The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-09 00:00:00

THE EXPRES@, PRIDA? trrtiprO, NAT •, 1851.

th so • coseggiratiOa ex- •
/
”Podt°
41 the intliettr the
gg yeses age' a 'Use sat to
'Madder ,1 • land, sad ammo' others milt
r,.. lay, anatiensive brewer, lad given evidence
that committers Mr. Barclay bad been asked if by
repeal of the malt tax the manufacture of malt would
he improved or rendered cheaper except as regarded the
meant of duty ? To this question Mr. Barclay had replied
'duit he did not think it Would be improved at all, and that
no regalatious existed to interfere with the manufacture of
good melt. OW et the most eutonelve molesters in the
iamb% St. T. Taft. at Memee 1111.064 WA also been
camel tame the isommitt. Kr. Taylor had been
aid Cr would have greater facilities for carrying on his
m If the duty were repealed and if he were not liable
be the domiciliary visits of the excise ? Ilia answer had
bow, " I don't think we should." He (the Chancellor
et the Exchequer) admitted that • tax upon anything
sem not in itself a desirable thing. He was not
Wood to prove that the tax was in itself desirable,
neither was he bound to prove that this duty produced no
inconvenience. His position was this--that, in order to
obtain five millions of revenue, it was difficult to raise it in
a manner less oppressive to the consumer, less burdensome
to the producer, less injurious to the country, and less ex-
, pensive to the revenue. It was quite true that the con-
sumption of malt had not increased in proportion to the
population. Tea, coffee, and cocoa had increased in a much
greater ratio. But this ho did not at all attribute to the
duty. (Hear, hear.) There had been a change in the
habits of the people. They did not drink beer to the same
extent that their fathers did. Any one acquainted with
the habits of the labouring classes knew that tea, coffee,
and articles of that kind were consumed to • much
greater extent than formerly, and this had very
much kept down the consumption of beer. (Hear.)
If the present duty operated as • check upon the consump-
tion of beer, it had the same effect upon other articles.
The duty on tea, for instance, was twice as large as that on
malt, and as it wa. a competing article, if he reduced the
tax upon one, he would be compelled in fairness to make •
corresponding reduction upon the other; and, if ho did
that, the case would be precisely the same as it was before.
He was, however, happy to say, as he had stated last year,
the consumption of intoxicating beverages was largely dimi-
nishing while that of the unintoxicatingwas as largely increas-
ing,a circumstance which he thought was very desirable for
the habits and morals of the public.(Cheers.) Hon. gentlemen
appeared to think that if the malt duties were repealed a
large reduction in the price of beer would take place; and
certainly their anticipations were, to say the least of them,
somewhat sanguine. A gentleman whose name was well
known in connexion with it, Mr. Baker, had anticipated
that the result would be • reduction in the price of a hun-
dred per cent. Now the hon. member for Essex had given
him (the right hon. baronet) great credit for having dis-
covered that the proportion of 300 to 100 was as three to
one ; but he should certainly be glad if some one
would explain Mr. Baker's calculation to him; for
he should have thought that if the were reduced 100
per cent. it would be equivalent to there being no price at
all. (Laughter.) But the hon. member for the North
Riding (Mr. Cayley) bad gone further even that, for he had
fixed the reduction at .500 per cent. (Renewed laughter.)
Ile did not know what the hon. member for Derby (Litr.
Baas) would say to that, for if this expectation were re-
alised the hon. gentleman would, he supposed, have to fore
persons five times the value of his ale to drink it. (Loud
laughter.) These were specimens of the wild assertions
which were put forward in support of the motion; but what-
ever force they might have with gentlemen who drank beer,
with sober minded men they would he quite powerless. (A
laugh.) But would the repeal of the duty really cause a
corresponding fall in the price 1 Before the duties were
lowered they amounted to 70s. per quarter on strong beer,
sod on ordinary beer to 501. Now they did nut probably
exceed 214., but when thi• great reduction was made the
price of the beer was not lowered according to the evidence
of Mr. Barclay, more than a halfpenny per quart.
(blear, hear.) Was it worth while, then, to give up
• revenue which amounted to tire millions, when
• reduction so much larger then than • total
repeal would be now, did not make a greater
difference than a halfpenny a quart ? (Cheers.) Besides,
as the hon. gentleman opposite had said, the present duties
were, in point of fart, a protection to English growers;
and therefore to repeal them, with a view to their benefit,
would be one of the most ridiculous things he had ever
heard of. (Cheers.) An hon. gentleman had stated that
fineign malt was prohibited for the benefit of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer; but really he must demur to such
an extraordinary assertion. He would get just as much
by the customs on foreign, as by the excise on
home made and therefore while it did benefit
Ric English malting into rests that foreign should be prohi-
bited the result would be precisely the same if it were ad-
mitted. (Hear, hear.) Nor could he grant that the repeal
of thy duties would encourage home brewing—milting at
home lie considered was entirely out of the question--for
at present in some parts of England the practice was com-
mon enough already. In his own village and for four
miles round every labourer did snake his own beer ; and,
therefore, in districts where such was not the case there was
nothing to prevent them if they wished. (Cheers.) Ho
considered that the repeal of the duties would increase
dissipation, as well as cause a larger consumption of ardent
spirits; and, therefore, the cause of public morality would
suffer much front the proposed change. Here was a tax
which yielded live millions, very easy of collection, and as
equally distributed as was possible. It was Wlt true that
the agricultural labourers paid it, as uscrted by the hon.
manlier for Surrey (Mr.Drunimund) ; for the coal-whippers
of London probably drank snore porter than the labourers
of two or three counties. Here, he repeated, was a tax
equable in its distribution awl easily levied; and he asked
the house nut to give it up, for, independently of financial
considerations, he was convinced that its repeal would not be-
nefit the country, but, on the contrary, it would be full of
mischief to the community at large. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI was surprised at an expression which had
fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ile said—
" What is a halfpenny in a quart of beer ;" But when a
halfpenny was talked of being added to the quartern loaf, he
said there would be a rebellion. (Cheers.) Ile (Mr.l)israeli)
looked upon this tax with reference to its influence upon
the capital of the most suffering class of the community.
(Cheers.) Their position had been placed before the con-
sideration of the house, under circumstances which
demanded their most attentive eonsiderati a ; for the suf.
tering. of the occupiers of the soil had been universally and
authoritatively recognised. (Hear, hear.) It was difficult
to estimate the degree of those sufferings, hut night after
night various estimates had been offered to the house, mostly
by hon. gentlemen on the opposite benches. (Hear, hear.)
never they had boasted of the amount which had
aserued to the community as they called it. they did in point
se fact make an estimate of the loss of the occupiers. What
was the situation of that class which, according to the go-
, vernment statements, and estimates, and data was the class
experiencing a dilapidation of capital nut equalled in the
experience of any class in the country ? And what was
the remedy offered by the ministry of the country to that
class ? It was to give up the cultivation of wheat.
But they could only sustain that position by sustaining the
argument founded on the principle that political economy
contradicted. They could only maintain it by proving
that restriction was a benefit. They could only encounter
it by demonstrating that large importations did not check
culture. (If car, hear.) lie (Mr. Disraeli) was willing to
admit that that was a rash hand which would pull to
pieces too rudely the financial system of this country. Ile
had never concealed his wish that this tax should be main-
tained. Ile had never concealed his wish that the whole
system of their local taxation should be coutinued if possible.
lie asserted it was impossible they could maintain the malt
talons' continue to race from the people of this country •
large revenue separate from the general revenue otherwise
raised. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible they could con-
tinue to do that if they established • system of equal
taxation. If they were not prepared to do that
by agriculture which Mr. Ricardo sanctioned, and Mr.
M•Culloch recommended, and which the first lights of
political economy had sanctioned in their speeches and
writings, namely, to put the cultivators, the owners, and
occupiers of the soil on the same level as the other classes
of society', all other attempts were futile. (Hear, hear.)
They hail. been told the other night, very much to his (Mr.
Disraeli's) surprise, by an hon. gentleman from whom he did
not expect to hear such a sentiment, that he recognised no
difference between a protective duty and the new-fashioned
term of a countervailing duty. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Disraeli), however, should protest against any such
assimilation. (Hear, hear.) The question of protection
had nothing to du with an adjustment of taxation
that would place the cultivator of the soil on a level with
the other ciartes. If hon. gentlemen were willing to adopt
• system of protection, whereof the benefit or disadvantage
resulting therefrom the cultivator of the soil would have
kis share--they, on that side of the house, hal nothing to
do with it ; but if they wished to establish a system of taxa-
tion in which they raised a large amount from one class
that others did not contribute to, they should place the
extra contributing class on the same level of taxation.
Inasmuch as by a system of taxation they raised from the
soil a large revenue for the purposes of tho community to
which the community did not contribute; therefore, the
agriculturists sought, under • new state of affair', to be re-
lieved from those burdens. But if they preferred, thinking
it better that these burdens should remain ' • if it were the
opinion of the house that it was for the good of the eom-
, munity that the extra taxation of a clam should exist ;
if they thought that, beyond financial advantages, the
blessings of self-government were considerable, and the
facility with which five millions—as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had stated—were raised from the land, was not
to be lightly lost, then it was for hon. gentlemen opposite to
some forward and offer the terms on which they wished to
retain these advantages. (Hear, hear.) Never should it be
reproached to hon. gentlemen em his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of
the house, that they asked for a countervailing duty, on
account of these disadvantages. They accepted the new
principles of the new system, and asked to be
made free of the grievances which at present
pressed heavily upon them. (Hear, hear.) It was
Ceder the induct:ice of that view that he (Mr. Dieraeli)
amid record his vote In favour of the motion of the hon.
Member for the North Riding, who on the present, as on
hauler occasions, introduced the subject with a real and
ahiliey worthy of the highest coma non.
After • few words from lit. I, 'mum, which ware totally
baaelible in the galley?,
Kr. HUME should support the motion of the hon.
weber for the North Riding. It was then twenty-
/Ana years since lye (Mr. Hume) brought on the
splallism of the repeal of the malt tax, and called
Wit the country gentlemen to supaort him. On
that occasion he demonstrated as plainly as figures could
demonstrate, that the tax on malt, heavy as it was, had a
most injurious effect as well on agriculture as on the
morals of the people. He also demonstrated that as much
malt had been consumed in IT&S as in 1625, notwithatand-

Eis great 111“111110 of population. He aimed it lest
' tin an administration that had =Width° bread
sad meet et the walking classes to seek to matinee the tax
upon their drink. ("Hear, hear," end a laugh.) He, there-
bre, would say away with the duty ; for although
it brought them Ave millions annually, yet whatever
source they raised revenue treat it should not be
from the beverage of the working man. (Hear, hear.)
If the proposition of his hon. friend were carried it would
give a cheap and a not intoxicating drink to the people, and
would be a relief to the agriculturist at the same time.
The house should not pay much regard to the pecuniary
arguments of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, because he (Mr. Hume) could tell the right
hon. gentleman where he could get 6,600,0001. (Hear,
hear.) If the government would only reduce the army.
navy, and ordnance estimates to the extent at which they
stood during the administration of the Duke of Wellington
they would exactly save an amount of 6,500,0001. Let the
government put on a fair and equitable income tax, and it
would nearly give them the means of getting rid of the
malt tax. There were other sources from which the right
hon. gentleman could obtain money. During the last 60
years there was no less than 78,000,0001. paid upon the
transfer of personal property, whilst real property had
not contributed one shilling to the revenue. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BASS supported the motion, believing it would con-
duce to the interest of the labouring class.
Mr. BROTHERTON, who more than doubted that re-
sult, opposed it.
Mr. 1 ENLEY, who apprehended that real property paid
more than its fair share of the public burthena already,
wished to have the malt-tax taken out of the schedule.

Lord J. RUSSELL—Before the house proceeds to a di-
vision I wish to make an observation in reply to a statement
of the hon. member for Montrose. The hon. gentleman
stated that in 1826 he brought forward a motion on this
subject, and be now says it is extraordinary that the tax
on malt should never have been reduced whereby its con-
sumption would have been increased. But some years
atter that it became a question whether this tax or the tax
on beer should be reduced, and the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the hon. member for Cambridge, preferred
taking off the tax on beer. Thus 3,000,000/. was taken off
beer. (Hear.) That tax existed for more than a century,
so that this country is not now more taxed for malt than it
was taxed for malt and beer 70 years ago. My hon. friend
the member for Montrose says, without entering into par-
ticulars, that he would at once take 5,000,0001. front the
charge fur the army and navy. Now, I totally deny that
the amount proposed for the army and navy this year
is greater than the amount was in 1845. There has been
an increase in the ordnance; but, looking at this matter as
a whole, I do not believe there has been any increase made
by the present government beyond the estimates of 184-5.
But the house would not be prepared to make that great
I diminution which the hon. member would propose, and
therefore I come again to the assertion which seems to me
undeniable, and which is the main reason for voting
against the motion, that it would leave the finances of the
country in a ruinous condition, by taking .3,000,00:'l. front
the revenue without having any source from which to
supply the deficiency.
Ir. CAY LEY replied. lie said he must remind the
noble lord that he had already thrown away 5,000,0001.,
and that if it had not been for the cour,e of legislation in
which he had taken part the malt tax might have been re-
pealed without any inconvenience to the revenue.
The house then divided—
For Mr. Cayley's motion
Against it 258-136
SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.

Mr. COWA:4no;Ctifo;lC,;;etObilniina bill to regu-
late adminiou to the lay or secular chairs in the Scottish
univenities. . .

Mr E. ELLICE and Mr. F. Matu supported the motion,
which was opposed by
Sir It. INULIS, upon the ground that it would overturn
a wholesome system, and leave the youth of Scotland to be
educated by professors of any religion, or of none.
Lord J. RUSSELL cordially approved of the bill, for
which, after a few words from Mr. CILUITERItI and Mr.
FORBES, leave was given.
BOARD OF CUSTOMS.

Mr. MITCHELL moved, " That all petitions complain-
ing of the hoard of customs, which had been presented in
the present session of parliament, be referred to the select
committee on customs."

Agreed t:,7 ---
INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX.

On the motion, by Mr. Hume., fur the appointment of a
select committee to inquire into the present mode of assess-
ing and collecting the income-tax,
Mr. GLADSTONE observed, that this was a question of
importance, which had not been discussed. There wan
reason to fear that the inquiry might be whether or not
faith should be kept with the public fundholder. lie mimed
that the debate be adjourned.
After some discussion,
Loral J. RUSSELL said the house having agreed to limit
the tax to one year, for the purpose, as clearly stut,il by
Mr. Hume, of appointing a committee to inquire whether
the tax could he made more equitable, the country would
be disappointed if this course was departed from.
Mr. DISRAELI considered that the house was morally
pledged to appoint this committee, and declared he would
not join in any attempt to get rid of it.
Some further diveus,ionensucd ; after which the motion
was agreed to.
THE KAFFIR TRIBES.

Colonel DUNNE objected to the formation of the select
committee on the relations of Kaffir tribes, upon the ground
that there WA 'I no Irishman upon it.
Lord J. RUSSELL saia that nu intention had existed on
his part of excluding Irish members from the committee.
It had not even occurred to him until that morning that
there were no Irish members on the committee. If the
hon. and gallant member fur Portarlington(CoLllunne) had
any desire to be placed on the committee, the name of tho
hon. and gallant member fur Greenwich (Admiral Dunilas)
might be withdrawn, and that of the hon. and gallinit mem-
ber (Col. Dunne) put in its place. (Hear hear.)

Mr. lIOBIIOUSE characterised the constitution of com-
mittees in the house as most partial, inequitable, and un-
just. (hear, hear.) This opinion he was prepared to de-
fend at all times; and if no utherperson brought the question
before the house he would do so either this wasion or next.
The committees were formed by a certain number of gen-
tlemen over the table, who coos red lists and virtually
nominated them. (h ear, hear.)pa Many of the most
able and intelligent members of parliament were in this
manner altogether passed over. Ile begged to ask the
question whether members who were not nominated might
look upon it in the light of exemption or exclusion. It was
either the one or the other

Mr. REYNOLDS considered that there ought, at least,
to be three Irishmen on that committee. The home con-
sisted of OS memben, a hundred awl five of these were
Irishmen, about one-sixth, and the fair proportion would
therefore have been three on a committee of this kind.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied the
charge that Irishmen were systematically excluded from the
committees. In fact, there was not a single committee
which had not one or two Irish members upon it. (Cheers.)
In this very case was not his hon. fciend, the Under-Secre-
tary fur the Colonies, an Irish member? (Cheers.) Ile
(the right hon. baronet) had insisted on the exclusion front
a committee of an hon. friend of his, the member for Stoke,
than whom a more proper person could not have been sc-
lectml, simply because he wished Irish members to be upon
it. (Cheers.)
Mr. KEOGH replied, that the hon. member for Kinsale
represented, not an Irish constituency, bat his department.
(Hear.) Ileobjected, however, to the committee altogether,
on the ground that it was an unfair one. (Cheers.) With
respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement he
had only to observe that last session, up to a period when
the attention of the house was called to it, there had
been 21 committees, on 11 of which there were no Irish
members.

Mr. SADLEIR acquitted the noble lord at the head of
the government of any intention of leaving out the names
of Irish members from committees; but when be found
that no Irish member was appointed on the committee to
inquire into the proper situation of the transatlantic packet
station, he could not suppose that there had been uo systc
matic exclusion. (Loud cheers.)
Colonel DUNNE moved the adjournment of the house,
which was seconded by Mr. HOIIIIOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL had had no intention to exclude Irish
members, and would therefore, on Monday, propose the
names of three to be added to the committee, making it
thus consist of seventeen hon. gentlemen—(loud cheers)--

whereupon
Colonel DUNNE withdrew his motion.
M. REYNOLDS, amidst cries of " spoke," hoped that
in the selection quality u well as quantity would be con-
sidered.

Mr. KEOGH would oppose the nomination until they
saw who tho three Irish numbers were. (Cheers.) He
therefore would move that th house be adjourned.
The SPEAKER decided that Mr. Keogh was not in
order; but, on the name of the Marquis of Granby being
proposed, '
Mr KEOGH repeated his motion.
. _

)4r. HUME iuldressed a few words of remonstrance to the
hon. gentleman, amidst the loud cheers of the house.
Colonel DUNNE also hoped that Mr. Keogh would not
persevere in his opposition.
Mr. SADLEIR suggested that no inconvenience could
arise from the postponement. They were practical men of
business—(loud cries of "Oh")—and had no ideas of ob-
struction.

1;;;d vSi AAS hoped Mr. Keogh would not persevere.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the hon. gentleman seemed to
take it for granted that he would pursue • reasonable
course on Monday. (Loud cheers.) lie thought it very
hard on the Marquis of Granby that he should be objected
to because the Irish members to be proposed on Monday
might be exceptionable. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. BRIGHT doubted whether the Irish members had
suffered exclusion, or that any questions had suffered by
their exclusion. (Loud laughter.) As, however, the had
desired to take part in the committee work he ho that
they would be allowed to do so, because be thoug t there
was no branch of imperial interests in which they had not
the same concern as the other members. (Cheen.)
Mr. KEOGH, after the peculiarly friendly sneer of the
hon. member for Manchester, should certainly follow his
own views and should insist on a division.
After a few words from Mt. Moog and ode or two other
members,

The house divided—
For the adjournment
Against
The committee was then nominated as follows :—Mr. Se-
cretary at War, the Marquis of Granby, Sir Edward Bux-
ton, Mr. Stanley, Colonel Thompson, Mr. Cardwell,
Viscount Mandeville, Mr. Evans, .Mr Mackinnon, Mr.
Carter, Sir Joshua Welmsley, Mr. Books?, Admiral Dun-
dee, Colonel Estcourt, and Mr. Hawes.
Mr. LBOO.ll gars mottos that to-roorraw he would move