the su perior growth of English barley; for be'ore the passing of that measure we had imported about 1,000,000 qrs. a year, and the present year we only imported 1,500,000 qrs. Shined hgrlev moo inferior . from its exposure todamp and other injurious influences, and malt was equally subject to deterioration from being shipped. Foreign importation, then, was not to be so much feared, while the additional demand for 8,000,000 qrs. of barley would displace so much oats and wheat.—(dear.) The price of all three kinds of grain in England, Ireland, and Scotland, would be raised in a manner to neutralise the effect of the repeal of the corn-laws. Besides, there would be a corresponding large increase in the growth of hops; and upon the whole, the alteration would give increased employment to 100,000 peopie; and counting the families of those people, it might fairly be said that 500,000 persons were interested in the repeal of the malt-tax, while it would confer vast advantages upon the consumer. The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) would say, perhaps, that he could not spare the tax. But could not other articles be taxed in case of de ficiency? Cider, for instance, was once taxed, and might be taxed again • so were 'linen and other y a r n s. B ut it would not be necessary to have recourse to those. The malt duty in the year 1849 on 44,749,000 quarters was 5,145.0001. ; from which, deducting for cost of col lection, and drawback allowances, 523,0001., there was left a net revenue of 4,612,7001. a deficiency certainly enough to make Hon. Gentlemen somewhat nervous. But how stood the case really ? In the Budget this year the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that out of his expected surplus of 1,500,0001. he proposed applying 750,0001. to the repeal of the brick duties and an alte ration of the stamp duties, and the other 750,000/. to pay off a portion of the public debt. He (Mr. C.) did not intend to interfere with the financial arrangement of the present year, and if he should be so fortunate as to carry his proposal he should propose that the re peal of the malt duties should not take effect until the sth of April next year. Well, then, the estimated surplus for the year might be taken at 1,000,0001., the decreased ex penditure at 500,000/. ; increase on hop du'y, 500,000/.; excess on the corn duty, 300,000/. ; and abolition of the expense of the African squadron 1,000,000/.- 811 those items would form together about 3,310,0001., which, contrasted -with the remitted malt duty of 4,812,700/., would leave a deficit for 1851 of 1,302,0001.; but as he saw by an evening newspaper in the interest of the Government that there was an increase of 300,0001. or 400,0001. in the present quarter's revenue, as com pared with the corresponding quarter of last year, a proportionate increase was expected on the whole year. Under those circumstances, it was not likely there would be a greater deficiency than 100,0001. or 200,0001.; and believing, therefore, that the revenue of next year would be amply sufficient, if proper stops were taken, for all the purposes of the national expenditure without any increase of taxation, he had great confidence in proposing the repeal of that oppressive--he had almost called it atrocious duty.—(Hear, hear.) But who (said the Hon. Gentleman)—who objects to the repeal of this tax for fear of a deficit? Any member of the list Government— which repealed the corn-laws? on which repeal this demand is irrefragably founded—the single condition of which change in our policy was a free and unfettered trade to all. Is a tax of 100 per cent. on one important process of industry an unfettered trade? 100 per cent. on the producer-500 per cent. on the consumer! Is that just or free? The present Government—does it object— who by its own organ, at the commencement of the ses sion, declared that it had lowered agricultural produce, and thereby gained to the country 90,000,000/ ? Can they set 5,000,000/. of revenue against a loss they have inflicted on British agriculture of 90,000,000/.? Can they who have unlocked our doors to the inroad of the whole world, refuse to unloose the shackles with which our hands are bound, that we may use them in self-defence? I have shown how this 5,000,000/. of revenue can be dis pensed with; bat if part of it, or even the whole of it, be imperatively required who can best afford to pay it—. those who have lost the 90,000,0001. or those who, according to you, have gained it? Who, then, objects on the score cf deficit? The free-trader, who promised so large an accession of wealth to the cou n t r y, th at if h e b e right the deficiency should be made up in one year by increase of prospe rity? The Financial Reformer, does he object o ground, who is or was f or a di m i nution of 13 , 000 n h , this in the :expenditure, whereas the outside deficiency created by the repeal of the malt -tax would be only 2,000,000/. ? Can he di scover so effective a means of reduction a s not g i v i ng the money to be expended? The Protectioni s t, d oes h e object, who knows that if free trade fail the deficiency can be easily supplied in a man ner unfelt by the general consumer through the system ho prefers? The Government, no doubt, will plead danger and inco nven i ence against the repeal of this tax. So did wo against the repeal of the corn-laws. What did you answer then to us? Justice to the consumer. So my answer now to you is—justice to the consumer still and producer both. Of that justice many doubted and doubt — of this justice no man doubts, or c an reasonably d ou b t . Who taught us to be cautious in our legislation in reference to the land? The Right Honourable Member for Ripon, who in the language of Mr. Burke told us, now many years ago, that "It is a parilous thine. to try experi ments upon the farmer." If peril then there be in this course, remember it is your seeking, not ours. It is a simple corollary to your own econonomical problem. Will you plead public faith? Is no faith then to be kept with the land? Is there any man in this House who, either for himself or for his constituents —whatever branch of industry he represents—will consent that an analogous amount of taxation shall be placed on his own or on their produce? If not, let him, before deciding , £39 16 0 £5O 10 0 1820—.1830 the average was 26,800,000 bushels 1830-1840 p, 34,000,400 „ 1840-1850 If 31 700 9 000 te of Th lion. Gentleman further said that the falling-ou,. the consumption was cause d b y t h e i mportation of ire reign grain; but the l as t t h ree or f our years would m ; • found to show a s t ea dy i ncrease. The c9intio3rtiv mi was, in into which lobby he will go, call to rien.l that Divine which teaches us to do as we would be done by. Publie faith! We used to be taught yesr by year, by quotations from the speeches of the statesman, to re spect the opinions and reverence the name of Mr. Berke. Our t , licher was that eminent man, but yesterday ! M. mber of this House, whose u n ti me ly loss it so mucu s deplores. Wh a t d oes M r. B ur k e say on this su bj ec tot public faith? " The first creditor of the state is the plough—this original indefeasible claim supersedes ever,' other demand." But can public c r e dit b e rea lly more endangered than through a course of oppressive injustice' by sapping the foundations of that stable and perusal?? t interest—the land, every acre of which, according to alr• Pitt, is mortgaged to the public creditor. It is in ewe" mon fairness to that great interest that I ask you to re; peal this tax. In the name of justice as well as good faith, I implore you to disregard all the stale pretexts inconvenience to the public service, of danger to pub'', credit, of peril t o t h e Mi n i stry — t h ose ancient b ug bear' of Ministerial resistance to every reduction of taxation that was over yet proposed. Above all I entreat you to rise superior to th e meanness o f t h at max i m which e , would teach yo u t o d o r i g h t on l y w h en i t i s conven i e nt to do it. In the name of th e l argest b o d y o f pro d ucers in the kingdom, who a re a t t h e same t i me i ts l argest b o dy "t consumers, I adjure you to redress this crying wrong - :: to be just and fear not.—(Hear, hear.) I beg leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the malt tax.—(Rea r ' ) Mr. CHRISTOPHER, said that after the able speec h which had just been delivered, and considering it de sirable that the debate should be brought to a O n ; elusion that evening, he would support the motion very briefly. This was the first time that he had ever ie . tended to vote for a repeal of the malt-tax. On a fo r ; mer occasion he had f e lt it hi s d uty, out of d eferen ce t° the st tte of the r e v enu e, an d t o t h e protect i on w hi c h th e agricultural interest then enjoyed, to oppose any Iri Ce " sure for the repeal of this particular tax. When its re' peal was moved in 1826, the protection then enjoyed ho the agricultural interest amounted to something like 5 , per cent. The average rriee of barley at that time we 325.; it was now only 22 5 . Th e agr i cu l tura l di stres s theta existing did not arise in consequence of universal CO petition with foreign nation s , b u t was ma i n l y caus ed . ey excessive producti o n i n thi s coun t ry. : A t presen t t l . former commercial poli c y h a d b een a b an d one d , pro tectiiP was withdrawn, and the agricultural interest was the eel/ unprotected interest in the country. Under these circus? ; stances he thought it r i g ht t h at t h e H ouse should insist upon the Government applying the same measure of P' tice to the agri c ult ura l i nterest which they had alrea dy Ile applied to all th e o th er great i nterests of England. 1" 1, / could not conceive w hy t h ey s h ou l d subject the so il o the country to a d e p ress i on o f 100 per cent.; ne ither o could he imagin e h ow anyone who maintained free-tro d principles could object to the repeal of the malt -tax' He called upon th e G overnment to grant the boon ne asked for, and he also called upon the Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to support the inntil That Hon. Gentl eman h a d on two occas i ons i nt i n eat% his desire to have the tax repealed. At Manchester !_ f was reported to h a v e sa id : —" W e sympath i se w ith ts o u farmers. We will never t o l erate one sh i ll i ng b y w ay protection to corn, but we will co-operate with theni: e getting rid of that obnoxious tax, the malt duty- in owe the farmers something, and we will repay theirt, , kind."—(Hear, h ear .) W hen t h e same Hon. G e nt man joined the Fi nanc i a l R e f orm Association, he wrote a letter to its c h a i rman (M r. R o b ertson Gla d s toee t ) , at Liverpool, couc h e d i n t h ese terms: " with regard to the excise, it may be laid down a s rule, that whenever yon to uc h th e exc i se duty at,li it should be tot a lly a b o li s h e d , b ecause the great obje t' „ tion to such t ax i s t h e i nter f erence of the exeisera; bie with the p rocess o f pro d uct i on, which applies We whether the d ut y b e great or small. This shou ld borne in mind if y ou d ea l w i t h t h e ma l t tax, and yon of must deal with it if y ou wou ld en li st the sympathies t r county constitue nc i es on your s id e. T o a man the Ow, mers„ are in favour of a repeal of the malt-tax. 14 % 0 upon these ground s , h e was ent i t l e d to ask for t h e of the Honourable Member for the West Ridink_A (Hear, hear.) With regard to malt being consider% useful for the food of cattle, he (Mr. Christopher) Of t , rather surprised to fi n d t h at some o ffi cers o f the re vec ti l' i, had thought fit to make inquiry into the subject. B. how was that inquiry conducted ? Had any influent' s° agriculturists been consulted ? No such thing. A the was sent down to one or two c h em i sts, and,„ Board of Excise, u p on t h a t i nqu i ry, were per feeh r i . satisfied that malt was of no me whatever to the f e ,d bP mers of England. M an y em i nent men, h oweve r, o , written upon the subj ec t, an d their opinions were e titled to five hundred ti mes th e we i g h t attached to tb° s o given by the ch em i s t s . —(H ear. ) If i t were sa id t hat th e malt tax was paid by the consumer, he would, upon tg o s very principle, demand the vote of the Free-traders. P . it he denied that it w as en ti re ly b orne b y t h e consu nier, 4 was mainly borne by the producer; and in the language of that eminent man, Sir R. Peel, whose loss they 1' 1 5,1, all so much deploring—" it was a heavy duty on 141 0 ., cultural produce, and must operate disadvantageousli beo the cultivation of ' the soil." It amounted to 20s. Bd, if g d o barley was 41s. 9d., and it now amounted to 203. 1 ,° e , when barley was only 225. If the price continued to de cline, and there was not the slightest prospect of a high er price being obtained, the probability was that the %i f would approach to something like 100 per cent. 1 . 6 only argument against the repeal of the tax Wi s . that the revenue of the country would not bear r d but the Hon. Mover had stated his willingness to al t o time for the repeal to come into operation. Finding o f there was no disposition to afford the suffering portl,lt the community any relief, he (Mr. Christopher) 0 himself justifi e d i n d eman di ng the repeal of this o diou s tax, and leaving it t o th e Ri g h t H on. Gentleman , t Chancellor of the Exchequer, to supply the deficiea c a ereato. He believed, w i t h f-' ° . , IG. Bentiuck, th a t if t h ey adopted more of the fleancl , 1 :f policy of Mr. Pi t t, an d l ess of the financial policy " modern economi s t s , a sufficient revenue would be r e ,:, lised. He co u ld not b e li eve that the credit of the ecu, try would be affected by the repeal of the tax, or tha t substitute could not be found, seeing that no fewer their. 30,000,0001. of taxes had been repealed since the 1 1 , He held with Fox, that " excise duties were intoleraws except on grounds of public necessity," and that it W ° a, better to levy taxes on a foreigner than upon the Brit, l- 0 producer or consumer. Believing that the agrieultuf",,, ought to be placed on an equal footing with the Laef t , -- 0 facturers, he had much pleasure in seconding the nantw e l The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thoug h , he should best consult the wishes of the House if lie frained from following his Hon. Friend (Mr. CaY ie ' through all the topics embraced by his able and inter& iug speech ; o th erw i se it would be quite impossible thud the debate s h ou ld c l ose that night. His Hon. Fries drew such a pi cture of the blessings which would 110fi from the repeal of the duty to every class of the conieT o nity that he felt really sorry to destroy the El Dora, which he had placed before their eyes. They bad f re ready had convincing proofs of the consequences of !,. reduction of the duty on malt and barley. With ro e. ; ence to the speech of the Hon. Member who bad just be down, he might observe that in his short statement,", had made two mistakes. He stated that the manula,"; turers were protected whilst there was no protection I °_, agricultural produce. His Hon. Friend mi g ht h a ve rf, membered a paper, printed this year on the motion of to.: Hon. Member for Montrose, showing the amount of del levied on imported agricultural and manufactured duce, from which it appeared that the amount of du t y levied on foreign agr i cu l tura l produce exceeded Wed rai•ed on foreign manufactures. A gain, his Hon. Frie ° . $ enlarged on th e h ar d s hi p i nflicted on the agriculturist by not allowing him to grow beetroot for the r o6° l . facture of su gar; b ut if the agriculturists did not ee,l; vats beetroot for th a t purpose i t was their own and not that of the law. His Hon. Friend had taken; great deal of' unnecessary trouble to prove by histc e* Z o that protection was maintained in this country, not "„f much for the b ene fi t o f the agriculturists as for that the manufacturers, and he thought it necessary to r'"; dicate the agricultural body from the charge of bei° o actuated by intere s t e d mot i ves. Now, he hadinever puted to them se lfi s h mot i ves in maintaining protectio n ' He differed from them, but had always believed alf °l l , to be actuat e d b y a d esire to pursue that policy wh';s might most conduce to the benefit of the country I' large; but th e op i n i on of political economists then was in favour of protection. He might be allowed pethar for one moment, to refer to the subject of the dutie s on wool, in w hi c h h e had taken much interest feole his connexion with the West Riding of Ye r t; shire. In 1842, h e had moved for a reduct"; of the duty on woo l , an d in 1844 it was ultimatei:ls repealed, and no one wou ld deny that no such great benefit had ever b een con f erred on the British product: —(Hear, hear.) He would now confine himself to O question of the rep ea l o f t h e malt tax. It would well , b ecome would r Hon. Members weigh well the consequence; hichresult from to the course th e y advocate"' This could not be regarded as a party motion; and 1oolt• ing at the opposite benches, he felt assured that the leaders of that party would be amongst the last to ade ce cate such a r e p ea l . L " rd Stanley, within the last PO or three m inonths, had declared most emphatically, all whether the Government or in opp os iti on, h e w on : A resist the repeal of a tax for which no substitute our, be found, an d t h e benefit of which repeal he thought very equi voca l . Neither could he persuade himself that the Hon. 11Iemb er f or B uc k s wou ld l end it his suppe r" What would become of the objections which had bel urged agai ns t a Ch ance ll or o f t h e E xchequer who shoa l leave himself without a surplus? Nothing could be ni t. e re s impoliti c t h an t o announce prospective reductions. W I would become of those gentlem e n w h o h a d b arley to se this year if promises of redu c ti on were made for the next' Host. Members talked of the bugbear of national faith? and the bugbear of national establishments. That was a very convenient term to use, but he very much doubte d whether the reflecting portion of the community wouldi regard them as mere bugbears. As far as he himsel a was concerned he should be very happy to be rep l ace, e by his Hon. Friend w h o, h e hoped, when he should down to prop ose t h e repeal of the malt-tax, Wea ld ' be prepared with a substitute, for the suggestion whic h he had made would not produce ontefifth of the neceo' Eery amount. Able and ingenious as he was, his 110 , x , 1 i Friend would no d ou b t b e able to devise some mode, " maintaining th e pu bli c faith. The Hon. Member le, : Lincolnshire would no d oubt recommend a return t°,; system of impo r t d ut i es; b ut whether he could persuau the House to adopt his views was another matter. 1 , 11 H : Hon. Gentlem an sa id that there was a falling off in t he consumption of malt, owing to the duty. If, however, the returns of periods of ten years antecedently to the Pr% sent year wer e exam i ned, it would be found that swab was not th e case . B y the evidence taken before t h e Lords' Co mm i ttee on the sale of beer—a mass of mo s t useful information—these facts appeared:—The ee l ; sumption of malt was, in the three periods of Ma year preceding, as follows: