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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1852.

the producer, but that the amount would be swallowed
up by the maltsters and the brewers. A Chancellor of
the Exchequer who year after year had been
either proposing, or supporting other Chancellors
when they proposed, to repeal or remit Excise
duties, on the score that the producer and the
consumer would be alike benefited, placed himself
in a very awkward position when he gravely told the
house that neither producer nor consumer would derive
any benefit from the remission of above 2,000,0001. of
Excise taxation. (Hear.) Was it to be understood
that the right hon. gentleman, who supported the remis-
sion of the duty on glass, and the auction duty, and
proposed the remission of the duty on bricks, was really
persuaded that he was only giving a great fiscal boon to
brickmakers, auctioneers, and glass manufacturers ?
(Hear.) The great mass of the inhabitants of this coun-
try, who had tasted the benefits derived from those re-
missions of the Excise duties, would know full well that
there was not a man, whether inhabitant of a town or
tiller of the soil, who would not derive some appreciable
benefit from this remission of half the malt tax, in the
increased consumption he would be able to enjoy of that
old English beverage which, in spite of the apprehen-
sions of the hon. member opposite, would be dear to the
working classes of this country while they laboured and
toiled for the means of their subsistence. (Hear hear.)
It was very well for the hon. member to read the house
a lecture against what in slang phrase might be termed
"all alcholic beverages ' • but did he believe in his con-
science that any one of his eminent medical authorities
thought it necessary to abstain from the use of them,
even for one day in a week ? The hon. member, who was
willing to vote at some impossible period for a repeal of the
malt-tax as a boon to the farmer, and in accordance with
the principles of unrestricted competition, entertained
now very grave doubts how far he should be justified as
a moral man in voting for the repeal of a tax the remis-
sion of which might increase the consumption of beer.
He had fallen, then, into what his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would tell him was an old
fallacy, for he was prepared to try to make men strong,
healthy, and moral, not simply by Act of Parliament,
but by the maintenance of an outrageous duty upon an
article the use of which he thought objectionable on a
moral ground. Let not the house hear the maintenance
of an unjust tax supported by gentlemen because they
might not themselves appreciate the beverage which was
dear to the labouring classes of this country. (Hear,
hear.) But did gentlemen opposite mean to tell the
house that the system which they had always said was
the necessary and just corollary of their favourite prin-
ciples was one which would not stand the test of expe-
rience ? The right hon. gentleman said that direct
taxation could only be made endurable by being so levied
that the great masses of the community should be un-
touched by it. A system of direct taxation founded
upon enormous exemptions had not, indeed, that merit
of novelty, the absence of which in the budget the right
hon. gentleman so much regretted; it was as old as the
days of Robin Hood, who took from the Bishop of Here-
ford his gold in the merry glades of Sherwood. The house
would now clearly understand that the right hon. gentle-
man's Budget was to be founded upon a system of unjust
taxation upon professions--a system of taxation levied
upon a small number of houses ; and, should the
right hon. gentleman regain that place which he for-
feited, to the universal satisfaction of the tax-payers,
those classes would find the favourite weapon in his
armoury was the maintenance of the income tax in all
its present injustice, while the landed interest would
find that the next greatarm upon which he depended for
maintaining the credit and institutions of the country
was the tax which interfered most with the operations
of farming industry ; and the right hon. gentleman
would give no relief beyond repealing the tea duties,
which the Government now proposed, and the 100,0001.
for the relief of the shipping interest. Beyond this the
right hon. gentleman would return to office with his
views unchanged as to the great principles of that direct
and indirect taxation, with regard to which the hon.
member, on the contrary, had never ceased to state that
they were unjust and inequitable, and must at no dis-
tant day be altered. [The noble lord then bent for a
moment towards the table, apparently to ascertain if he
had a note of any further topic on which to remark ; to
the Opposition members he seemed to be resuming his
seat, and at least half-a-dozen of them sprang up, pre-
pared, in that case, to address the house.). The purport
of the opposition of the heterogeneous sections on the
other side of the house, and of the contradictory asser-
tions and arguments to which the house had been
doomed to listen, and, from what they saw, were pro-
bably doomed to listen for some nights to come, was
really to maintain in all their injustice and want of
equity the present financial arrangements which charm
terised the income and house tax. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. RICH found credit taken in the budget for
400,0001., as the result of the repayments of the loan
commissioners. Now he wished to know what reason
existed for the change proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Although there was at present an abund-
ance of capital, the right hon. gentleman ought to look
to the future, when depressions might arise. He found
by the returns on the table of the house, that there was
a balance of 2,700,000/. yet unpaid from loans that had
been issued ; and the right hon. gentleman intended to
be put his hand on the re-payments as they might fall in,
and devote them to the current services of the year, as
old stores. This was a serious question which ought to
brought fully before the country. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman estimated his surplus at 1,350,0001.,
the saving from the termination of the Kafir war at
250,0001., the payments from the loan commissioners
at 400,000/., and the produce from the increase of the
house tax at 500,000/.—making in all 2,500,000/. On
the opposite side the right hon. gentleman calculated the
loss from the remission of the malt and hop duties at
1,000,000/., the loss from de change of the tea-duty at
400, 0001., the extraordinary estimates at 600,000/. and the
loss from light dues and other remissions of that kind at
100,000/.—making a total of 2,100,000/. This would
leave him with the narrow surplus of 400,000/. Now,
setting aside the payment of the loan commissioners,
the balance would be nil ; and in the event of the
embers of the Kafir war being again lighted up, his sur-
plus would turn to a deficiency. (Hear, hear.) And
this risk was to be run for the sake of a reduction of the
malt tax. Now, what benefit would the country derive
from such a reduction ? The honourable baronet the
member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Lytton) said the other
night that the consumer would gain a penny on each pot
of beer. He (Mr. Rich) had taken the liberty of asking
the hon. member for Derby the number of gallons of
good beer produced from a quarter of malt, and found
the quantity fo be 124 gallons. Now, multiplying the
number of quarters consumed by the number of gallons
brewed, he found the total number of gallons to be
about 600,000,000. The reduction proposed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was 2,500,000/., and that
sum reduced into pence gave 600,000,000, consequently
the benefit to the consumer could not be more than a
penny per gallon, supposing every particle of th'e re-
mission to go to the consumer, and no portion of. it be
kept by the brewer. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LO WE said, when he considered that we had on
the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sur-
plus of 1,300,0001., he should have thought the wisest
and best course that any Government could have adopted,
would have been to persevere quietly and steadily in the
system hitherto carried out with such successful financial
results. It appeared to him that no case had been made
out for a change ; all that we had to do was to have
gone on as before, and when the surplus had been dis-
posed of we might consider that we had done all that
wise and prudent men could do under the circumstances.
Further, he should have thought that the present time
being one of unexampled prosperity, and remembering
that the lot of mankind was mutable, the probability was
that when any change did occur, that change would be
wise in our proceedings and calculations not to count on
being better off than we are, not even to suppose that
our present state of prosperity was always to continue,
and not to imitate the person in the parable, who says
that "to-morrow shall be even as to-day, and much
more abundant" ; and that we should rather look our
dangers in the face, and make our arrangements not on
the calculation that we were to have a period of un-
limited prosperity, but that out of many hundred contin-
gencies any one might arise which might .temporarily or
continually prevent our progress. The budget before them
did not take this into consideration. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had not only adopted free trade, but he now
seemed unable to persuade himself that the existence
of free trade was consistent with any of the mutations to
which human affairs were liable. Further, he (Mr.
Lowe) should have thought, considering what the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had so ably shown, that the
cause of the great emigration now taking place from this
country was not from any want or suffering of the people
here, but arose out of an anxiety to participate in the
great opening for prosperity in another country ; and
therefore that the causes which ruled our emigration
were causes over which the internal organisation of this
country had little or no control, and that it was not in
our power, by ameliorating the condition of the emi-
grating classes, to prevent them from emigrating. When
he considered all this, he should have thought that this,
of all others, was not the time to add an additional im-
pulse to that mighty emigration, and by making men
pinched in their circumstances at home, and by taxing
those who worked for wages, to suggest to them that
there were other lands where -there was neither house
tax, assessed taxes, nor excise_ (Hear.) He (Mr. Lowe)
thought that the right hon. gentleman had made out no
case for the surplus put forward by him in the Budget.
The state of the Budget amounted to this : that it pro•
posed to reduce the revenue to the extent of something
like 1,200,000/. by the remission of the tea duties and
the light dues, and by the increase to the national de-
fences—with all of which nobody quarrelled--while, on
the other hand, it only imposed 1,000,0001. in the shape
of house tax ; and for the rest, to meet the loss of half
the malt tax, it trusted entirely to the chapter of acci-
dents. Now he, for one, refused to be led into that line
of recklessness. He was satisfied that if in such a year
as the present—a year of unexampled and glorious pros-
perity beyond all imagination—the nation was not honest
enough to nieet its obligations, it was not likely to meet
them in harder times. If they began by borrowing
money—for the proposition with regard to the Exchequer
loan amounted to this—they would set an example to
future Parliaments of reducing taxes like the malt tax,
although the people were never so well able to. bear
them ; and that example future Parliaments would either
follow or they would not. If they followed it they would
in a very short time wreck and ruin the finances of the
country, shipwreck its credit, and reduce us to the level
of a third-rate power, contemptible in the eyes of the
world. If they did follow it, then they would hold them
scorn and disgrace as the most reckless and up to
im-
providenthenenrea tshteewnaamrdes
ooffatphear public money that ever dis-
tTholiseuwithoaadvocatel admthenetr.epe(aHl eoafrt,hheemara.)lt
tax
impute Aitto MILLS hardly thought it fair to
a desire to enrichawainlre d particular class. We were told
rof that held
thatt
h heavy woe
I.Bw
us when men spoke well of us.
of the 'Exchequer ought toll7e
good, certainly thefChancellor
[augh.) His object m rising, however, er happiest otoms
teant.e

strong feeling which his constituents entertained to some
of the propositions of the right honourable gentleman.
He (Mr Mills) had the misfortune, on this occasion, to
differ from many of those with whom he ordinarily.
agreed. He thought it infelicitous that while the Govern-
ment should have proposed to extend the house tax and
the income tax to classes who had hitherto been exempted
from them—an extension in itself which he considered
I wise and just—they should simultaneously have also pro-
posed to double the former tax, and that too for the sake
of remitting the malt tax—a burden with regard to which
very great diversity of opinion existed amongst the agri-
cultural interest itself. He thought the reduction of the
malt tax would cause a serious and uncalled-for sacrifice
to the revenue ; and certainly, when it could only be
accomplished by the reduplication of the house tax,
which must press very severely on certain classes, he
hoped that the Government would consent to reconsider
their proposals. It had been said that the proposed
alteration in the house tax would lead to an extensive
disfranchisement, because voters would get houses at
91. 19s. 6d. rent, instead of 101., in order to evade the
tax. He could not believe that Englishmen would be
found prepared, for such paltry consideration, to barter
their birthright, but if they should, what then became
of that ardent longing for political power among the
masses which it was so often said was the characteristic
of our age. He believed that two of the classes who
were now to be asked for the first time to contribute to
the house tax and the income tax—he meant persons
occupying houses at 101. rent, and persons having in-
comes of 1001. a year—could no longer be denied the
elective franchise; so that instead of being a disfranchis-
ing measure, he rather believed that the extension of
direct taxation to those classes would widen the consti-
tuency.

Mr. BASS—There was no monopoly in brewing—all
that was wanted was industry, and superior skill in the
application of large sums of money. Why, they might as
well say that the right hon. gentleman opposite, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, had got a monopoly because he
had more brains than many of them. (Laughter.) The
right hon. gentleman had most judiciously and wisely de-
ferred commencing the reduction of the malt duty till the
10th of October, because, if he had reduced it at once, he
would not only have disturbed the whole calculations of
the present year, but have thrown the whole malting and
brewing trade into confusion. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe) evidently did not understand either malting or
brewing ; and when he talked of brewing fresh beer with
fresh malt, he could only say that the hon. gentleman was
much better acquainted with other matters than with that
part of his (Mr. Bass's) trade. (A laugh.) He would
inform him, before he made another speech on this subject,
that there was a malting season, which began about the
Ist of October. and ended about the Ist of May; and
from the let of May to the Ist of October there was a
complete cessation in the process of malting. A brewer
must begin brewing with a stock of malt very nearly amount-
ing to one-third of his annual consumption ; and how
could he do that unless he was allowed to have a stock of
malt on hand ? He could assure the hon. member, there-
fore, that as to brewing fresh beer with fresh malt, it was
altogether out of the question and impossible. (A laugh.)
But turning to the general question of the removal of the
malt tax, he (Mr. Bass) had last year had the honour of
submitting this very proposition to remit half the tax to
the house, believing that it would be, as he still believed,
most advantageous to the country, that it would be of con-
siderable benefit to the producer of barley, of much advan-
tage to the consumer of beer ; and that it would entail
very little loss, ultimately, to .the revenue. On that occa-
sion, however, his proposition did not receive the support
of more than thirty-one honourable members, and among
its friends.he did not find the right honourable gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any of his present
colleagues. Let them look at the reason of the thing.
Were they to say, "We must remit every duty on
foreign articles ; but we shall obstinately retain every
tax upon our own produce ?' But it was said that the
malt tax involved five millions of our revenue.; and that
that was too large a sum to deal with in the way of re-
duction. (Hear.) Well, he admitted the force of that
argument ; and therefore it was that he had thought that
they should begin by degrees, taking off one-half at first,
which would by no means cause a loss of one-half to the
revenue, and then, if the prosperity of the country at some
future time enabled them to repeal the remaining half, it
would be for Parliament in its wisdom to take that step.
But the right hon. baronet, the former Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Sir C. Wood), the other night argued that to
remit the duty would be useless ; for it would not increase
the consumption of malt ; and he said that there had been
no corresponding increase in the consumption when the
beer duty was removed in the year 1830. Now, he (Mr.
Bass) thought the right hon. baronet was mistaken in this.
True there was no immediate increase after the year 1830,
because we had two bad harvests at Mut period; but in the
year 1836 the quantity had increased prodigiously, He be-
lieved that, in round numbers, the consumption, which in
1830 was three millions and a half, had risen to consider-
ably more than five millions. (Hear, hear.) He thought
that ought to have satisfied the right hon. baronet. But
then they were told that Mr. Barclay, the largest brewer
in the world, had stated, in his evidence before a commit-
tee of the House of Lords, that it would be useless to take,
off the malt duty ; and it was also said that Mr. Taylor
—who was Mr. Barclay's maltster, by the bye—had
stated pretty much the same thing. Yet the hon.
member for Halifax (Mr. Sandars)—himself an eminent
maltster—had, the other night, countenanced the idea that
the reduction of the duty would all go into the pockets of
the great brewers ; and still the hon. gentleman said he
would vote for this budget, although he had opposed his
(Mr. Bass's) proposal last year. (A laugh, and a cry of 1
" no.") But he would ask, what became of the charge of
rapacity against the brewers ? It was said that this mea-
sure
would distribute two millions and a half of money
among the brewers ; and yet, on the other hand, they were
all to a man against it. Surely the brewers—men who
had made large fortunes—ought to be allowed credit for
some sagacity—or cunning, as honourable gentlemen would
perhaps call it ; and if they were so rapacious as was al-
leged, how was it that they were opposed to a reduction
which it was said would swell their profits so enormously ?
But it was said they had not made reductions in the price
of beer when there had been considerable reductions in the
price of barley. That was perfectly true. For twenty
and
years, or neany, since the last adjustment of the prices of
eer, the price of barley had been remarkably uniform ;
hq had once explained to the house before how it
was that, in an article divided so minutely, it was incon-
enient to have frequent alterations in price, and that
it became almost an agreement between the brewers and
publicans that there should not be sudden and frequent
changes (hear, hear, and laughter.) He hoped that they
would be good enough to hear him out. Since the
establishment of free trade, it was true that there had
been a steady and permanent reduction in the price of bar-
ley up to the present year. In the present year the brewers
were paying considerably more than the average prices of
the last thirty years ; but up to the present year there had
been a considerable and an important reduction, and no
corresponding reduction in the price of beer. Now he ex-
plained to the house last year, and he now repeated it, that
it was very difficult to make a reduction in the price of
beer, on account merely of the reduction in the price of bar-
ley. But if they added to the reduction in the price of bar-
ley the reduction of the duty on malt, he said emphatically
not only would the consumer of beer receive the benefit of
the reduction in the malt-tax, but he would get, in addition
thereto, that reduction which had taken place in the price
of barley, which the brewers and the maltsters owe to the
public at large (laughter.) He repeated that he believed when-
ever they made this reduction in the malt tax, that the brewers
would not only make commensurate reduction to the
public, but would also make a further handsome reduction
for the reduced price of barley. An honourable gentleman
below him asked, what would the reduction of half the duty
wase
as:
Gentlemen
s.e)etnbiohett sureyaalOwepdsh
mm.aabu
leanlnoeb.d thereaohb
er
rfHew wouldes
eacle,tsu
irtaeahltuatifen:
oougcnalgerenhdirayn:
ua :rotbs
reiefeodweHtnturohoi
iletab:
reduction
(n 1 e
laugh)--it
guided
ruoefg
reductionsitNvsonthtnahgaentormaltthidenwogtlaehtmsdastlsteointrgou nsoeol computation,
atg
treune:ftga
un-
reasonablet
to expect as large a reduction in pale ale.
(Great laughter.) Still he undertook to give that opinion,
that there ought to be a reduction of from 4s. to 6s. a bar-
rel on the price of beer, according to its strength. Remem-
ber the brewer had, or ought to have, a profit on the capi-
tal which he employed in hie trade, and there would be not
only the reduction in the duty, but in the interest of the
capital which would be no longer required to conduct the
business on the same scale. Enabling the trade to be
conducted with a smaller capital would invite more
competition, and this the brewers must expect. (Hear,
hear, hear.) He might be permitted to say a few words
with respect to the bugbear of foreign malt. He would
undertake to say, that if the British manufacturers only
had a fair chance—that was to say, if the foreigners re-
duced their duty, they would supply the foreign market
with malt instead of the foreigner supplying us. What
inducement could our brewers have to take the foreigners'
malt ? Why, the principal brewers of this country would
not trust the maltsters to make malt for them—they must
make their own malt. He begged his honourable friend to
understand, that in order to be a successful brewer you
must understand the maltster's trade too. It was not
every sort of malt that would produce a really valuable
quality of beer ; it was not the foreigner who could supply
an article that could be trusted to produce a desired quality
of beer. What inducement had British manufacturers to
go to the foreigner when they could make their malt
say, make rthaitnhbetter toocould,e ?
andwaisthhrees(Mperc.t to Bass) undertook
maltrtook in
the winter, there were very few countries in which it
could be done, and none that he was acquainted with so
favourable to the production of malt as this comrtry.
For that purpose a mild and moist climate was required ;
with a very severe degree of frost they could not make malt
and when that occurred in this country the process was in-
terrupted. He could not think that the countries on the
Baltic or on the banks of the Elbe could make an article
equal to that used by the English brewer, and never would
he believe, till he saw it, that a single barrel could be
brought into this country which would injure our manu-
facturers by foreign competition. As to the production of
foreign barley, he believed the difficulties arising on that
head were greatly overrated. He knew that at times very
large quantities of foreign barley might be introduced into
this country. As much as 1,600,000 quarters had been
imported in 1849, but of that quantity not one fourth
was malting barley, the rest being used for the pur-
pose of distillation or fattening cattle, as well as for
human food. He had ascertained on careful inquiry
that, going from one end of Europe to the other,
there was the great difficulty s procuring, on all
the large quantity produced, more than 200,000 quar-
ters of fine malting barley. What was that in compari-
son with the 5,000,000 quarters we used ? Evidently it
would have no effect in prices. In 1850 the quantity we
imported fell off to 1,100,000 or 1,200,000 quarters, in the
following year it fell to 800,000, and during the year ending
the 10th October last—for this information he was in-
debted to the kindness of the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade—it was under 600,000 or
thereabouts. The house would not fag to observe that
this decline in the importation of foreign barley—this
diminution of competition with our English barley-growers'
had taken place not with such a reduction of price as
might reasonably account fog: it, but with a very great and

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
so
r
w
yabnou Exchequerbusiness
ufasfattened
tnt
extendhe
ada t
thes
okwne
at. dobhsersia
noa
eeeahilaayeditprnol
yhtd!eehotefieill
mehaslsittosdHdsdeao.
redleigoht
oel eexehHfat with
aigantEtnemyfrhi
ihasxotao(
sheeptyedo greatehi
n.
fromqopl,
Bi
uuaocapttrdte
dwsoti,aceohfes
eoortaahermeu
eehdhi
instance
meet with a single sample of what was called bright
th
e
t
l
e
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
t
Government,
iradevtsev:
leatherrighaeo'onpepembr
representations
hear.)eteug
isttnceehlttvnes
tetbnouttyinsihWpt
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 maltjt
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 not 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 made by the Chancellor of the Ex-
t
chequer in introducing the ministerial measures, he need
ew:ctenebeso tsyl
I;sasainefulenraoael conetr:rifdg,te-1
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. He 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 unpophiulprercahrihetyne
Icoilifinfnshc conscientiously
giving
to
vboet e
basedin fa veouur jus-
tice.ofmwoeasuludrensowt
(Hear, hear.) eiefnwrteiemoruse
idoomed to encounter it,
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 classes who were in a social position
that enabled them to bear their due share of the public
burdens. Now he conceived '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. Respecting 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 income 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 should 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 elections
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 obtained that quota now in the case
of the house tax, and therefore he should have no hesita-
tion in supporting both its 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 hitherto 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 continually impressed on the people that
they were the only men who would secure cheapness, and
that they would pour blessings from that exhaustless cor-
nucopia of free trade of which they were the sole posses-
sors. He believed that the measures brought forward by
the Government would give the country plenty in earnest,
and therefore he gave them his hearty support. (Hear.)
No one would pretend that a reduction of half the malt
fax would not very much diminish the price of beer, and
that the remission of the tax 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, inasmuch 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 Exchequer 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
a 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 been 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 Goternment. It was not for
him to defend a nobleman whose 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 public 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
tlfe 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. He 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)—
of murmuring at any unnecessary outlay of the public
money. It induced the public to watch with jealousy the
expenditure of the national revenue. This he was quite
certain of, that if 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 alter 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 professed to do—namely,
to deal with the disposable part of a man's income, and it
was well known that the house in which he 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 dis-
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 one 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 called upon to make
great sacrifices, and if they now exhausted their resources,
they would not know where 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 M. 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 houses, and by the estimate of the right
hon. gentleman the including of houses rated at 10/. 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. He relied upon the experience
of Parliament with respect to the sugarduties. Under the act
of 1848 no great diminution of revenue had taken place. The
revenue yielded by tea had been decreasing of late years.
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
anticipated a loss to the revenue this year of 400,0001., but
tha t would be made up by an increased consumption of
5,000,000 or 6,000,000 pounds • and there was nothing un-
reasonable in anticipating that'. As to the malt duty he
did n of know who would be benefited by it, and as a ques-
tion ce" compensation to agriculture it must be of very par-
tial 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 income 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, 5,000,000/. 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
(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). We have 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 largo 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 fah' 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
ao-o 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 2,000,030 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 materi ally
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 1/. 15s. a quarter. It was subsequently reduced
to 11. Bs., and later still to 11. 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 23,000,000
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'Culloch 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 6d. 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 dealinc, with this question since 1750. (Hear, hear.)
Between that year and 1805 the duty was increased—first,
to is. 9d., then it was is. 4c1., 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 30,000,003
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 another period—that
between 1801 and 1811. In the former year the duty was
raised to the enormous amount of 45. sid., 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 iB3O, The right bon, euitleraan 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 froni 26,900,000 bushels to 32,300,000.
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
'amount 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 than 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 time
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, and the 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 34d. 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 corn,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 ail 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 600,0001., 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
proposition of a house tax as a substitute for the window
duties, 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 thehouesneidfetiamffa cxetbreier:
Ines
tti
htoceelrfaasfitieesdest
of
fiurretichntegh
impost
country.
r ywe she.
which
debate—that
cane —oh
,t, 1, a
placeafrto
from some
onhi
nto
14310iirgst`e`
Opposition,then,
if
you andwll cheersnotadfmiromt
that
te riaad,t tsi)wifseally,
that the beet political economists, from Ad= Smith to

0100:,1
Mill and M'Culloch, say that the first - easo
you can impose is a house tax, for these
the besti,
the rent a man receives for his house is L two I'S
of what he has got to spend. But there arm, tear;
reasons which Pshall here mention. (agrifeteo?
first is, because a house tax does not antena iso
branch of domestic industry, and the se.ebeie yol
the subject of the tax being visible, toe_ 1;A #
ceased, there can be no danger of fraud. ITho,
it jis greatly superior to any other tal. %nee,'
income, which must necessarily in some from 001
tiously and unequally. I have collected!..llo,o
that have been expressed it is your oPlu,.t orel,
nothing unreasonable in increasing dirtca
shape of the house tax, so as to make rte-
~•‘'.,
10/. value, and the property tax to extenaalioo. Ito;
another objection is taken to this preP°.s "
that it will have the effect of disfranchissr,
of the constituents of this country?fro thloi
does this argument come ? Why,
favourite theory is that taxation and roe' wish 171
go together. They are the persons Avn°thons,
householders should return members to
redend
the possessors of an income fairly consider:el:46oe '
1001. shall constitute the great bulk of s,
in this country. Now, I have no willhesit
?
if you proceed on that principle you
greater blow upon our representative so ,
ever before received. And for this reason t
pursue that system under which an unths; to,
of this country will be returning nieln
the representatives will take such care ?,
constituencies as to impose no tax other t
does not press in any way upon them. '
position is utterly preposterous, and can"
,I
for a single moment. Well there is one otn,
I have heard. The objection to which la'
was made by the hon. baronet the meinnbeti:tn,
(Sir B. Hall) in his address to his co
this :—that we should have extended this
lower amount than 101. Now I think if
my right hon. friend, made in reference 1,0,
has any one merit greater than another, it
is putting the direct taxation of this cot
and reasonable footing. If, on the other
measure more objectionable than anotheri in
direct taxation, it is that one which corn
of thee ,
contribute towards the revenue
means are such as may be fairly consider ao,
provide for himself the necessary
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) 4
think there is anything unreasonable in
jr:
There is a minimum under which, I thin lb
in justice, we ought not to compel a contriea
taxation. That minimum should be view
• providing the'
means capable, -not merely of provr
articles of subsistence but also the or
existence. Well, I think that we have ui
ciple, first by extending the property 10
perty of 501. a-year, and the house taficiiix
The honourable member for the West „, Rents
shire has completely upset all the erg
been urged against the extension of the. de
articles
..,101
come tax by the hon. members on his s'
That honourable gentleman has shown the
distinction which we have recognised bet
and fixed incomes so clearly that it is "
me to answer the objections made upon /L
right hon. friend's proposition, do n°ll,
to shrink from these objections. TheY.,_are'
dpol
cipally two. The one was taken by the
member for London, the other night, an
pressed in the arguments used by his form(
right honourable baronet the member for
other was taken by the right honourable,
member for the University of Oxford.
tions of such a formidable character that
sustained, I think that they would inat„,,,
character of the budget which has been a—
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
noble lord the member for London says t"'
rially increased the number of exemptions.
gentleman the member for the University
and,
that we have broken faith with the pubhC
first of all, I beg the house to bear in r"
the
dealing with the first objection, what are
of the property and income tax at Pres;
these :—You exempt every property in fri
classes and descriptions, when the owners o
in that country. You exempt, then, every
less than 1501. a-year. These are the two
exemptions. But what are ours ? l-
every
every class in Ireland, we for the first time
these exemptions the official salaries and ""`„,
tants in Ireland. In that respect we kirav:'isire
minished the number of exemptions. ""
the point of exemption in reference to Pr
to 1001. instead of 150/., and in respect to the
501. instead of 1501. How the noble lord ye
London could gravely say then that we m-nt
creased the number of exemptions I calf-
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord might en"'
that these alterations were not equitable ium
I think we can defy even his great abilities -Jiro
have increased the number of exemptions,4loo
we dealt with this income tax ? The ye' bet
made are not of an exemptory character, •
as we think will put the tax upon a more
table footing than it was heretofore. It is
we have benefited the farmer by those prey
what have we done but this ? We have
„„/
since the repeal of the corn laws, the Pr
profit and rent is not as it was before. (r;
from the Opposition members.) Now
into which you will have to go in comma
subject; and, I believe, that it will be then
that the proportion between profits and rent
was before. (Hear, hear.) For that reason'
unjust way in which the tax had pressed ley
we propose an alteration in it. Well, We Ere
alteration in reference to the income of a
1001. Why have we done this ? Because
clergyman under 1001. is, in fact, analogous
professional income ; for you must reroein,'
come tax depends not only upon his life, but
health and strength. If his health and st''',
he must provide a substitute. We
clergyman receiving under 1001. a year is,anrors,
to consideration as any professional man. ll'Aitt
third proposition in reference to this tax is
a fourth of the tax upon precarious income;
we done this ? Because, upon the reasonings
who are best acquainted with the subject,
lated that, in reference to the salaries of Pre"
the members of this class ought at least to
successors or old age one-fourth of their 1 h
ceive that that is a just principle upon wage,
proceed. I therefore think that I have sh,,rii
deavoured to show, that when the noble
Increasing the number of exemptions, be e ,
have said that we have demonstrated the n-1
qualities in the present tax, and have :
have been always pointed out in the
come and property tax, evils which everYnn
body admits, and everybody says ought 1"
Having done this, I think that the arguice
lord, in reference to the alteration we pro:
cannot be supported upon the ground of an
ber of exemptions. I now proceed to a iunci,l
taut •objection, made by the right honourn,al,,et
the member for the University of Oxford- -Lib
gentleman says that we have broken faith WTI,
creditor. If that proposition be made
budget ought not to stand for a single nielnilo
We broken faith with the public creditor ?
has been put forward in two points of vie„,
gard. to Ireland • secondly, as regards
gards Ireland, it'is said we are taxing the inns
we are not taxing the land. The infereu'"
that is, that in no case are we justified in
holder unless we tax persons who are in a
in regard to the amount of their property
breaking a national agreement. Now thisis
gether. I deny that the Irish funclholder
trop any more than an English funitholder,
tional engagement, or any legal obligatifnirg,
exemption upon one ground only, and thavv;
of residence:in Ireland. The sth and 6th '
in reference to the property tax, puts the ta,t
upon all profits arising from annuities, divio.vbeivl't
&c., payable to any person, company or societY,
ecgo,/‘
corporate or not, and charges as public trevuttiodeq
property at sevenpence in the und Ivituf tbv,oll
When you come to the rule that constitu'ele gr° ;9:
tions in section 88, you will find that the s° e,i,lelJiYp•
the exception of the Irish fundholder isiessistgeo
schedule C you will find that the rule forr,„; to t",
come tax, and for charging all duties paY,lwn'do
revenue under the act, extends to divide" tin
Ireland for the use of all persons not resll,l`v to P",,,e4;
(Hear.) The amount of the dividends Pa'n'ilivieV
creditor in Ireland for the year ending the ""0 ely)
was 1,350,4621., of which 1,247,390/. we, n'en fr,c,
leaving a tax of over 100,0001. per o.nnuin.h' t" 1010 ett,
paid by the Irish stockholder. I ask my right, it
therefore, if this is a national obligation, W`Zeniritlif
universal application ? It is residence that e'rdild,o,";i;
is no national obligation, as with so manYln-that,Yli,
tion there ought not to be. (Hear.) Well, "r; 3.4 r
If this be a great national engagement 0°,4'1 of
hon. friend represents it, is Ireland any Ps-, t 0,4
If Ireland be so, why is the English credin'e 115.”.
land? The fact is the exemption is not in --E,„ rertli
national engagement but it is because the r greAls,f,,V"
are living in Ireland—a country 64.° ''',411:04
tressed that it ought to be exenW,._,',ll P'" f
is the sole ground on which the 1-",;:g
resident in Ireland is exempt. But I si-for,,,y
The argument of the right hon. member Prteol'elel
to show that he did not approve of the e.sB§lleSbl
income tax to the land of Ireland, becallse„us 00.
was just recovering from a great and ht
ment, it was not a time to tie another Ivelc'ot
neck of that country. I think that arguni'tooloo4
one ; and I think it would be a very ques-the
notwithstanding its apparent equality, thilei O.Z
posed that tax to the land of Ireland ,U2'slstint „T'
But, sir, that argument does not apply l'"...„,sineYtte,
tdmhoyenenfirst
place,
nor to fundholders, because the ernbr: OV„,,fef
which the land has suffered so severely an Pth„s'4.
them. As the matter stands, the extens,'ellceu'i
proposed by my right hon. friend the ifusol,a°ll,ll,ll
Exchequer is perfectly just ; while, as Prit, .0"°,0e:11
hon. baronet the member for lifarylebone,' -jest;
tie around the neck of the land in Irelan",l o'ol,
as it is from a distress nearly unparallcie,Yo• `,.#•
alluded to by the right hon. member for lint'
egol:tithocann. friend broken
ybroonkeonnefaoifthtvirveitVobwien tarp eicib4l
Now, sir, with regard to the English funt,e 1
on the ground of a parnara,e-40411•'
or in the second, on the ground of a moral,4-eroaed,,f"
legal obligation. ask the right hon. genn-tarY ;be
~
he puts it now on the ground of a parliagte-i,. '0
Mr. GLADSTONE was understood to li*l°Kt
tive. ,
v•
Mr. WALPOLE—You did on the last a`govio 't'ii #
the contract ?It was said by the right WI. 'll
now placed this impost on he public creditlbe
has been done since the days of Mr. Pitt ?d sl"11
ditor has been taxed 3 per cent., 5 per cent.,
as high as 10 per cent. (Cheers.) Ido not ee foC
tax being put on ; but you cannot say that this tiPreetwlly
the Parliamentary contract by imposing Coottpool'i
first time. So much for the Parliament/0T rt of „it!) I
therefore, there is no contract, the Ail° 11(10e,0,,);
hon. gentleman must be on the legal, tnurg;;oo4,,lll,
ground. If, however, you put it on tha traieve.
it on a universal footing, applicable at a ou J01,0',7,41
places, and to all persons. But what havelttorilief lef;
have taxed the large creditor—the °To se,' o'loo
per annum, while you have let loose tit AO #1:,
tor under that amount. (Cheers.) 0.1
application f
efco
engagement it is general in its app,i
therefore, have you to tax the large,. twits 00100,1
exempt the smaller ? (Cheers.) But r Noth toe oo',#
you also tax capital. You contract
on cove ite 01,`„
of creditors to pay three per cent., and liete °,09/
another to pay a higher sum ; but every woo,.
7d. in the pound from the holder of te„rrn,, of 111;,„
you take a portion of his capital as wein_fi;t, to.'"
no unt- 01.0
(Cheers.) Both operations may,
may be justifiable; but A will be 011

3nsidereo i~stitse: view
of the eon the f
hesitation ,!1,, : I havnot
you will 'l' 01. fay
tive systern oelf 11,1%?_or
3 reason, re'3oo,,V ,„„n
• untwou, 02L to
auea_
merabersrlheit • the,ll)
Li care xight
✓ th~nfriend
gentlen
d csino., B
one other ebib;„i ben`,
ich 1 Ain t hot ue
ber for bab,,lee
L'ili
eeTnsttrien••
r. f-t s 1
ided ths 0;1,41 he
ink ink if the•P `tito,t of .ge
to air..; big
7enev 04, fr
tiler, it i
119 s se th ',lle
erl h a
us co
lid, r to
other 11' the 55'11 (Cleo_
: friend
!ifo.tedthi7;nierrepsieuoisoinsliwpeito follow .
and am
6i merit o
artosnli.c)les
J.;}tfolcrs,reil
le intb~ eV.; eonld f
think, —6O 0' ; kent—
coutribu h
ei
9 vieWea
ing theet3u! 00t1,11:i,„
or hid hi' ,
Lave 11P' 10 0 get, at
,Dgeearrgtylitart!e:tpoerto 101;i0if:
m mil
;rest IlidillgtOtr. Liar% e
f the Pod ele friends
uis side
„vn the VI: wish`hns
3cl betvi,i,' ee„, 4 ando
s scarCell'o.tiOP will fin
roil this Picec6
seta f
Lo not, 11,(1thipill: the rac
oi,i
iq are' oble har'
Y the (111 05 4. sera
ul
$ll 011° (
forelerpfoo 4ttacigc
ber hilea:'
f 40,4)
rrd. [Cheer
that,
_L'ativ '4,4ve
inatel'"-Iceu,' 401) -
teal 91110,ee, Anse
~,arYtebirgpOsiirilti_etheSys:cejorevolire;fdiiio:te:!,
the 011 18 it b(
itnare °o4fi
y 111 .4 A:-
rig
ners 0110
very Pe :L-0 ci;: 140,60
3 tVfOor )0f e> {r abilitie
.nSte escln tbaef 0,04 toITLY saai
rid th° 'the" in
3 have, ve • 14
WO PO 1°44 40 he
• ecari° ofk, k 4. fr
o Pr.At P
:t to --e if trio_
0(
lord the gra +„1
1131°
we t 113, 14 h:
c,,,n0 tt, those
endc's°,oel;i,, of
31e tbeiroif liaLiedre.`
, to s
titles -gut U9r kali
ions.
3 varisilOt ll' eve' ,
:tietert b.:l 1)0 4th
wore J 1
iS t()111)11
prOPOSIa irbjt; self art
lave eoartioniP Cheers]
Prop 0 anc
(Tokelige 4 h,
✓ these, e (elllaeere°,
d ,trsi:one:t, 10'15 ttuilt4rdegile.;
e
sed 4°,01' 38.. he ha
we pro_w#
'll .
f CleWioCo 1
suetthe Afil C°llFild,
tO ,
alagOne 4, and fi
veralfrtrice ,
re, but
,thfr;4i friend,
strev6-,,
ri
e thereticl3;l, t'4l, e
is As o'isi
e bU
2. (rf f tr
ais th6"ll jilOe to do
aeon. ee; of af,;('
Lsonina 14,101Princi
prO r(us
jeet' ifCeBsii I
it to lainos..)," tenth].
incero tht tall
whic,,ll ori'lif he Pr(
3 sh4P-iii tyf Pro
for to I the
0 large r
he 4")
rtehdre op stance
t k°
anc,
napositi feelti /4ako
rybodYbei t the
I 'oe
aujoot fotls
proP?„,Vb Iv
fan „100 yi when
6 much " 4°' there
tojoblet
r assegai
rd. %.he
itb Thostk4 4'o
ou t_
n01111112;i
pdr into
0e
.;„
4.7.046 th,
Tbe
crep•
e°. state
in
tae 11g r
1911 gt al
aa " tlit' thrta
ty, the l,
Arr wasLolder ~this IgAriiji tisk
[der, Poy,
[hat Jei , C 56, hot
;
ratioo,,
Leat
to
divi.,heoh that