The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

serious advance of price. The price in 1849 was 235. a
quarter, next year it was 235. 2d., in the year after it was
245., and at the present moment the average price was
upwards of 30s. He (Mr. Bass) was paying for fine barley
365. a quarter, and could not get a supply from abroad,
yet they had had fine harvests in the barley countries, ex-
cepting France, whilst the barley harvest in this country
had been very indifferent, a considerable proportion
of it having been damaged. He (Mr. Bass) could not
meet with a single sa:nple of what was called bright
barley in this country ; indeed they were sending
it abroad, for foreign brewers were beginning to com-
pete with our own for the finest qualities of English
barley. The right hon. baronet the late Chancellor of the
Eichequer asked, why meddle with a part of the farming
business that was so prcqtable, for sheep were best reared
and fattened on barley sells. He (Mr. Bass) said, the more
you extend the trade the more good you did the farmer.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the hop tax, he could not
but hope that the Chancellor of Exchequer would listen to
the representations addressed to him from so many quar-
ters, and give up an impost against which there were such
grave objections. They bad heard a great deal about fat-
tening cattle with malt. He had attempted that himself,
and the question had been examined, at the instance of
Government,thy some of the best and most competent au-
thorities in the country, the Messrs. Thomson, of Glasgow.
whose opinion was that it was not a profitable mode. There
was, however, no hindrance to feeding cattle on malt at
present • the only point at which the Excise stopped you
was in taking it on the kiln, and he maintained that it was
not necessary to do so, but was, in fact a hindrance and a
loss. Considering the indulgence which the house had ex-
tended to him, he should rot say a word more on the other
interesting topics with which the budget was fraught.
Lord ADOLPHUS VANE felt that, after the lucid de-
tails of the statement mach by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in introducing the ministerial measures, he need
say very little to justify to the constituents who had re-
turned him to Parliament the vote he was about to give
on the present occasion. Re had heard an hon. member
for a borough assign as a reason for not supporting the
measures of the Government the unpopularity he should
incur by so doing, but he (Lord A. Vane) fearlessly said
that unpopularity, if he were doomed to encounter it,
would not prevent him from giving a vote in favour of
nieasures which he conscientiously felt to be based on jus-
tice. (Hear, hear.) If he understood the policy of past
years, it was that indirect taxation which pressed on the
essential articles of consumption among the poorer classes
should be removed, and direct taxation be imposed instead,
not exempting any clases who were in a social position
that enabled them to bear their due share of the public
burdens. Now he conceives that the measures brought
forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and approved
of by her Majesty's Government, did embrace those desir-
able objects. Resfecting the proposed increase of the
house tax, he confessed he saw no reason why 101.
householders should be exempted, as they now were.
At present many a man who was subjected to very
hard work by the duties of his profession or occupation
paid as much as 101. a year on account of income tax. He
saw no reason why such a man should be obliged to pay a
larger quota of taxation than was fair, while a man who
had 1401. a-year of licome was entirely exempted, and the
labourer in the field was paying a larger share of taxes on
all articles of consumption in, consequence of this exemp-
tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he
was prepared to 'vindicate his proposal regarding the house
tax on grounds of justice and expediency, and he had heard
another right hon. gentleman who lately filled that office
state, on Friday night, that he was not prepared to say
that the house tax slould not be extended. He considered
that those authorities quite justified him in voting for the
extension of the house tax, and he could not imagine a
fairer extension of it than that men should be assessed who
occupied property which entitled them to vote at election's
for members of Parliament. - In reference to the duplica-
tion of the tax, he considered that the measure of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was but the supplement of
that brought forward by the late Government. Either tax
was just, and therefore the Government ought to obtain a
fair quota from each, or it should be removed altogether.
He did not think they oltained that quota now in the case
of the house tax, and therefore he should have no hesita-
tion in supporting both is extension and duplication. If
he incurred unpopularity, he could say to his constituents
that his vote was an honest one, and that if he voted for
taxing classes who were htherto exempted, it was in order
to benefit the poor of the country. (Hear.) Gentlemen on
his side could corroborate him in saying that the great dif-
ficulty they had to encounter at the late elections was that
their opponents continualy impressed on the people that
they were the only men who would secure cheapness, and
that they would pour blesings from that exhaustless cor-
nucopia of free trade of vhich they were the sole posses-
sors. He believed that tie measures brought forward by
the Government would give the country plenty in earnest,
and therefore he gave then his hearty support. (Hear.)
No one would pretend that a reduction of half the malt
tax would not very much diminish the price of beer, and
that the remission of the atx on tea would not be an im-
mense benefit to the poorer classes. He had great satis-
faction also in supporting the system first ministerially,
enunciated by the right hon. gentleman the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, recognising the truth that incomes
which were precarious, masmuch as they depended on
health, were not to be taxed in the same proportion as
those derived from realised property. He thought that a
fair principle, and was persuaded that the popularity which
the Chancellor of the Exclequer would reap from this part
of his plan would far overbalance any unpopularity he
might incur on account of the increased house tax. (Minis-
terial cheers.) He observed that some honourable mem-
bers held language on the subject which, in fact, offered
O. premium to householders to agitate against the tax. It
was by no means a difficult thing to head a popular crusade
against any tax ; and if members went and addressed bat-
talions of householders, and called on them to rise under
their guidance, as he observed from the papers that the
hon. member for Lambeth and the hon. baronet the
member for Marylebone had bean doing, he said they
were countenancing an agitation against a measure which
he considered fair and just, and therefore the blame of
creating disturbance must lie, not on those who proposed
the tax, but on these who organised the agitation. (Hear,
hear.) He had heard the Government accused of a wish
to retain office, and bitter attacks directed against the
noble lord at the head of the Government. It was not for
him to defend a nobleman vhoso talent was universally
admitted to be pre-eminent, and whose character malice
could not assail ; it was not for him to defend a Govern-
ment whose conduct was before the country, but as an
independent member of the house it was with high grati-
fication he supported a Government who he believed were
actuated solely by a wish to amend the financial system of
the country, and to carry out the principles which the
house and the country had sanctioned with fairness to
all classes, and without oppression to any. (Ministerial
cheers.) He hoped honourable members would not be
led away, by specious fault-finding or dexterous straw-
splitting, to cavil at the details of the Government
plan, but that they would consider its whole spirit
and main features, and give the Ministry strength to
carry out a system just in principle, and, he believed he
might add, in the opinion of the country, grand in the com-
prehensive views it took of the piblic requirements.
Mr. F. PEEL said when the hon. member for the West
Riding observed that hon. gentlemen opposite appeared to
think there was some inconsistency in opposing the Budget
on his (Mr. Peel's) side of the house, he perceived from
the reception they gave to that observation how much
importance they attached to it. It might be said, per-
haps, with some show of reason, that the essence of the
Budget was the reduction of indirect and the substitu-
tion of direct taxation ; that that was the policy in-
augurated in 1842, and that it had been steadily car-
ried out ever since—that all the present Government
had done was to take up that policy where the late
ministers had left it and extend it over a greater range
of subjects. He admitted that, since 1842, direct taxation
had formed a more important branch of their revenue than
it had done in previous times ; but he was not aware that
direct taxation had been substituted in, preference, in a
financial point of view. The. only ground on which the
income tax was vindicated was its capacity for being in-
strumental in making great commercial reforms. If that
development was inherent in their trade, it could only be
done by the remission of indirect and the substitution of
direct taxation. He hoped, however, the house would
not yield a blind subserviency to any theory of taxation,
and that before they voted for the doubling or extension of
the house tax they should satisfy themselves as to what was
the emergency that called for it, and what were the com
mercial advantages to be derived from this remission of in

direct taxation. Ile was in favour of a just admixture of
both systems. It was useful in this way, that it tended
to keep up the spirit of discontent—(hear, and laughter)—
mefonnleyu.rmlnt inngduacetdatnhye punubnlieccetaosawryatocihttlwayithofjeatlhoeuspyubtlihec
expenditure of the national revenue. This be was
certain of, th.. 6 it direct taxation was absolutely necessary,
it was an essential condition that it should be imposed by
a friendly and discriminating hand. If the impression pre-
vailed, whether well-founded or not did not altar the result
that the doubling of the house tax was brought forward in
the spirit of retaliation for supposed injuries inflicted by re-
cent legislation on the agricultural classes, he did not think
it required any great sagacity to see that it might be impos-
sible to saddle this tax upon the country. The house tax
did not do what the income tax p a man's income, and it
professed to do—namely,
to deal with the disposable part of
was well known that the house in which ho lived was not
in all cases a fair criterion of a man's income. It was also
urged that the doubling of the tax might lead to the die-
franchisement of some voters, and that his (Mr. Peel's)
side of the house
ought not to complain of that, because it
was one of their axioms that taxation and representation
should go hand in hand together, and that in this case they
were only giving 'a parliamentary recognition to the princi-
ple. They were now about to re-arrange done portion of their
taxes on the basis of the electoral system. Many, however,
would rather regard the right of voting as a burden instead
of a privilege. He thought house property was sufficiently
burdened in this country already. Another consideration
was, that the house tax had not a very good name, and
people did not understand what was the emergency
which called for its imposition. A time might possibly
come when this country would be caned upon to make
great sacrifices, and if they now exhausted their resources,
they would not know whore to obtain the additional re-
sources. They were doing all they could to render a re-
sort to direct taxation in an emergency impracticable. It
was quite possible that the number of houses between 101.
and 201. was enough to bring about them a battalion of
discontented householders whatever their contribution
might be, the amount could not be very considerable.
Under the present assessment the house tax was extended

to 13 millions of hcii;;;;;TW the estimate of the right
lion. gentleman the including of houses rated at 101. would
make the number only equal to 15 millions. So, again,
with regard to shops—the number was 8 millions, and by
the proposed scheme it would be increased to 10 millions.
The reduction of the tea tax was undoubtedly the redeem-
ing point of the Budget., that feature of it which should
commend itself to the judgment of the country. (Hear,
hear.) But the reduction might take place without the
imposition of any new tax. lie relied upon the experienc e
of Parliament with respect to the sugarduties. Underthe act
of 1848 no great diminution of revenue had taken place. 1 he
revenue yielded by tea had been decreasing of late yer rs.
The right hon: gentlethan the Chancellor of the Exchequer
anticipated a loss to the revenue this year of 400,0001., but
that would be made up by an increased consumption of
s,reoOasonable in anticipating that. As to the malt duty he
did
no,ootoOknoor 6,7h:w®° pounds ; and there was nothing un-
reasonable
would be benefited by it, and as a (peg-
tion,of,cempensation to agriculture it must be of very r ar-
tist operation, only applying to the lighter soils. He did
not believe that the consumption would increase, When,

in 1830, four times the amount of the duty now to be taken
off was repealed, the average price of barley in the four
years following was less than it was in the years preceding
that year. If beer were to be reduced by 4s. or 6s. a
barrel, no great advantage to the consumer would ensue;
and certainly none such as could be purchased by the sacri-
fice of an enormous amount of revenue, especially as all this
would only lead to a disastrous financial result. A sub-
stantial surplus of 1,500,0001. was going to be converted into
a fictitious surplus of 400,0001. The pivit of the plan was
the renewal of the cincome tax ; yet many persons would
not vote for it unless its inequalities were removed
(hear, hear) ; and others thought that incomes being
assessed at various rates was objectionable—if not upon
the ground of its being against public faith, as frittering
away the tax. The malt duty and the income tax each
yielded about the same amount, 5,000,0001, or 6,000,0001.,
and it was proposed to get rid of the former. But there was
no comparison between them as to the trouble of collec-
tion, and he thought the malt tax one of the best taxes. He
did not know any tax that brought more to the revenue at
so trifling a cost to the industry and capital of the country.
As to the modification of the income tax, it would still
leave many inequalities. The objection urged against the
present system was that it taxed at an equal rate incomes
of very different value. (Hear.) But that argument
would yet apply, for instance, to the case of house pro-
perty, which was exposed to the risk of houses becoming
uninhabited, as 156,000 were at the last returns. So, again,
as to annuitants, who now for the first time would be liable
even as low as 501. a-year, though their incomes were ex-
posed to great uncertainty. Again, there would be this
singular anomaly, that whereas an income of 1401. from
land or personalty would be liable to income tax, an in-
come of the same amount derived partly from one source and
partly from the other, might escape the tax. Further, he
objected to the reduction in the rate of assessment upon
the farmers under Schedule B, who had hitherto been
assessed at half the rent, and now were to be assessed at a
third. There would be no injustice in leaving it as it
stood, for by the law as it stood, if a party found his in-
come in fact not so large as he had calculated it, he could
apply for a diminution of it. Upon the whole, he regarded
the budget with disappointment. (Ironical cheers.) He
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted, not
as a mediator, but rather as a partisan. (Ironical cries of
" Hear, hear.") The right hon. gentleman had done his
best to set town against country. It had been said that the
financial system of the country was a miserable mess of
hotch-potch, and that the right hon. gentleman would
make it clear and fair. But these promises had not been
realised, and it was a very ordinary budget after all—
(ironical cheers.)
Mr. WALPOLE then rose and said—Sir, we have had
very important admissions in the course of the debate.
(Hear, hear). And remember we are discussing the ques-
tion, according to the suggestion of the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, as a whole—(hear)—to be taken up and
considered as a whole. We have had, I say, many impor-
tant admissions in the debate, when you consider the sub-
ject in that light. (Hear, hear.) You have had an admis-
sion from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (in
conformity with the opinion expressed by other hon. mem-
bers) that the remission of the tea duties is a wise and
beneficial measure. (Hear, hear). Welhave the admission
of the right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that the way in which we have dealt with the
shipping interest in giving it relief from some restrictions
to which it was exposed, is wise and just. Then we have
the admission of the hon. member for the West Riding
(whose speech answered half of the arguments which have
come from the other side) as to a most important point
in' the discussion—as to the income tax—(hear, hear)—
which he said is so good that it ought to have come
from his own friends. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) We
have these great admissions, and I think that even as to
the distinct and specific resolution with which we are now
dealing—as to the house tax—that, though you object to
the increase of it, you do not object to the area over which
we propose to spread it—(hear)—and in justice I believe
you could not maintain such a proposition. (Hear, hear.)
But these being your admission, and bearing in mind that
you are to consider the budget as a whole, what is the issue
you are taking with us ? Are you not opposing us on a part,
and that a very small part? (Hear, hear.) The principal
objections you raise are two—as to the malt tax and the
house tax—objections against which I set your own admis-
sions—(hear, hear)—and I ask you whether, dealing with
it as a whole, and on principle, ought you not to support
us to this extent, agreeing that the scheme should be
approved of as a whole, though its details may be rea-
sonably modified ? ("No no," from the Opposition.)
You object to that? Then I will put it upon a fair
issue. The subject is large and comprehensive, and I
wish to bring you to the test, reducing that large and
comprehensive subject within the compass of the few
important principles involved in it, the necessary objects
which those principles have in view, and the results to
which they lead. What are those principles ? I think if
you examine the propositions of my right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will find them three in
number, with a corresponding number of objects. These
principles are first to adhere unreservedly, or, in your own
language, " firmly to maintain and prudently to extend,"
the commercial system established by recent legislation.
Now, the object of that unquestionably is to bring home to
every one all the articles, whether of import or of domestic
produce (if you mean to be consistent) as cheaply and as
readily as the results of " unrestricted competition" can
secure them. That principle is exemplified and that object
attained (as I will show you) by a fair remission—and no
more than a fair remission--of the tea duties and the
malt duties. (Hear.) The second principle contained in the
Budget is acting upon the recommendation of her Majesty's
most gracious Speech from the Throne, that if you found
in the establishment of a new commercial system that you
had inflicted any injury on any particular interest, you
ought in common justice to mitigate that injury. (Hear.)
What is the object involved in that principle? It is this,
that those who are at home shall enjoy the same advantages
in competition with others as those others do in competition
with us. (Hear. The other principle is that which has
most attracted attention in this debate ; it is the mode
in which you deal with the taxation of the country, the
object being to put it on a fair and equal footing, so that
all running together the great free-trade race, may run it
equally, unencumbered by any impediments except those
we find bearing upon the rest of the community. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, these are the three principles we profess ; and I
maintain that every one of them is just ; and that they are
fairly acted upon in the propositions of my right hon. friend.
(Cheers.) I begin with the first—that of our commercial
freedom policy, the object being to give especially the
prime necessaries of life as cheaply to every one as they
can be. (Hear.) Now, how far have you worked upon
this principle for the last 20 years ? In 1842 was the first
alteration in our tariffs. You brought home to the con-
sumers of the country, by removing the prohibitory duty,
animal food, so as to make it more cheap than it otherwise
would have been. Ten years afterwards—looking to the
last returns—you will find that during the last 10 months
100,000 foreign cattle, and 200,000 foreign sheep and
lambs were brought into our markets. Whether you were
wise in doing this absolutely, without any duty, I think
may be questioned. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from
the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerialists.)
Questioned, I mean, upon this ground—whether, without
materially increasing the price, you might not have
added to your revenue ? (Hear.) Well, what did you
do with the other great article of food—corn ? Ten years
ago the quantity of corn brought into this country was
2,250,000 quarters, and the quantity of meal and flour,
1,200,000 cwt. Within the last eleven months the quantity
of corn imported has increased to 5,500,000 quarters—an
increase of 2,000,000 quarters, and of wheat, flour, and
meal to 3,500,000 cwt.—an increase of 2,000,000 cwt.
Thus, then, you dealt with the two great articles of food,
undoubtedly prime necessaries of life. But did you be-
nefit the consumer in that which is an equal necessary of
life ? Did you benefit him by giving him his beverages
cheap as well as his meat and bread ? (Hear. hear.) No !
You left all the duties upon tea or malt where they
were before. I know you said you had a reason for it.
That the repeal of those duties would be dealing with an
amount of revenue so large that you could not venture
to part with it. But upon your own principles you
were bound to do so, in order to benefit the consumer
upon that which is as much a necessary of life as
his food. (" No, no," from the Opposition.) No ! Why, I
venture to say there is not a village so remote—there is not
a cottage so humble, but that an addition to the quantity
of tea and beer they consume would be a boon. (Hear,
hear.) Well, we propose to deal with both these articles.
Now, as to the question of malt, which I will now deal
with as a consumer's and not as a producer's question.
What did the late Chancellor of the Exchequer do with re-
gard to this point ? The right hon. gentleman the member
for Halifax said that from statistical returns he formed
the opinion that a reduction of duty would not materially
increase the quantity of malt. I own I was astonished at
that statement. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the malt duty was first
imposed at the end of the seventeenth century. It was
raised during the whole of the 18th century, from 4s. a
quarter to 11. 15s. a quarter. It was subsequently reduced
to 1/. Bs., and later still to 1/. 2s. 7d. I cannot. fail to
draw conclusions from such returns, and I confess I am
surprised that the right hon. gentleman failed to draw just
conclusions from them. For, first, there is the most start-
ling fact, which, to my astonishment, has been denied this
evening—namely, that, notwithstanding all the increase
in your population, the quantity of malt manufactured
in this country has been nearly stationary. And why ?
Because you had put on so high a duty. (Hear, hear.)
Let there be, however, no mistake on this point.
" Owing," says the return, "to malt liquor having become
the favourite beverage in England, the manufacture of
malt has been carried on on a large scale • but instead of
the manufacture increasing with the population, and with
the malt, it has remained nearly stationary for the lost 100
years ending in 1816 ; in proof of which it may be stated
that whereas during the previous 12 years the annual quan-
tity which paid duty was 20,000,000 bushels and a frac-
tion, during the 12 years ending 1816 it was only 23,009,090
bushels and a fraction in the year, which in some de-
gree accounted for the increased consumption of tea and
coffee ; but there cannot be a question that this state of
things is mainly owing to the exorbitant duty which our
malt or our beer has been subject to, and to the oppres-
sive regulations imposed on the manufacturers of malt."
(Cheers.) And Mr. M'Cialloch is the authority for this
(renewed cheers.) Sir, I should like the noble lord oppo-
site to reconcile this answer with the statement of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Halifax, that the quantity
of malt was not materially increased by the remission of
duty (cheers.) But there is another conclusion to be drawn
from those returns, which I also think upsets the whole
argument of the right hon. gentleman—it is that as you
increase the duty you diminish the consumption per head
(hear, hear.) I have got the tables at hand to prove this,
and I will now take one remarkable one. One hundred
years ago, in 1750, the quantity of bushels of malt
made in this country was 29 millions and a fraction.
The duty was Gd. per bushel, and the consumption was
five bushels per head. Now, sir, let us see whether the
consumer of this country has been benefited by your mode
of dealing with this question since 1750. (Hear, hear.)
Betsyeeu that year and 1805 the duty was increased—first,
to 11. 9d., then it was ls. 4d., and at last it was 2s. and a
fraction per bushel. And what was the effect of this ?
Why, that in 1801 the quantity made was 30,000,000
bushels, with the duty at 2s. sd. And what was the con-
sumption per head ? Why, it was reduced to three bushels
and some gallons. I will now take mother period—that
between 1801 and 1811. In the former year the duty was
raised to the enormous amount of 4s. 5d., and in 1835 it
was reduced again to 2s. sd. per bushel. Was the quan-
tity raised ? It was previously 30,000,000. In 1811 it
was 25,000,000 and a fraction. The consumption instead
of being five bushels as in 1750, was three bushels in 1805.
and in the last year it was reduced to two bushels and
four gallons. In 1831 the quantity of malt manufactured
was 32,000,000, the duty being 2s. 7d. the bushel, and the
consumption two bushels per head. Well, I think that a
most important table ; but the hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Middlesex reminds me that the beer duty was taken
off in 1830. The right hon. tkatleman the member for

Halifax, however, said last night, although I do not
know where he got the statistics on which to found his
assertion, that the remission of the beer duty had had no
effect on the consumption of beer. Now, what was
the number of bushels of • malt made in 1829
and 1830. In 1829, 23,000,000 ; in 1830, 26,900,000.
In 1831 it rose from 26,900,030 bushels to 32,300,003.
In 1832 it was 31,629,000 bushels; in 1833, 33,769,000
bushels, and so it went on increasing until 1840, when it
amounted to 36,652,000 bushels. But the right hon. gen-
tlemen the member for Halifax went on to argue that there
was a great falling off in 1841. I reminded him at the time
that 5 per cent. was added to the malt tax. In 1840 the
Innount being 36,352,000, it fell in 1841, to 30,956,000. In
1846 it was '30,376,000. It has been remarked that these
were years of considerable distress, and that the con-
sumption was diminished—(hear, hear)—but you will
not say that the years from 1842 downwards have all
been years of great distress. It is true that manufac-
tured malt has increased from 32,000,000 in 1851 to
35,000,000 in 1852 ; but observe this one point. The
result has been that, notwithstanding the great pros-
perity of the country, notwithstanding that everything
else has gone on improving, notwithstanding that the ma-
nufacture of malt has to a certain extent increased, the
malt manufactured in 1852 in this country is actually less
than it was in the year 1800, and it is impossible to arrive
at any other conclusion than that the consumption of the
quantity of malt and of beer have been materially im-
peded by your unequal taxation (cheers). If that be so,
may we not remedy this state of things by reducing the
duty one half ? For that reason, if for no other, and con-
sidering the consumer, I think that the remission of this
duty, as proposed by my right hon. friend, a wise, just, and
beneficial measure (ministerial cheers and counter cheers),
I suppose you will admit it is " wise " if we increase the
quantity of that which is the most wholesome beverage ?
(Cheers.) I suppose you will not deny it is " just" if it
enables the agriculturist to cultivate his lighter soils to
a greater extent that heretofore. (Cheers.) But having
dealt with this subject of malt, I now come to the duty on
tea. Upon this topic I need say but little, but in passing
I may be permitted to make a few observations, for I
think it is that part of the scheme of my right hon.
friend for which he deserves the greatest credit, as no
previous Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the
courage to repeal this duty. (Cheers.) I consider that
the repeal of the tea duties will be beneficial in three
points of view—(cheers)—namely, socially, commercially,
and financially. (Cheers.) Socially it will be a benefit
because it will cheapen for the poor of this country that
beverage of which, I believe, most is consumed. (Hear,
hear.) Commercially, it will open up a much wider trade
in the East, and, no doubt, your manufacturers will find in
it the means of multiplying the exchange of their products.
(Hear.) But, financially, I think you will find it beneficial,
and Ido so for two reason. When previous Chancellors of
the Exchequer have remitted the duties, I find that
the consumption has increased enormously. The duties
were remitted in 1745 and in 1784. During the 10 years
preceding 1745 the consumption amounted to 768,5201 b.
Five years afterwards it amounted to 2,360,0001 b. In 1784
Mr. Pitt reduced the duties, and the measure was so suc-
cessful that the amount consumed was trebled in a few
years, and subsequently quadrupled. (Cheers.) Sir, I
have now dealt with the first portion of the subject, and
shown the principle on which the Government have acted.
We act on your (the opposition's) principle of commercial
freedom, and we apply it to the remission of these two
great duties— the duties on malt and the duty on tea
—(hear, hear)—and both of which remissions we think will
benefit the consumer as well as the producer and the ma-
nufacturer. To that part of the budget I think there can
be no reasonable objection ; and I now come to the second
principle of the proposition—and that is the mode in which
it is proposed to deal with those interests which have been
peculiarly affected by your legislation. I mean the colo-
nial, the shipping, andthe agricultural interest? What have
we done for the colonial interest ? Why, we have enabled
them to refine the produce of their sugar-growing estates in
a manner consistent with their own interests. Is not that a
just and beneficial act? (Hear, hear.) Then with regard
to the shipping interest. The noble lord the member for
the City of London has himself declared that that interest
has been greatly relieved by the measures proposed by my
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With
respect, again, to the agricultural interest. We have bene-
fitted them by enabling them to cultivate their soil to an ex-
tent they could not have accomplished if they laboured
under the burdens which before pressed upon them. (Cheers.)
Sir, I think the hon. member for the West Riding argued
this question with perfect fairness in the first part of his
speech, and he made for us an immense admission when he
said, that if the whole of the malt duties were remitted, we
should not be doing more than had been done for the calico
manufacturer when the 31d. per square yard was taken off.
(Hear.) The hon. baronet, the member for Hertfordshire.
alluded to that subject the other evening. Let us consider
the effect of that reduction, and apply the argument to
malt. The effect of the reduction was, that whereas
in 1830, I think, the quantity of calico exported annually
was only 89,000,000 yards, in ten years afterwards it arose
to the enormous amount of 329,000,000 yards. (Hear.)
Now, if you could take off the whole duty on malt, I
should like to know whether you would not lighten the
springs of industry as applied to the soil, as you did when
you remitted the duty in the case of calico? (Hear, hear.)
Unquestionably such a remission would have the same
effect. Unquestionably it would be consistent with your
system of legislation; but it would be beneficial to the
consumer and the producer. (Cheers.) It is said, how-
ever, that if you cannot take off the whole tax you had
better not take off half, for in that case the odium remains,
and you still have the inconvenience of the excise. Sir,
that argument is the old story—(hear)—" if you cannot do
everything you ought to do nothing." (Cheers.) I would
appeal to the hon. member for the West Riding, and ask
him whether, supposing there was a duty upon oorn,which
from consideration of revenue could not be wholly taken
off, he would not propose the remission of a part? (Hear.)
Would it not be reasonable to get an instalment—(hear,
hear)—and get as much as you could with a view, in the
end, to procuring the repeal altogether? (Hear, hear.) Sir,
no one would urge that argument more forcibly or more
pointedly than the hon. member for the West Riding, and
I call upon him to be consistent with his own principles,
and apply the rule for the benefit of the agriculturists.
But, sir, upon this question of malt, we are not without
authorities. There are three authorities in this house who
should always be referred to with the greatest deference
and respect on such a matter. I cannot take a greater
authority than the hon. gentleman who first advocated the
repeal of the corn laws in this house, and who, in fact,
may be considered as the primary mover of the great change
which has taken place. I mean, the hon. member for
Wolverhampton. That hon. gentleman had expressed his
conviction that the advocates of the corn laws were ready
to get rid of the malt tax. (Hear, hear.) Then came the
authority of the right hon. baronet the member for Car-
lisle, who said that the malt tax enhanced the price of
beer and diminished the demand for it, that a tax on
barley land had the same effect as if the land had been
stricken with barrenness ; and who added that if the corn
laws were repealed he felt convinced the malt tax would
not survive three years. Now the last authority which
I shall quote is that of the hon. member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden.) I wish especially to
quote the authority of that hon. gentleman, with a view
of showing to the house how consistent the hon. gentle-
man has been upon this subject. The hon. member
for the West' Riding of Yorkshire put the question
upon even higher ground than that upon which it was put
by the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle or the
hon. member for Wolverhampton. The hon. member for
Wolverhampton put it upon this ground, that even
4,500,0001. were nothing, if the remission of this duty only
had the effect of widening the sphere of industry in this
country. The right honourable baronet the member for
Carlisle put it upon this ground—that if we continued the
malt tax, we would ultimately strike the barley land with
barrenness. But the hon. member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire 'put the question on still higher ground, for he
said, "It was a debt that was due to the farmer since we
had repealed the corn laws." (Ministerial cheering.) Now,
mark ye, those observations were made by the hon. gentle-
man so late as the 20th of January, 1849. But the hon.
member went on to say—" We sympathise with the far-
mer in this emergency. We say that we will not tolerate
the imposition of any tax for the protection of corn ; but
we will co-operate with the farmers in getting rid of that
obnoxious impost the malt tax." (Loud cheers.) Now
mark these words, " for we owe the farmers something, and
we will endeavour to repay them." (Continued cheers.)
And yet when this discussion comes on, the honourable
gentleman rising in his place denies the repayment of
the first instalment of the debt to that suffering class,
although it may ultimately be accepted as a compromise of
the whole. This portion of the budget, at all events, the
hon. member had given us room to suppose would meet
with his approbation. I now approach the third question
raised during this discussion. I mean that relating to the
re-adjustment of the direct taxation. Assuming lam
right in thinking that the remission of the duties upon tea
and malt are beneficial—assuming I am right in thinking
that these duties are remitted consistently with those great
principles upon which you have established commercial
freedom, let us now see whether we may not legitimately
carry into execution the objects resulting from the adop-
tion of those principles by the mode in which we propose
to adjust the system of direct taxation. Sir, the hon. gen-
tleman who last sat down told us that this system of direct
taxation was the first step towards a great commercial re-
form. (Hear, hear.) I then say that the addition which
we propose to make in the system of direct taxation will
enable you to complete a great commercial reform. (Hear.)
You put this tax on originally, not merely, as it was said
in the course of this debate, because there was a deficit.
There was a deficit it was true ; but it did not require you
to put on 5,000,0001. of taxation when 2,500,000/, would
have been amply sufficient to meet the deficit. You
put on the direct tax, not merely to get rid of the deficit,
but you also put it on to effect this great commercial re-
form of which you have spoken. It is true we have no
deficit now, but the addition which we propose to make to
the direct taxation is intended to complete that great com-
mercial reform. What is the direct taxation with which
we mean to deal ? The house tax and the property and
income tax. We deal with the house tax by increasing its
amount, as compared with what it was in the year 1851,
but not as compared with the ten preceding years. We
extend the area on which the house tax is to be assessed,
and we vary the relations of the property and income tax.
Well, now, what is the first great objection taken to this
proposition of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ? It was an objection first raised by the right
hon. baronet the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood). That
right hon. gentleman, in speaking of the house tax, says
we are introducing by this Budget an oppressive amount of
direct taxation. Now, I say that we are remedying an
injustice which you had perpetrated and justified during
your long tenure of office. When you repealed the win-
dow duties, you substituted for them a house tax of an
unjust and unequal character. In 1850, your window
duties, which was a direct tax, yielded 1,900,0001. The
house tax, which you put on as a substitute, and which
yielded only about 600,000/, we propose to increase to
about double that amount. This, we think, will remedy
the admitted failure which the right hon. gentleman had
committed when he substituted his partial and unequal
house duty for the window tax. Well, then, do you ob-
ject to this tax upon any philosophic or scientific grounds,
or even upon any economical principles ? Remember the
reasons which influenced you in taking off the window
duties. They were two principally. The right hon.
gentleman adverted to one of them—namely, the improve.
ment of the sanitary condition of the country. The other
was, that it pressed unequally and unfairly upon different
classes. Was it necessary, however, that you should have
sacrificed 1,500,0001. of your revenue ? Your remedy was
to substitute a direct tax which did not interfere with the
sanitary condition of the people, and which was not un-
equal in its operation. If you had brought forward our
op ition of a house tax as a substitute for the window
proposition
you would have done all right. (Hear, hear.)
You would have done that which all the best political eco-
nomists concur in saying was your wisest course. They all
tell us—and we have repeatedly heard the fact reiterated
durin,, the present debate—that the house tax is the first
direct impost which you can place upon the different classes
of the country. (" Oh, oh," from some members of the
Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerialists.) Well,
then, if you will not admit that word " all," I will say
that the best political economists, from Adam Smith to

Mill and M'Culloch, say that the first income Ida
you can impose is a house tax, for these reasons —7o
the rent a man receives for his house is the besttraltiossi
of what he has got to spend. But there are two ad di
reasons which I shall here mention. (Hear, he3rithssl
first is, because a house tax does not interfere because
branch of domestic industry, and the second isi oon'
the subject of the tax being visible, tangible, ant
.t 0
coaled, there can be no danger of fraud. In both rteor
it ;is greatly superior to any other tax upon pro
income, which must necessarily in some instance' 50injo0g
tiously and unequally. I have collected from tile fherell
that have been expressed it is your opinion that till
the
nothing unreasonable in increasing direct taxeLiscs(4
shape of the house tax, so as to make it extand hat
101. value, and the property tax to extend it to "i't is $lOl
another objection is taken to this propositi°ll' t
nnlpar
that it will have the effect of disfranchising a vas nwlioro
of the constituents of this country ? Now, frtn° hose,
does this argument come ? Why, from these shoal°
favourite theory is that taxation and representation t 10/.
go together. They are the persons who wish
_riot
householders should return members to that house, rile of
the possessors of an income fairly considered as " i°et boa!
100/. shall constitute the great bulk of the constitu:..,.tot
in this country. Now, I have no hesitation in sarAtisg,o
if you proceed on that principle you will be i, it)o
greater blow upon our representative system tns_eif yen
ever before received. And for this reason, becallsflocY
pursue that system under which an untaxed con,s"hose,
of this country will be returning members Othtewirs::::il
the representatives will take such care of
constituencies as to impose no tax other than that
does not press in any way upon them. Why, au intsillet
position is utterly preposterous, and cannot be lollop
for a single moment. Well, there is one otherobjeetl°toe refer
I have heard. The objection to which lam about iebons
was made by the hon. baronet the member for garYtt
(Sir B. Hall) in his address to his constituents. ` stilt
this :—that we should have extended this tax te
lower amount than 101. Now I think if the prolY's,,,,tioo,
my right hon. friend, made in reference to direct tax at
has any one merit greater than another, it is this-% a for
is putting the direct taxation of this country uPe-re
and reasonable footing. If, on the other hand, then of
measure more objectionable than another in the to
direct taxation, it is that one which compels a Pe ;010°
contribute towards the revenue of the country' ,iit
means axe such as may be fairly considered insuffic!,oo,
provide for himself the necessary articles of snlolso not
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Now, I sides'
think there is anything unreasonable in that pro and
There is a minimum under which, I think, in 011411 tiro°
in justice, we ought not to compel a contribution t(l).`otirg
taxation. That minimum should be viewed as ln' 1,110,
means capable, not merely of providing the individ_lrts
articles of subsistence but also the ordinary eowt /Or
existence. Well, I think that we have upheld tbs I pro'
ciple, first by extending the property tax to
„,resolo
perty of 501. a-year, and the house tax to Iv': Irorl;'
The honourable member for the West Riding 0t haveshire has completely upset all the arguments tw'snd is'
been urged against the extension of the property hole'
come tax by the hon. members on his side of t f the
That honourable gentleman has shown the fairnesso-00115
distinction which we have recognised between preory for
and fixed incomes so clearly that it is scarcely neees f
me to answer the objections made upon this portion *lob
right hon. friend's proposition. Ido not, however,
to shrink from these objections. They are, I tfoloititba
cipally two. The one was taken by the noble longif
member for London, the other night, and was ate the
pressed in the arguments used by his former colleagl 111°
right honourable baronet the member for Halifla,• the
other was taken by the right honourable gentle_.,,,„ objt
member for the University of Oxford. These 'tad
tions of such a formidable character that if they e° ti°
sustained, I think that they would materially "eicr• eu
character of the budget which has been announced JOO
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer'olo'
noble lord the member for London says that we havoc hon'
rially increased the number of exemptions. The rigJ ssi°
gentleman the member for the University of Clxi(nkrost,
that we have broken faith with the public creditor. 1 sOl
first of all, I beg the house to bear in mind, while gong
dealing with the first objection, what are the ex,„,,erly sr,°
of the property and income tax' at present. f ,
these :—You exempt every property in Ireland,
slaes'
classes and descriptions, when the owners of it are re siring
in that country. You exempt, then, every person rees mi of
less than 1501. a-year. These are the two great elgss„-ting
exemptions. But what are ours ? Instead of oxen
every class in Ireland, we for the first time exclude
these exemptions the official salaries and the funded 5'
tants in Ireland. In that respect we have, theref,s°reric°4
minished the number of exemptions. We have "011°4
the point of exemption in reference to precarious inrtcto
to 1001. instead of 1501., and in respect to fixed Pr°Pe, cfor
501. instead of 1501. How the noble lord the memo
London could gravely say then that we have gr°
creased the number of exemptions I cannot undersogoo
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord might endeavour t° but
that these alterations were not equitable in themselitilro
I think we can defy even his great abilities to show
have increased the number of exemptions. But 110`v„ lace
we dealt with this income tax ? The variations w- sticll
made are not of an exemptory character, but atel ecitll;
as we think will put the tax upon a more just an tbst
table footing than it was heretofore. It is said Uo'villl,
we have benefited the farmer by those propositions. 01,1
what have we done but this ? We have said this,tweeo
since the repeal of the corn laws, the proportion 11eent
profit and rent is not as it was before. (Tokens of 7;00
from the Opposition members.) Now these are Oil
into which you will have to go in committee untrito'
subject ; and, I believe, that it will be then demon, e
0 i
that the proportion between profits and rent is not w
was before. (Hear, hear.) For that reason, as well as P
011
unjust way in which the tax had pressed upon the fiber
we propose an alteration in it. Well, we propose antaider
alteration in reference to the income of a clergyman of
1001. Why have we done this ? Because the inconie tber
clergyman under 1001. is, in fact, analogous to an4,l's is"
professional income ; for you must remember that "*",, 115
come tax depends not only upon his life, but also
health and strength. If his health and strength fail l•
he must provide a substitute. We therefore 'title'
clergyman receiving under 1001, a year is as much eel 110
to consideration as any professional man. (Hear, horl'ecia
third proposition in reference to this tax is that of red jore
a fourth of the tax upon precarious incomes. Withltbo°6
we done this ? Because, upon the reasoning of otlety
who are best acquainted with the subject, we have,
ibeit
tries,
toted that, in reference to the salaries of professional
the members of this class ought at least to lay by folco,
successors or old age one-fourth of their incomes.
„3,,„11t
ceive that that is a just principle upon which we Wirt
proceed. I therefore think that I have shown, or 11,,1
deavoured. to show, that when the noble lord tat
increasing the number of exemptions, he ought rat' ijor,
have said that we have demonstrated the number,° tbs
qualities in the present tax, and have redressed evils
have been always pointed out in the imposition 01 tb
eter°'
come and property tax, evils which everybody feels' etiie,
body admits, and everybody says ought to be via noble
Having done this, I think that the argument of the, ;iO,
lord, in reference to the alteration we propose in thli bollr
cannot be supported upon the ground of an increastier
ber of exemptions. I now proceed to a much more lie
taut objection, made by the right honourable gfilvtao°'
the member for the University of Oxford. That right ,1!c
gentleman says that we have broken faith with the Pt
creditor. If that proposition be made out, I say .„twi DO,
budget ought not to stand for a single moment. -00_„11 iseo"
we broken faith with the public creditor ? That arty
has been put forward in two points of view—fir"As re'
gard to Ireland ' • secondly, as regards England. tob°,S
gards Ireland, it is said we are taxing the fundholder fro"'
we are not taxing the land. The inference dravill,„ PO;
that is, that in no case are we justified in taxing the 11°,'
holder unless we tax persons who are in a similar „co ire
in regard to the amount of their property, and th,ol' Alto
breaking a national agreement. Now this I deny op'
gether. I deny that the Irish fundholder is a°470,0!,,
tion any more than an English fundholder, upooi„.; is n
tional engagement, or any legal obligation, ,rgroP,,l,
exemption upon one ground only, and that is, wei,sp. il'e
of residence:in Ireland. The sth and 6th Vict., ci:,4lol°
in reference to the property tax, puts the tax in s„,e"-11:11_,t:
upon all profits arising from annuities, dividendfi,';
&c., payable to any person, company or society, whe'l;llo',
corporate or not, and charges as public revenue, tios.'
property at sevenpence in the pound withoutideuTeoelc
When you come to the rule that constitutes tlies'njo
tions in section 88, you will find that the sole gretim-
the exception of the Irish fundholder is residellyie:,,;
schedule C you will find that the rule for assessing
come tax, and for charging all duties payable to the blo 1r)
revenue under the act, extends to dividends PNire1011;0
_
Ireland for the use of all persons not resident in,' eat',l
(Hear.) The amount of the dividends paid to tne
creditor in Ireland for the year ending the sth juil
was 1,350,4621., of which 1,247,3901. were elt,lo (j,
leaving a tax of over 100,0001. per annum as paP"friol3o(
paid by the Irish stockholder. I ask my right bon; not ro
therefore, if this is a national obligation, why it 's_...tbe,
universal application ? It is residence that exenirs;„ tisn,
is no national obligation, as with so many millions t ""a
tion there ought not to be. (Hear.) Well, sir, that isurigi',
If this be a great national engagement such as In„g'7lall.,";
hon. friend represents it, is Ireland any part of 1",110
If Ireland be so, why is the English creditor taxe:„co (31,4
land? The fact is the exemption is not in the nav"„,01114
national engagement ; but it is because the person
fly ,
are living in Ireland—a country so great, rcj
tressed that it ought to be exempt. J-m,„„-(ilioler,
is the sole ground on which the Irish 11""fsrtPiit
resident in Ireland is exempt. But I will ive,fte
The argument of the right hon. member for kid°, 'fof
to show that he did not approve of the extend the
income tax to the land of Ireland, because when borr'ji
was just recovering from a great and grievous etuliad
ment, it was not a time to tie another weight 3,1 e r°o, sesy,
neck of that country. I think that argument 15 Pohl ,c•
one ; and I think it would be a very questions boe
notwithstanding its apparent equality, if the b° 0013
posed that tax to the land of Ireland at this ciroffi
sir, 'ler
But, that argument does not apply to salaried no, to
nor to fundholders, because the embarrasennen tend
which the land has suffered so severely does not exforefkile
them. As the matter stands, the extension. tiler ibf
proposed by. my right hon. friend the Chaneeoetf bf
Exchequer is perfectly just ; while, as proposetja
hon. baronet the member for Marylebone, it w,°,,eielt,lit'
tie around the neck of the land in Ireland, Ps' - We* 1
as it is from a distress nearly unparalleled, theiciiclo
alluded to by the right hon. member for Halifax. ,
Now, sir, with regard to the English fundholdeirille Pio
my right hon. friend broken faith with them ?
done so, it can be only on one of two grounds : elc,00"01
the first plabe, on the ground of a parliamentarYLl4br,
or in the second, on the ground of a moral, equ„,Tighn t•
legal obligation. I ask the right hon. gentlei'l'--onty-e
he puts it now on the
Mr. GLADSTONE was understoodto reply t i°
tive. ground of a parliamentary ehe
1011'011
Mr. WALPOLE—You (lid on the last nighu.,tetaoao'
the contract ? It was said by the
right hon. gen'ijet
now placed this impost on the public creditor•
has been done since the days of Mr. Pitt ? The P ototOito,
ditor has been taxed 3 per
cent., 5 per cent., and °co
as high as 10 per cent. (Cheers.) I (to not comPli,zie broPtijo
the byeaiinigiapmuetnotanry; betointtyraouctcabuynoitinspoaystihngat for 16
this t;ct..,,,lit
first time. So much for the Parliamentary e" the 111,10
therefore, there is no contract, the of owl it
hon. gentleman must be on the moral, andle,gyog
ground. If, however, you put it on that gro1,111;es,
it on a universal footing, applicable at an
t (100°90'
places, and to all persons. But what have YOI. over
have,li'
antnaxuemd,
while
e you l argiei
hcreditort—lthe
se ctrielteli_tosinrar
tor under that amount. (Cheers.) If it 0e.,,e-hst 1115(1
teehxnegermaeleotirnetent it is general in its application.
clity? :15fc1;,,,54;
hek:mveallyerni to(Chteeaxrs.t)he
you also tax capital. You contract with eontri'eveie
of creditors to pay three per cent., and you
__On &vole
another to pay a higher sum ; but every e
tin' lie °risco"
7d. in the pound from the holder of termina_ ,i 0
you take a portion of his capital as well as
.of,_;;,,stidr,io
Bluatrgiserthta
000,
m(Cahyeebrse.)
justßizoathbleop;erabuttiointswzyb,
ondoottetr,