The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-03-22 00:00:00

had no desire to tax the funds, neither was he one
of those who desired to assess the public creditoe
for the pool's rates, coutisiced• as he was that
shifting the burden would nut advance the iiste'="
rest's of agriculture. Ile confessed he did desire to
-see the poor's* rates reduced; and he thought that i
important subject ought to be examined in that
House, with a view to its gradual abolition, as he
was fully satisfied the rates were as injurious to the
lower orders who received, as the oilier classes of
the community who paid them. Ile was, therefore,
far from wishing to extend that fund, as the COI/se-
quence would be an incre Ise in the number of the
claimants on it, but no diminution of distress.
%Vith respect to the measure which lie had the
honour to. bring before them, he wished, in the
first place, to thaw the attention of the [louse
to the enormous extent of taxation pressing upon
barley. lie believed the total amount of duties
drawn 'from barley, that was, from melt, beer,
and spirits, was little short of 10,000,0001. (or
this country, and 1,300,0004 for Ireland; but lie
meant to cooper hnnsrlf solely to Great Britain.—.
OF the above amount, the melt tax wall 28s. per
quarter, the beer tax amounted to 32a. Gd. per
quarter, making together Gus. per quarterof duty.
Oil spirits the duty amounted to the stem•of ten
pounds per quarter. The pregrese of the duty on
malt was thus:—ln 1780 it was 10..61. per qr.. end
so it remained till 1802, when it was raised to
181. Bd. per quarter ; and in the year following it
was still further raised to 34.. per quarter. On
spirit., the progress of the duty had been similar.
In 1791, it was 21. 10s. per quarter; in 1793,
4d. ; and iu 1797, 41. 3.. 4d. ; and so went
progressively advancing till it reached the present
amount of 10/. per quarter on the barley. exclusive
of she Moll Duty. Let the Douse see how this
would Openste Upon the laird : 28s. (the duty (111
Milli) was 5/. 12.. per acre, calculating four quit-
ters of barley to each acre ; 60s. (the ameiiiit of
the malt anal beer duty together), was 12/. per
acre, calculating the growth per acre in the
same manner; and the deity on spiii's atuount-
ed on that calculstion to 40/. per acre. lie
did not pretend to say that all this was paid
by the agriculturist, he knew that in a great
measure it was b rite by the consumer; but he
thought he should beable to spew the way in which
it did press, namely, in the reduction of consump-
tion, and that to a very great exteut. Ile would
beg to remark one circumstance, which was tine,
that the duty on malt was never 'shied by Mr. Pitt.
It was 10.. Gd. in 1780, and Mr. Pitt never could
be induced to mile it, except on one occasion,
in 1791, when he laid a temporary tax of three-
peece per quarter upon it, but feeling the irtiL
policy of the procedure, he in the year
follow-
iug repealed it. 111 1802 the duty was raischt •
to 18s. 8.1. and in the year following to 345. per
quarter. lie should tate the two periods and
compare them, to chew that the effect hail been to
reduce, the consumption. Front the accounts on
the •r table it appeared he intended to draw hit
stay meets, and lie should take an average of three
-pet sods: the first commencing its 1791, and con-
cluding in 1801 ; the next commencing in 1804,
and concluding in 1814 ; and the third an average
of the ben four yews. In the first aveinge, coin.
mencing at 1791—hi had excluded the year 1800,
ss it was a sear of extraordinary scarcity', *froth
whioli no Toriclnvions could fairly be aleauced—in
that find period England's average annuli curisump-
tion of malt wa5'27,673,947 bushels. Then came
the high duties in 1802 and 1809; and taking an
average of the tro yea's, commencing with 1804,
the consumption would he found to be reduced to '
23,450,628 bushels. The average consumption of
the lour years following I'Bo4, was 22,636,091
builiels, making a diminution. of consumption fur
Blighted only of needy •five millions bushels. The
average for 1791 gave for Scotland a consumption
of 1,875,344. bushels, amid in 1804e1t was reduced
to 1,031,736 bushels; being a (11060%1601i of (wee
half. In Ifeltalal the reduction wise sill larger;
in 1791 it was 4,855,558 bnslie/s;:hia 1304 it
was 9.981,024 bushels; and its 1818 it was re-
duerett. 1,707.336 buslislii• This was a great
positive reduction; bet •he had a right to cal-
eidate upon the .incieited -population of two
millions inner 1791, whiter would consume, un-
der moderate. 5,534,789 bushels; adding
that to the actual deficit of the average consump-
tion of 1791. as compared seitl4 1818, it would
amount to 14,574,265 bushel., or 1,82t,785 quar-
ters of melt. fie thought it clearly Wearer,' there
was an actual reduction of consumption since 1791
to that amount, and lie was persuaded that the
amount of a instigated duty on that 1,831,785
quarters, would have left very li.tle deficiency to
supply for that duty, which he wished to be
taken off. The relief which the additiosial mar-
ket would give to egriculima must be very
important. Ile considered that taxes on con-
sumption were the most eligible. A illiect tax
acted like a herometer, and sheered by reduced
consumption when a tax had been carried to
an injuriods extent. Ile had shewn the effect
nu average of years ; but look to each suc-
cessive year, and the statement would be fully cor-
roborated. In 1803, under the operation of the
high duties, the consumption decreased 31,700
quarters; in 1804, '22,421 quarters; iu 1805, 24,300
quarters; in 1806, 27,400 quarters; in 1807,24,800
quarters ; in 1808, 22,400 quarters. • In Scotland a
similar decrease appeared ; so that whether an aver-
age of years were taken, or each successive year, the
etfect was the same; and could awe other result.
have been Expected ? The consequence of
decreased consumption was that barley was down in
price as low as 245. per quarter. Another circutn-
stance which would strew the pressure ssf taxation on
barley was, that it did not bear in the market its
proportional value to wheat ; that proportion was
this—barley one-half the price 'of wheat : but by the
hat returns wheat was at 54s.per quarter, and bar-
ley was at 245. per quarter. Exclusive of the pres-
sure of taxation, there were other causes press-
ing
down the price of barley, one of which
was the insufficient protection given to agriculture
by the Act passed in 1815, wlikh certainly did not
give.tlist degree of protection which the Legisla-
ture intended. It was intended to give a protec-
tion up to 80s. per quarter, and when the price
exceeded 80s. they would then have recourse to fo-
reign produce. But the influx of foreign corn,
when the price exceeded 80s. was so great us to
give rise to ruinous arid continual fluctuations of .
price. Between 1817 and 1819 the ports were

()nee AO, and yet 2,600,600 guiders of foreign
wheat were imported. The growth of Ireland had
also so increased, that four bemired thouseriel
quarters of wheat were imported from thence last
I. year, and a considerable quantity remained in her
granaries. He wiseed that something should be
devised to restrict the superabundant supply from
(tartlet) countries,-end-bring it within threateners!,
of the Legislature. He thought some benefiriul
alterations might be suede in the Act of 1815,
without trenching ups* the reverie of then' AEC
iii ow it 'regarded at restraint on
the impartation of barley and oats. The Ho-
ituurable el/ither then le:ferret! to the foreigu
market prices of core, end argued on. the ebsettee
impossibility of the Bettseel:rimer baisig able le
compete with the foreign grower. As .to looking
on the notion of a free teens in cotu as shy thing
but a theory, was, he conceived, an .obserdity, and
they might as well telk•of the abstract rights 00
man as of the absteact principle Of free trade. le
might be right that • the manufacturer, who plurl.4l
on equal terms with hie competitors, should be mite
jerted to thee pristriple; 'hoed' the Iltittsis agrieset
tiv rist were to stilt With such • load as the agreseatult
amount of taxatiou In which lie, was- subjeoicele. lie
must sink in the coistest, and so Imeteeletisetemies
could, me it regarded luau, he neither fair not'
free. There was still another cane. whit+ pudic
essentially contributed to the depreciation of the
sericulture', es well 113 every other interest, and
that was the Art vulgarly tailed Peel'r 11111, which,
had operand amt egrwaltural italuetry to meititedl;
culable extent; nod though he, kweir-if eras itT--
most profane to call th it Act in' question, yet he
would venture to say that it never would t.e.a per-
matient hear./—The HasueMerssleer
concluded by moving to bring in a Bill for repeal.
ing ihe Atteof 59 Geo. 111. which *wriest a terse
of Is. 4d. per bushel on malt in England, and.
4s. 81 per barrel on malt iis Ireland.
Mr. ItTACK EN Zt E eeermeled the motion, sad urged
the danger to the morals of the people. of Scotland
from the illegal distillation. He stater, that after
the pawiug of an Act in 1816, for allowing small
stills, the consumption of malt in the distilleries want
graeirally increasing, tilt the patting of the Act in
1819, impaling the additional duty, since which
the comutninion of legally: distilled spirits had
greatly decreased, and had rendered unsaleable all
except barley of the first qualitie 'mod it 'watt Y tot
that iu the north or Scotland, where the duty ma
ten Ohms of levelly distilled spires ansimalted to
&seek a persati might purchase the sante Amin-
distilled spirits at 21. 10s. being.
15s. Btl. less than the deity on the same quantity of
legally. diehlkdapirits. He believed that the dee-
ciency of duty in Scodatid los vomeared with the prr-
ceding, year, immented to .1.00,000/: end in his °pie
'term the itettrienter bad not yet attained.its greenest
height. Another 'circumstance pecohiarly • felt in
Scotland wits, that previous to the rear 1819, Scot-
land hail always paid 84. per bushel less duty
titan England ; he would not inquire as to,
the justice or expediency of that ditferewee, hut
there was serfficietit reason to complain of the sur-
reptitious manner in which !lie Act was hurried
thiudgltethst !loose at the end of it Session, where.
nearly all the Scotch Members had left town, by
which a privtlege enjoyed by Scotlaed since 17:25
way abolished, and then, though
.an equal dirty
wee imposed on Engtielersielt, the duty in Eng-
land was only equal to 16 per cent. additions'',
whilst iu Scuilaud it amounted to i,13 per cent. He
would wily udd one asset-view more, and he be-
lieved he might say, that he spoke the uilanitnnus
sentiments of all the &legionary of the north of
Scotland, when he said that any advantage whicle
the revenue might derive from the tax, Valli more
fleet overbalaneed by the mischiefs it orcesioned to
the money of the people in that part of the
country. It had lel to such an increare of smuggling.
and eegendered habits so hostile to every idea of
order and a good police, that nothing but tee deepest
sense of public duty could induce the filagistrace
to eontiiitie to ace lit chalkuged any of the
8-leather, connected with Scotland to deny any part
of the statemeut lie had made, aud he therefore
called upon them. in preservation of the morals
anti police of Scotland, to support the motion.
Mr. ELLICE said, he rose to state the grounds on
which he intended to support the motion, as they
were different. from those of his Ilene Freud, &-
fore lie pressed for the repeal'of any tax, he must.
isatiify himself first that the (estuary was in a state
to do without it ; and secondly, that agiiculture
would be benefited by its repeal. lie had before'
recommended dee the country should be relieved
to the amount of the Sinking Fund. We had al-
ready dealt with that fund so largely, that he con-
sidered we ought nut to feel any repugnance at go-
ing u little further. Ile thought the House ought,
in the first place, to relieve the present dietrese of
the contelee by appropriating the remainder of that
fund to the reduction of taxation, looking to future
prosperity to enable us to form au efficient Sinking
Fund. 'Elie ceremony of issuing 17,000,000/. at
the Excite quer to that Commissioners for reducing-
the ualiotiel debt. seemed to serve uo purpose
but to maiden'
.a complicated system of accounts
Bed useless offices. He .put it to the House to
say whether there was any thing which the House
could do would enforce economy on Government,
except it were by reducing the:Means of extrava-
gant expenditure. To prove this, he need.otily
'Belem, that the Customs and Excise in 1807
amounted to 34 millions (nearly the amount of
. present collected), and was collected at an expense
of 1,100,0001.; whilst the last year the charge wa-,
41.400,0001. He *greed with his Hon. Friend to
his complaints of the Act of 1815; and lie thought
if the Committee sitting up stains were to recom-
mend its entire repeal, they would do more service
to the country than when they assisted the
verinuent to pass it. But Gentlemen mint not:
anticipate any rise in prices mach beyond what
they at present were. When they supported
the resumption of a metallic currency in 1819,
they bade adieu to high prices, which were mainly
dependant on the depreciated currency. If he
were asked shat remedy should be proposed for
the farmer, lie should be disposed to adopt the
statement of an Honourable Member (Mr. Coke)
a few nights ago, end he should say the farmer
must get his high charges reduced, or he must get
high prices. But behind the farmer WaS another
!tenon, for whose ease there was no remedy ; he
must pay bitterly for the support which he had
given to Governtuent for carrying on of infamoue.