The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-03-14 00:00:00

110i3SB OF COhiMONt

amtaaa Z

--
MoNDaY.—A discussion took place on the Patent-
office, which led to Mr. Edmunds's enforced resignation
of his office. Lord Stanley asked whether it was
intended to institute legal proceedings, to which the
Attorney-General replied that the Government were
waiting for an explanation from the person inculpated.
If it was not satisfactory, proceedings would be taken
a+. ainst him. Referenoe having been made to the Lord
Chaticellor'S appointment of his sen as successor to
Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Gladstone remarked that the
Treasury had no control over the House of Lords.
As regards the pension granted to Mr. Edmunds,
that would come before the Henze in the
estimates.—Mr. Bentinek moved a resolution to the
effect, that, in order to prevent railway accidents,
Government should be invested with stringent power of
inquiry into the cause of accidents; that to the Board
of Trade or some other departments, powers should be
given to Diane regulations for the eonduct of traffic; and
that the neglect of these regulations should subject the
wawa-Dies to heavy penalties.—Mr. Gibson opposed
the 'notice; ind it *NI oegatiVed witheut a division.-
Lord Clarenee Paget, in laying tini navy estimates
before the House, entered into a long and interesting
statement of the naval changes effected or proposed,
the strength of the fleet, the number and pay of the
seamen, marines, and coastguard, and the progress made
in the building of new ships during the past year. He
announced that the Admiralty proposed at once to
construct a seagoing ship on Captain Coles's turret
principle, and that • number of floating batteries for
harbour defence tioUld be ptoelded Is Nairn as possible.
Tusener.—The question of the evening was the
Malt-Tax.—Mr. Newdegate hurried into the House,
with a great armful of petitions against the duty, just
too late to present tbem' and Sir Fitzroy Kelly
announced that he had been entrusted with , 3,000
documents of the same kind, but they were really too
milny for him to bring down all at once. He promised
to produce them is the course of • week.—Sir Fitzroy
theft addreesgd the House in eupport of his motion—
that in any future remission of indirect tssation, this
House should take into consideration the dutY on malt
with • view to its early reduction and ultimate repeal.
There was during the early part of the debate rather a
scanty attendance of members, but the strangers'
gallery and the seats at the bar were crowded by a
winos audience, whoee broad, ruddy faces and burly
frames plainly told their interest in the subject on
hall& The niciter's speech was rather long, but hie
argument *se clear and eble;, dud he, !peke with more
animation than usual.—Sir Fitzroy took fot file text
the principle laid down by the late Sir Robert Peel and
since sanctioned by the general fiscal legislation of the
country—that it was contrary alike tojustice and public
policy to tax any article which was largely consumed by
the people. No free-trader had ever ventured to deny
that after the tax on bread was removed, the tax on
beer next claimed remission, and the motion was there.
fore entitled to the support of all sincere free•tradera
If Mr, fdilner Gibson Mr. Bright, and Mr. Cobden
were iionsittent, filen !lir FRIA hoped. to have their
Voices on his ids—as which r: Gjtisop; the only
member of the trio present, silo° his head. A tar on
raw material pressed, in an increasing ratio, on every
stage of the manufacture; so that, in the end, the
,consumer was mulcted in a much larger stun than was
paid over to the Treasury. Assuming, on the
imithority of the Economist, that the nation spent
. £60,000,000 a year in beer' he asserted that a third of
1. that amount was due to the effect of the tax. Only
£5,000.000 was gained by the Government, while
£15,000,000 was absolutely thrown away. This
was a strong statement, to which Sir Fitzroy
returned again and again. It formed, in
bust, the reftain of his speedh, to the delight of all the
oonntry gentlemen present. The speaker next traced
the growing value of a quarter of barley as it passed
into the state of beer. Originally costing 281.' 4s. must
be added for the malting. The tax was nesnlnally
211. fled., but was really 2.3 t. because the malting ex-
panded the quarter into a rather larger quantity. Thus
the average pressure of the tea was, by his calculation,
TO per cent. The maltater sold the quarter, for which
he paid Me., to the brewer for 60s. ; and the brewer
added 10s. worth of hope. Me next item was the ex-
pense of brewing. As far as he could amertain,
domestic brewing oust only the price of the fuel, which
I was next to nothing, as the fire had to be kept up for
I,ordinary purposes. Mr. Bass bad asserted that the
.eegular brewers could sell beer more cheaply than
private persons could ;Indus° it ; and if that were tnte,
Mien the traders' proossarnuet be very esenowicaL
Moweser, allowing bs. for. brewleg, the value Of the
rr of barley when converted into beer (of which
itf:Med 144 gallons) *as 75a., exclusive of tin
blirewer's prat. Bet the. aieurtiet bad to pay for bee
st the lowest eweragis , eoi often la -4ch and
• galioa. " i,froesd. ea
_the

Zalt•tai

tbwefore

labouring classes to whom cheap beer was of most Im-
portance, and it was very hard that, in consequence of
this tax, they should be made to pay so highly for what
was almost &necessary of life to them. The hardship
was the more aggravating and unjust, because while
boor. an article of home produort was heavily taxed, tea,
coffee, and wines—all foreige produce—were allowed to
pass with a lighter charge. Indeed, almost every object
of indirect taxation, including paper and cotton, had
been relieved, with this one exception. Why should
malt, of ell others, be exempted from the benefit of free-
trade and fiscal reform?—After challenging Mr. M.
. . . . .

Hibson's assertion that the burden of the tire was only
l2i per cent, on the value of the article, Sir Fitzroy
argued that the removal of the duty would bring within
reach of the people not only cheap, but pure beer, and
that the cause of temperance as well as their bodily
health would thus be promoted. The reproach hitherto
addressed to the agitators against the Malt-tax' that no
member of the late Derbyite Cabinet countenanoed their
claim, was answered by the appearance of Sir E. Bolivar
Lytton to imoond the motion. He protested in forcible
language against the plea that the large amount of
spoliation, in such a case, was an excuse for its con-
tinuance. The greater the tax, the greater was the
injury it did to the industry of the land. The question
was, whether the import was neoemary and ex-
pedient? That it was inexpedient was proved by the
harm it did in every direction. It raised the price
of the poor man's beer, and tempted the publican to
adulterate the liquor. It impeded the operations of
the farmer, who could not use his barley as he liked.
and who being thus restricted 14 the feeding of cattle had
to charge more for meat. Thus the burden of the tax
. _ _

preened- on every
.elses. The Board of T-r;de.- 13;:ci

published a report disparaging- m:ft-; food i'o7B-too-17,
but the experience of the most successful breeders led

to a contrary conclusion. The Chancellor of t-h;
Exchequer had admitted the value of malt for this
purpose by the Act he introduced I,st year to permit
ita cue free from duty. As that measure was a failure,
owing to the excise restrictions by which it wilt
shackled, the Government ought to afford effootual
relief in some other shape. A cheap supply of malt
would cheapen not only beer but meat and even bread.
More cattle would be reared for the table, and an
increase of stock would stimulate the general fertility of
the soil. If the finances of the nation would not allow
. . .

---
complete justice to be done, why should partial j wales
be withheld? If the Government could not abolish the
tax, they might reduce it. If they coatld not now reduoe
it, at least they might give some evidence of their willing-
ness to do justice to the farmer when their resources
permitted it. If all who called themselves free-traders
had confidence in free trade, there should be no fear
that the removal of a burden on the national industry
would entail a permanent loss of revenue.—Mr. Neate,
warned the farmers that the removal of the tax would

be no gain to them, because their rents would be raised
In a corresponding degree. The gist of his remark'
was contained in the resolution which was offered as an

amendment to the motion:—" That? considering
the immunities from taxation now enjoyed by the
owners And occupiers of land, they are not entitled to
any special eonsideration on account of the pecuniary
pressure of the melt-tax; and that if, on other grounds,
that tax should be reduced or abolished, compensation
to the revenue should be sought, in the first instance,
by withdrawing from landed property the advantage it
now hes over other property in the shape of total
exemption from probate duty, and partial exemption
from succession duty and income.tax."—The defence of
the landlords was undertaken by Mr. Du Cane. The
repeal of the corn laws ought, he held, to be balanced
by the repeal of the malt duty. Land yielded but a
poor return to its owners compared with other invest-
ments and was unduly burdened by taxation.—As Mr.
Du dine resumed his seat, five gentlemen sitting in a
' row below the gangway, on the Liberal side, all rose at
once, with an eagerness that caused general laughter.
Mr. Thompson caught the speaker's eye. This gentle-
man having gained the coveted opportunity, declared
that although a landowner, naturally prejudiced against
the malt-tax he could not resist the conclusion that its
abolition would not be such a boon to agriculture as
some supposed. To this Mr. hforritt replied that Mr.
Thompson was too busy with railways to know much
about farming, and offered his assurance, as a practical
man, that cheap malt would be a boon to agriculturists,
and through them to the rest of the nation. He also
supplied the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the
sketch of a budget : a penny off the inoome-tax ;
the abolition of the fire insurance duty, and the
reservation of a surplus to redues the naalt-tax to
£4,000,000 next year—Mr. Hardce.stle, speaking
from his experience as a brewer, doubted
whether the removal of the tax would be a gain to the
' farmers. They could not get better prices, if as good,
for their barley, and they would have to compete with
foreign malt, for of course the customs duty would go
with the excise. Colonel Bartelott retorted with a
suggestion that it was the brewers' monopoly which
' Mr. Hardcastle was afraid of losing, and adduced the
testimony of eminent breeders as to the fattening pro-
perties of malt. Hitherto the most authoritative
, speech had been against the tax. No member of the
Government, no man of mark on either side, bad said
a_word.for the duty. But the President of the Board

of Trade now rose to oppose the motion. He objected.
on the part of the Government, to their being tied
down by a resolution like that before the House. If
carried, it would pledge Parliament to do a certain
thing which was embarrasing at this moment, and
which might be equally co in future years. It would
deprive them, in fact, of the freedom which they ought
to possess in dealing with circumstances as they arose.
It great
was the opinion of a
.at many people that intoxi-
.. .

eating liquoie Ought CZ be taxe'clr; a`nd Mr. Gibson
himself held that if soy vestige of indirect
taxation waa to be retained, there was no article
on which it could be impoaed with less injury to the
public interest than on such beverages. A revenue of
over £20,000,000 was derived from the taxes on fermented
drinks. British spirits paid £10,000,000; Colonial rum,
brandy, and gin gave £2,910,000; wine was charged
£1,2:12,824, and in the contribution from malt, in the
as peon
exemption
pe exempted
would
from of haant
us ynsdtueem
shape of beer, was £6,000.000. Why should beer be
foaf
vta.
rx attoi o nEfii g
iSauncdh,
which thank annually e barrel of beer per head of
population, and paid ss. sd. in duty. On the other
hand, Scotland consnrued only a third of a barrel per
head, paying Is. 10d., and Ireland a fifth of a barrel,
paying la Id. Mr. Gibson adhered to his former
calculation which has been Bo cinch criticised, that the
duty was only 12i per cent, on the price of beer.
Whether wholesale or retail, beer was more lightly
taxed than tea, but he would not admit that it was a
more important article of consumption among the
people. If it were put to the public at large, the claims
of tea and coffee to relief from taxation would be pre-
ferred to that of alcoholic liquors. If so much good
was to come from kettlebrewing, why solid the
labourers not brew now? He defended the report of
Mr. Liles On malt as g cattle food, and took credit to
his departitient fez' the trouble they had taken to
ineestigate the subject. The farmers should also bear
in mind that if the duty Was abolished, foreign malt
would be largely introduced. Mr. Gibson was careful
not to commit the Government to Any pledge ill favor
of the farmers' appeal; but he said it was absurd to
suppose that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had •
surplus, and if he resolved to leeeen the indirect taxation
of the country. he would not give due consideration to
all that could be said for malt.—Mr. Henley criticised
Mt: Glbson's argument. The Government were loth to
lay raith hands Upon that "consecrated edi6oe" of
twenty millions built tijittli the taxation of drink, but
they had no such scruples when they diminished the duty
on wines—a hit whioh provoked Conservative Cheers.
Wine was the luxury of the rich, and a foreign product.
Beer might be called almost a necessary of life, and was
produced at home. Yet the taxation on wine was only
7 per cent., while on b er it was 30 per cent. Surely,
if any distinction was drawn, it ought to be the other
way. It wee unworthy of the Government to excite
jealottay between the three kingdoms by suggesting that
one would benefit more than another by a reduction of
texatien He expresged no opinion as to the total
repeal or Immediate redtictidn of the tax, bat he was
confident that if it were diminished one half, the
revenue would in a couple of years recover itself, not
perhaps wholly, but within • million. Talking so much
about beer, Mr. Henley's throat grew dry, and In had
to pause till a glass of water rought to him, when
he thanked God there wne at Test one beverage un-
taxed,—There was some expectation that Mr.
Gladstone would speak, and it was rumoured that
Mt. Disraeli wonld follow. But when Mr. Henley
eat down, the Home, which was now very fall, was
impatient for • divisioit. The debate therefore came to
an end.—Mr. Neste withdrew hit amendment, in order
that Mr. Hardcastle might move the "previous ques-
tion," and upon this the House divided. The time
occupied in minting the members as they pass through
each lobby is usually a fair indication of the numbers,
and when the "tellers' quickly followed mach other
to the table to report their reckoning, it was imagined
that the division was rather close. Such, hoseever,
probed net to be the ease. There were 251 for the
previous Ovation, teed rally 171. for the motion. The
Home therefore dedliaed _the resolution against the
malt-tax by a majority of SO.
WEDIUBIDAT.-I,ord Robert Montign brought for-
ward his bill for the protection of rivers, end moved
its second reading. The object of the measure Is to
prevent the collusion of streams and rivers by the dis-
charge into their channels of sewage matter and the
refine of tosipufaetoriee.—Sir George Grey objected to
the Bill oilthegreSind that it would place almost an.
i limited powers n the binds Of practically irresponsible
bodies.—Mr. Selwin and Mr. Addenda? agreed with
this opinion, believing that the mashinety which the
measure would bring into action was too extensive. —Mr.
Bright declaimed against the Bill in his usual exaggerated
style, and asserted that its enactment would be tanta-
mount to a revolution.—Sir. Cl. Bowyer admitted the
evils isompl,itted of, and offered a practical suggestion.
He advised the introduction Of • Bill to prohibit all
town' from draining their eettage into rivers. Such en
act Would tarry out the common law of the land, and
would at the Sidle time compel the diversion of the
sewage to farming Mitpolles.—As the general opinion
was opposed to the Bill in its prevent shape, Lord
Robert Montagu eonsented to withdraw h. He then
, moved the second reading of the Sewage Mitigation
' Bill, which was agreed to, Sir George Grey remarking
that it would require careful consideration in committee.
I Several measures were advanced a stage, and the House
adjourned after a sitting of five hours and • half.
Dinettes'. —Sir Fitzroy Kelly gave notice of a Bill
to rigolato the mudifications of chemists and druggists.
—Mr. F. Peel, in answering a question with respect to
the American mail steamers, said the committee on the
-tel service bad reported that no subsidy to these
mails was now necessary, and that the view of the coin-
ihittee would not be loot sight of when the present con-
tract 'terminated in 1867.—Mr. Gladstone intimated
that be could net yet fix • day for the Budget. —ln
'reply to Mr. White, Lord Palmerston said be could not
recommend Parliament to repeal the Aberdeen Act In
+Mier to gratify the Brazilians, for he believed that its
(*peal would instantly revive the slave trade. He added '
=
Mations were proceeding with • view to re-
q. Mg diplomatic) relations with BraziL His lord-
ihipturther stated that the English Minister at Monte
'Video had remonstrated with the Brazilian Admiral on
lii.amumed intention of bombarding that town, and
lead 'been assured that British property would be
pempested as fee as possible. No farther.interferenoe
*shoaled in the matter.,—ln reply to Lord It.
and Mr. Blight, Mx, Leyerd said the Minister of
4 States had made no demands on the English
for 'compensation for losses sustained by
_ genie claims had been sent in from
subjeCts against the United States Government.
, House then went into committee On the Navy
, Estimieees, and • loag debate ensuesi on the system of
manag?ment in our dockyarde, the appointatent Of Mr.

Reed to the head of the shipbuilding department, and
the present state of the navy, which Sir Morton Pete
declared was very inefficient and unsatisfactory.—Lord
0. Paget gave a description of each of our iron-pleted
ves• is, and insisted that they were all thoroughly
I efficient, and his lordship also stated that Mr. Read bail
fully met the requirements of the Admiralty. The
, usual votes for the service were agreed to.
reply to &question by Sir Hervey a
Sir R. Peel said the attention of the Government
been called to the fact of a stipendiary magistrate having
I signed a requisition to the lord Mayor of Dublin le
' convene a meeting on certain political subjects, but,..
the gentleman had expressed his regret at having doses%
the Government had sot thought fit to proceed further la
' the matter. Mr. Hennessy called the etteationi
of the Government to • case in Ireland in whisk
I a man had been sentenced to seven years' roma
servitude for begging; and also a ease in which another
person had only been imprisoned for • month foe
stealing. He expressed a hope that Government would
institute an inquiry into the matter.—Mr. Moshe*
remarked that in the former ease the conviction wu.
for this offence, that the prisoner was an Irish gentle.
man who would do no work. (Laughter.)-Mr. A.
Mills celled attention to the state of affairs in Neer
Zealand, and moved an address to the crown on lie
subject of the war in that conntry.—Mr. Rookie*
reminded the House that New Zealand had bee
colonised in the same manner as the New England
States by the pilgrim fathers, not only without tb•
assistance' but in spite of the Government. He wen
prepared to vindicate the conduct of the first settler;
for if they had not taken that step at this moment New
Zealand would have been a Freneh colony. Therefore
in the interests of England and of civilisation, their
conduct had been wise and just in disposawaing the will
animals of New Zealand, amongst which , the wild man
wan the most mischievous The first great mistake
was the interference of the Imperial Government and
the conclusion of the treaty of Waitangi with savages.
He complained that our merchants, from a lust for
money, had furnished the aborigines with arms and
ammunition with which to shoot down their country.
men, and said what the Government might now to do
was to allow the colonists to govern themselves and de
what they liked. After considerable discrasion the
motion was withdrawn.

eonatuseve of beer a heavy oCerge, of whioh 001: •
I fourth found its way into the Eaohegner. And thee
iv ritsroy addreased to the House a familaeinquiry--
11-ould they rob the poor mart of his beer? It was the