The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-16 00:00:00

had DO objection to take the avetage of malt, not for one year!
alone, but foe the three years (1791, 2,3) preceding the war, when
the population consisted of about eight millions, and he would
show there was during these years a greater quantity of malt than
there was in the year, 1821, 22, with a population of nearly
eleven millions. There was a similar decrease in the consumption
of tea and other ankles, on which high duties were laid ; but
the decrease was principally on malt. Ile would opiate the mo.
thin before the House, convinced that it would have no effect either
in increasing the consumption, benefiting the revenue, or adding
to the ainiforta id the por.
:tin HEN ISON did not know how any Member of the Howie
toad acquire a more lasting or more real reputation than by %hew-
ing how a large sum would he saved to the country, and how the
pWITOUId drink their beverage at &cheaper rate. The sum of 293.1e101.
was to be saved by the motion : was not this a sufficient cause to let
hr nation go to &Committee 2 IVith respect to the argument that
beer waa not used by the rich and the opulent, it was true it was not
used in Lortlon by them ; it was at their country houses, the scenes
of their hospitality, and where it was assumed that the grandee hail
his liquor at a bundled or a hundred and thirty per cent. cheaper
than the poor man. When this was raid, Was it not a sufficient
reason to have it go to a Committee, anti inquired into ? 11'nuld it
riot show the House was ready to hear the complaints of all, and
mete out equal justice to all ? There would be also a moral conse-
quence frotn this measure: it would drive the lower classes from
Hair habits of dram-drinking, and carry them bark to their old and
wholesome beverage. Ile would vote for the motion.
Mr. Clt I PPS thought there was no law evaded more repeatedly
and successfully than those imposing restrictions on malt. There
were various repositories in the country for malt, which escaped
Ike vigilance of the Excise officers. He did not think
t e present laws oppressive. No complaints were made against
the n, therefore it was fair to infer they were satisfactory. He
thought the present nation would be attended with danger, and
ir.and not increase the revenue. Ile would therefore oppose the
biotion.
Mr. MONCK would oppose the motion. The tax on beer was an
old one ; it was as old as the E ,cise itself. This tax was made
part of the hereditary revenue in the reign of Charles the Second.
The landlords of that day would nut 'Weer it to be laid upon malt,
at that would is truth be a description of land tax. As to the in-
equality complained of, it was necessary, under the present coin.
pficated system of taxation, that we should be taxed with apparent
inequality, that equality might be nod ; and if the operation of the
poseit system was fairly considered, It would be found that the
landaller had his full and fair sha-e of the burden. Ile paid the
land.rata, the pour-rates, and the highway rates, besides the tax
for the conveyance of vagrants; and it •• as highly necessary that
Anne boon should be ;riven them to place them upon an equa-
lity with the rest of the community. If the principle of inequa.
lay were to be acted upon, he might call fur the repeal of the le-
kocy tax, which was admitted to be unequal, because it was cott-
oned merely to personal property, and did not affect lands. The rea-
son of the exception was, it was supposed, the landholder paid enough
and there was no other mode of reaching the property of the ca-
pitalist and the fundholder. As to the malt duty being a peculiar
object in this metnipolia, it was equally so in the small towns :
there WAS not a housewife in the country that did not brew ; he
binned brewed ; but if the high duties were taken off, he was con-
fident the private brewing would be discontinued, on account of the
superior skill poasened by the public brewer. As to the argument
respecting Ireland, there was no analogy between that country and
England. In Ireland the gentlemen drank wine, and the common
temple dark whiskey. The landholderof Ireland was the most fa-
voured of all classes—he paid no poor.rates. If he thought :he trans-
fer of the duties woold be attended with benefit, lie would support it.
Captain %I A RER IX did not think the arguments of his rela-
tive were in the least weakened by what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Reading, or trout any other Ilor. Member; lie would
therefore support the motion.
Lord ALM( /RP had listened with attention to all the speeches
that bad Ir:en made on the subject, and it appeared to him that all
parties had forgotten that in matters of taxation two and two did
not make four. .1 larger increase to the revenue, it was fair to
arct was calculated upon by the taking off the 2s. a bushel. It
ea. raid by Wine lion. Members that a tea should be laid on the
article wheel was in common Use ; upon this principle, the tax
would be removed from silk and laid on snap, which was used by
all. He would oppose the motion of his friend, as, in his opinion,
it only gave an increase of taxation without an increase of revenue.
Mr. C. SMITH opposed the motion.
Mr. MAIO:KIN complained that all the arguments of the
Malabo* who opposed him, bad no reference whatever to the ques-
tion t the inequality of the duty was not denied--it was admitted
on all sides—it was wanted to as notorious: the Right Honour-
able lientlentao had admitted this, and yet he had refused him a
Committee. The Right Honourable Gentleman had argued upon
an abstract question, and not upon the one submitted by him to
the House, saving of 21434001. a year, which he maintained
might be made in the collection of the revenue, was denied by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he (Mr. Maberly) had this
statement from the eta iuments of the Commissioners; and there-
fore, when the Chanvellar denied it, he denied his own accounts.
When the Right Honourable Gentleman denied his documents,
the House ought to support hint in niaintaining them. The Right
Honourable Gentleman agreed with him in the abstract, but he
differed partially from him as to the tax falling principally upon
the poor; it would not be denied that it fell chiefly upon those who
bought beer by retail, and, therefore, the ta\ was harsh, oppressive,
and unjust. The Honourable Member for Reading hail indeed
said the law was old, and that it was • kind of land-tax. Upon
s hom, he walled to know, did this land-tax fall ? On the poor,
who had no more a right to pay it than the Members who sat in
that Hotta. As to its affecting the agriculturists by the increase
of the growth of barley, that class always argued this question as
if they were to par the tax : they did not pay a sixpence of it 1 it
all fell upon the consumer. Ile would bring forward his motion
annually, though it were to be lost as it was last year. Respecting
the frauds of the trade, it should be recollected they were practised
in the mixing of the liquor, and not in the making of the malt.
According to the Reports of the old Committee.., the frauds were
practised in the malting, but now they were nearly at an viii ; and
in his opinion laws ahoOld be so matte as to prevent fraud &love-
their. Ile himself brewed at home; but if the duties on malt wire
laid on fairly, the public, he thought, would not brew; it would
be left to the public brewer, because he had more skill. Like
every 31enther who submittal a motion to the House, he must
yield to the majority; but lie was not convinced by the arguments
which he had heard.

The House then tlividetl—
A yis 26 I Not s 120 I 31njori'l against the motion 104.
ABOLITION OF VIA/GOING.

On oar return to the gallery—Mr If M E was on his leis. On
former stage of the Mutiny Bill, he had endeavoured to impress
npm the House the propriety of abolishing Hugging in the army.
Ile did not hope now. nor was it his intention or. offer any thing
stronger on the present occasion to induce the House to accord to
his propositions. One fact, however, he was desirous of adding,
which had came to le n knowledge since this *object was last under
consPeration. Ile had met an officer who had served in the
Win nnburg army. From this officer he learned, that during the
reign of the late king, corporeal punishments were frequent, and
the discipline of the soldiery by no means improved by their fre-
quency. l'nder the present King, however, corporeal punishments
were discountenanced—they seldom exceeded Inn strokes of the cane
(the specie% of punishment there infliceeel)and the good effectsof
dime-
uountrnnncing it were to be found i 3 the improved discipline and
condition of the soldiery. In the former -eign the soldiers were
Owed week after week for the repetition of the same offerer, for
which they had been previously punished, and they became Mei-
moldy odious and indiffzreat. At present the practice of rditary
confinement was resorted to, and averdnl wi.h the nowt beneficial
consequences. Punishments were fewer, confinement for eight or
ten dins was of rare oceurence, and wns oily imposed fir greater
o &rem. There were three sta.., aof this punishment proporiionate
to the offence, the first was bir 'three days, the second fur six, and
the third for eight or ten days. Simple • confinement was the
punisFment in cases of ordinary, and confinement in irons, that in
cares of more aggravated delinquency. A soldier who was twice
rondesuned fir the same offence, was transferred to what was called
the condemned battalion. There were two battaliors i IV irteiiiburg
who bore this denomination. The first was composed of these who had
b:en cond. tined, and ol whom hm.es of reformation were entcrtined.
The other battalion consisted of those convicted of greater offence',
or found inure incorrigible. There were various ()diet' regulations
adopted with a view of avoiding the infliction and the disgrace of cor-
purest punishment on the soldiers. Such were the advantages
found to n soh from such it system dust even the officers, who at
first wits adverse to the change, now changed their opinions, ned
approved of it. There was an inducement in our army, held out
to dime who entered it, that they might arrive at the highest Ina-
ton in it. How could a Nikkei, rising from such a rank, recover
front the disgrace of corporeal punishment, should it have been
his misfortune to have had it inflicted upon him ? Although the
hope of rising in the army was very
.vague and uncertain, yet a'
man aho had entered into the army stipulated for service for eight
or ten years. Ile might be permitted to return to his family with-
out having the stigma of corporeal punishment for a trivial offence.
Ist. which he may have fallen in an unguarded mauler t. At a
tone that we were anxious to erase every species of cruelty and
brutality from our civil code, why not also endeavour to erase
also front our military regulatioes such a cruelty as he now called
upon the House to abolish. at'hilst we were engaged in legisla-
b, n on all the minutiae that related to the treatment of cattle—
Whilst we evinced such feeling for the brute creation, we should
n• t be deaf to our own filiow-subjects, or unmindful of what was
due 1.1 their condition. (Cheer.). lie really thought the effect of
corporeal punislimenta 1111 the officers was objectionable, for the
o iservance of such punishments, day after day, could not contri-
%toe to cultivate or primwee humane principles in their minds. It
been said that the imerference of this House was an interference
wth the authority end especial prerogative of the King. Ile ed-
mined the King as the head of the army, but also contended
for the right of this House to interfere in all Bills which came
before them, and to suggest such alterations as tl.cy thought
most available for the pewee-nun of the army. In order to render
his 1111'i011 less 111/Violl. 10 former objections which had been urged,
coolined the operation of the amendment he intended to pro-
pose to the ['lilted Kingdom. The Hon. nlember concluded by
moving that the following clause he added to the Bill:
" And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful to in-
flict cur/vocal punishment by flogging, on any private soldier, cor-
poral, or nonomminiasioned offi-er in the army or militia, within
the United Kingdom, anything herein continued to the contrary
notwithstanding."
Jac was not in attendance when the present Bill
Wa..111.C11,(11 in the Committee, or he should have °Riotd a few
sentiments upon it, which he now begged leave to trespass on the
attention of the Howie. For his own part, when entrusted with
the command of a regiment, he had endeavoured to do away with
lho mode of punishment. Wear, hear.) There were many other
officers fa- whom he could hear a similar reatiniony ; and there was
a gem-rails-prevailing disposition in the minds of commanding
ofheers, that it should be seldom resorted to. In the introduction
of the present clause, therefore. he thought there was no slight re.