The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-15 00:00:00

A,,A4)?1

S INT

)
rni ''''' ---?4- '
,-,,,-, --- -...;,-, ~.1.
I _ ' ~ ,t7,77"q:::>i 4;44. 1-4.
amount of the house tax or not ; and that what we wx*:.\
~,I,;V-tt:7l,_
called upon to do was to say "Aye" or " No" to the quka-e-4.0-7--,--- '-' 477
tion with reference to the extension of the area of the ta,...,..Y.L:-,,,,
(Hear, hear.) Now, before proceeding further, I shoal q „Ella :Ai
'u''' 1...
m,.
. . ''
like to know whether I am correct in supposing that all
we are asked to consent to at the present in the resolution
we are now discussing is the extension of the house tax
from 201. to 101.: and that we are not called upon to dis-
cuss the question of doubling its amount ? (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The case
stands thus :—The hon. and gallant gentleman the member
for Westminster, without any communication with me,
made a complaint, which had also been made before, that
sufficient notice had not been given to the country of the
measures of Government, nor sufficient time given to the
house to deliberate upon them. Various representations
were made to me from gentleman opposite, and also from
some of my own friends, to the same effect, and it was sug-
gested as a proper thing that we ought to adjourn the de-
bate. When these representations were made to me, I
did say that I thought gentlemen ought to take into
consideration the position in which the Government were
placed ; that, from a sense of duty, we had been forced
to bring forward our budget at a period of the year exceed-
ingly inconvenient ; that we had not the slightest wish not
to give the amplest opportunity to comprehend our mea-
sures, nor any wish to restrict the debate upon them ; but
that we thought that, under all the circumstances, the
house ought, as speedily as possible, to come to some con-
clusion on the subject. I also said privately, as I said to-
night publicly, that, as far as I was concerned, I had no
objection to narrow as far as possible the issue, and to allow
the vote to be taken, provided we could so agree, upon the
first resolution, which the right hon. baronet will see con-
tains nothing with respect to the amount of the rate on
houses ; but does contain a most important principle—viz.,
with respect to the area over which the tax should be ex-
tended. (Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—As I understand what has just fallen
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is his wish that

_ _
we should not discuss the whole budget ; but that we
should confine ourselves to the narrow question whether
the area of the taxation under the House-tax Act should
be extended or not. Now, up to the present time, we have
been debating the whole of the budget. (Loud cheers from
the Opposition.) We have been challenged so to discuss
it. (Renewed cheers.) Her Majesty's Government said
distinctly that they would stand or fall by the judgment
of the house—(continued cheers)—and upon that under-
standing, issue was joined upon a particular reso-
lution. Now, if the house will bear with me, I think I
shall be able to show that it is impossible to narrow the
issue to the question of the area of taxation only, inas-
much as the Government will have to encounter a deficit,
at least in the second year, unless they are prepared to
meet that deficit by augmenting the house tax. If I mis-
take not, the house tax, as levied at present, yields 700,000/.
a year. The effect of extending the area, and bringing
the exemptions down from 20/. to 10/., would be to levy
only 150,000/. more ; so that, therefore, without doubling
the tax, the effect of the proposed measure would be to
yield the Exchequer a sum of only 850,000/. But the
right hon. gentleman, in stating his balance for the year
18534, and looking also to 1854-55, took credit for
1,700,000/. as the produce of the house tax ; and for the
first year he also took credit for 400,000/. from the Exche-
quer Loan Fund, of which I shall say more presently.
The first year only one-half of the house tax comes to be
levied, and that will leave a balance in his favour of only
50,000/. In the second year he will have only the addi-
tional sum arising from the house tax, and will be left
with a deficit, by his own showing, of no less than 450,000/
Under these circumstances, is it possible for the Govern-
ment, with any regard to the credit or safety of the coun-
try, or provision for the public service, if they remit half
the malt tax and the hop duty, and stand by their budget
in every particular, to say that the augmentation of the
house tax will be sufficient ? But I shall take the liberty
of considering this budget in the manner in which I un-
derstood it was to be considered at the commencement of
this debate. (Cheers.) And, although we have sat for
some time during the present session, and, as to direct
legislation not much fruit has been produced as the result
of our sitting, yet I think our time has not been thrown
away. We have made great progress—(hear)—and settled
various matters concerning which there has been much
controversy. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, by a large
majority, we are agreed that unrestricted competition, or
free trade, which the hon. member for the West Riding
has justly said is a shorter and more appropriate term—a
Saxon term, I think he called it—(hear)—shall be hence-
forth the tile of our financial and commercial policy.
(Hear, hear.) We have also decided by a very large
majority that taxes henceforth shall not be imposed
for the benefit of any particular interest, but for the pur-
pose of revenue, or, strictly speaking, that protection is by
common consent abandoned. (Hear, hear.) Again, we
are agreed that cheapness and abundance of food are the
mainstays of the prosperity of the great body of the people
of this country—(hear, hear)—and, further, it is our
opinion, unequivocally expressed, that this is the result of
recent legislation, and that this free trade policy, firmly
maintained and prudently extended, will best enable the
industry of this country to bear its burdens, and will most
contribute to the welfare, contentment, and happiness of the
people. (Hear, hear.) That puts an end to a great contro-
versy—that is the real harvest of the seeds sown in the last
six years—and it is admitted by almost common consent,
certainly by an overwhelming majority, that these are
the great principles now recognised for our future legis-
lation. (Hear, hear.) Now, I am bound to say that the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in opening his budget, dealt with a very important part
of this matter in a way that was pfmiliarly satisfactory—
Libt" I)nu9l'itikif,—lie ICOnsairei-ed" Iwnsit wiis due in equity
and justice to the classes which it was alleged had been in-
jured by the course of recent legislation. Those classes
were the shipping interests of this country, the sugar-
growing colonies, and the landed interest ; and he said it
was most desirable that all wars of classes should hence-
forth cease with reference to the question of taxation ;
that what was equitable with regard to the past should
now be done once for all ; that the good of the entire
people should be the rule in laying taxes on the people of
the country. And, sir, with reference to the shipping in-
terest, I entirely concur in the observations of the hon.
member for Montrose. I think that the arrangement pro-
posed by the Government with reference to the shipping
interest, that 100,000/. should be given in aid of peculiar
burdens falling upon them, of which they have not been
fully relieved, is an arrangement perfectly justified, and
meets with my entire approbation. (Hear.) Having the
honour of being a member of the Trinity-house, I am bound
to say it should be remembered that since 1842 that corpo-
ration, by the awords of juries and arbitrations have had to
pay 1,200,000/. for the purchase of lights, which were
granted to private individuals, and yet that they have so
managed their funds, that in the same pefiod their debt
has been reduced from 1,200,000/. to only 112,000/. While,
under the guidance of my right hon. friend the President
of the Board of Trade, since 1849 they have increased the
number of lights, at an expenditure of 115,000/. In respect,
then, to the lighting, I think the arrangement is a provi-
dent arrangement, and worthy the sanction of the house.
With respect to the passing tolls, also, I think they should
not be a burden thrown on the shipping interest. As to
pilotage, however, I should have thought my right hon.
friend the President of the Board of Trade, having this
1 subject distinctly before him, might on the part of the
Government very safely have introduced a measure with-
out previous inquiry. My own belief is, that the exclu-
sive rights of the pilots of the Cinque Ports cannot be
maintained, and I shouldhmiemtihtoinugghttbeitfrm,sx'
right to introduce a measure nvi-
oulcldushivaovepb9ell
leges ; but, upon theand as to
whole, theproposition
Govern-
ment upon that point,t heq o
uestionsfotfhe anch anchorage
alngdaro not
ewnanti-
cipatewhichthe any
and the salvag differenceeof
opinion.shoipfs,is one up4son
colonies, I rejoice at the marked progress that has been
made by them... At the closo of the last Parliament the
right hon. gentleman, the secretary for the Colonies, ex-
pressed an earnest desire to deal with the descending scale,
and to arrest its descent, so as to prevent the evils which he
thought were resulting from it, and he said nothing but in-
ability to carry it prevented his making an attempt of the
kind. It was predicted that the effect of the descent of the
discriminating duty would show that free trade would not
answer, and that protection would ultimately thrive. That
prediction is not verified. I am extremely glad that the
West Indian interest is to take a receipt in full of all de-
mands in the power of refining in bond ; but I should wish
to hear, before the debate is closed, some answer to the
speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge as to the effect upon our financial opera-
tions ,
by this very concession of refining in bond. If it '
to be optional, I understand that persons who have sugar
in this country of an inferior quality will avail themselves
of that privilege, and I have reason to believe, f they do,
that 10 per cent, will be lost to the revenue bjirthat
would be
con-
cession. One-half of the whole of the sugar duty_„,„„and
2,000,000/., and 10 per cent. upon that is 200,000/.; ,uvut
yet in the balance of the year the Chancellor:anyloss to the
of the.,
Ex-
chequer has not dealt with the question of
revenue consequent upon the permission given to the West
1 Indian interest, and, therefore, apart from
deductions for the remission of the malt tax and hop duty,all question of
200 000/ to bo lost by
the permission to
allow this sum of , •
surplus will be converted into an
his balance already, I think, vorging to a deficiency, if you
refine in bond, the narrow
Universityf Oxford"
' d the member for the o
right hon. friend .
his long experience, and his
actual deficiency, and the warning, so well expressed by my
his independent station,
.spotless
character giving additional weight to that warning—shovving
that it proceeded from a deep attachment to the public service,
and making it tell with ten fold effect, would.
be proved to
be but too well justified. I pass on rapidly to other topics
we have made immense in ',
s
sahnodr t againti m o . llsay strides thihear all arguments about the transfer of
local burdens discarded as obsolete. No longer is any stress
laid upon them, and the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer said, even as to the county rates,
that if anything should be done as to their being trans-
ferred to the consolidated fund, it would be only Id.
in the pound upon the rate, and that that would be so
utterly insignificant he would no longer think of offering
it. I very much doubt 'whether the remission of
half the malt duty will be 10. in the pound. (Hear.)
But I come to another point still more important. In
my view an admission of immense value has been made.
It is now distinctly stated by the Government, heretofore
the advocates of the transfer of local burdens on account of
injury to land, that the best security for the prosperity of
the landed interest is to be found in the welfare of the
working classes, and in their prosperity ; that the landed
interest seeks no longer any benefit at the expense of the
community, but is satisfied with the admission of that great
truth that their prosperity is based on the welfare, happi-
ness, and contentment of the working classes. (Hear.)
bee
And that is illustrated by that which
has
prediction
dieted under adverse circumstances,
never refused my respondency,
-ogreat body of consumers
visions, and give abundanceot
the
thethat if you have cheap pre-
poor laws mainly falling
of this country, the weightpidly diminish. (Hear, hear.)
upon real property will rapidly
statement of the right hon. gentleman
And what was the
Exchequer? I heard it with pleasure
f
the Chancellor of the
from 1849 to 1852, the burden
urden
—that in the last three years,
25
rates had diminished per cent. It had fallen
of the poor-ra
from 6,000,• ,
000/ to 4 800,000/., being an amount of relief of
25per cent. i
to the landed nterest, mainly, and in the opinion
thatreliefsatisfied allclaims of
• ht hon. gentleman,
of the rig
the
landed interest that might be made in the shape of com-
pensation for past injury by the repeal of the corn laws and
the freeimportation ("Hear, hear," and cries of
o f corn.
"No, no.") I am not merely stating my own opinion ; I am
dealing with the
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made as I think,
with great ability, fairness, and perspicuity, and I refer to
that statement to show, while there is much left on which
Tao differ, hew much there is QA which we agree

()Isar, hear.) I will now pass on to the consideration of
the prospective view taken by the right hon. gtntleman.
After all that had occurred as to this matter, I hat a 'great
anxiety to sea what was the precise plan which the Govern-
ment would introduce, and which had been announced as
a system of revision of the taxation of the country which
was to produce an immense effect, to give general satisfac-
tion, and contentment and relief to all classes of her Ma-
jesty's subjects. I was delighted to see this great measure
at last put before us in a tangible shape, and in a manner
that precluded the possibility of any evasion on the one
hand, or any exaggeration on the other. It was observed
the other mght that one Government was very much like
another. I must say that every budget, whoever may be
its progenitors, bears a strong family resemblance to all
others. I see no difference in this. (A augh.) Strip it of
the repeal of the malt tax and hop duty, and this question
of the house tax, about which there is a disposition rather
to try the question whether it is to be doubled or not, and
it would appear to me a very reasonable budget. (A laugh.)
The question of the renewal of the income tax, or the prin-
ciple upon which it should be levied, would be open to
discussion in detail, but, apart from that, this budget
was very ranch the same with former budgets. I should
like, however, first of all, to notice the mode in which the
right hon. gentleman proposes to deal with the hop duties.
I think I recollect he said that these should be the canons
of the Chancellors of the Exchequer—" All that I would
uphold as thegolden rule of all Chancellors of the Exchequer
is, to beware that no tax, whatever form it may take, whe-
ther that of a Customs duty, an Excise duty, or a direct im-
post, should in its nature be excessive ;" and " complete
remission or complete commutation,—these," said he, "are
the two principles which a financial Minister should pur-
sue." Now, try the hop duty by those canons, which I
think sound. As to the hop duty, I think it will be ad-
mitted that the remission of half the duty is exactly, ac-
cording to the rule of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
himself, the most objectional course. Repeal the whole of
the hop duty and you get rid of the entire charge and vex-
ation of collection. The loss to the public would not be
very great. The amount received is small ; the vexation
is peculiarly onerous to the grower, and certainly onerous
to the consumer. Retain half of it,—l do not think that
will do you any good—all the vexation of collection will
remain unchanged ; and then if you let in foreign hops upon
a duty strictly countervailing and not protective, I am
satisfied the grower of hops, so far from thanking you
for this reduction, will be injured by it. I think, then,
the truth of the canon of the sight hon. gentleman, as to
complete remission, could not receive a better illus-
tration than this example of the hop duty. I will now
proceed to the malt tax; but that subject has been so
thoroughly discussed that I am very unwilling, at this pe-
riod of the evening (half-past ten) to prolong a discussion
upon it. The right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary
was pleased to magnify me into a great authority upon this
subject, and quoted a prophecy I made in the year 1831. I
must toll my right hon. friend the less that is said, now we
are agreed that the repeal of the corn laws shall not be
disturbed, the better. (Ironical cheers from the Minis-
terial side.) lany gentlemen opposite would, I think,
wider present cireunistances be the very first to desire
that all prophecies should be forgotten. (Cheers from the
Opposition.) But I meet say this—l have never adVoeated
the repeal of the malt tax. This experiment has often been
tried. In the year 1816 a large reduction of the duty took
place. In 1319, it was again increased. In 1533 I had the
honour of being in the service of the Crown, under Lord
Grey. A motion was ceeried somewhat unexpectedly for
the repeal of the malt tax ' • but, in 48 hours afterwards,
Lord Althorp, the representative of the Government, came
down to the House of Commons, with the full concurrence
of Lord Derby and myself and his other colleagues, and an-
nounced that if the resolutions were not reversed the fate
of Lord Grey's Government was sealed, and that he could
be no longer responsible for the Government of the country.
The consequence of that declaration was that the House of
Commons did not hesitate to reverse its decision. Again,
when the hon. member for the North Riding of Yorkshire,
a few years ago, proposed the repeal of the malt tax, I
voted against his resolution ; and the noble earl now
at the head of the Government then declared that he did
not countenance the repeal of the malt tax—that it was
a branch of the revenue so large that he did not think
it right it should be repealed. But the hon. member for
Derby, last night, with great instruction, urged an argu-
ment that, if I had any doubt as to the repeal of the malt
tax, would be conclusive in favour of maintaining it.
(Hear.) It is said sometimes that the Excise regulations
are most vexatious ; but the hon. member declared that
those regulations had been much improved—that they did
not interfere in the slightest degree with the manufacture
of malt, and that such was the skill of the growers in the
process of making malt, that if they had a drawback they
could export malt. Another argument was as to the feed-
ing of cattle, but the hon. member for Derby said that, as
the law now stood, there was nothing to prevent the far-
mer wetting his barley and allowing it to germinate—that
he could do everything but dry it for the purposes of
brewing or distillation. We have been reminded that
the greatest brewer in this metropolis, and I believe in
the world, Mr. Barclay, has distinctly said that the
effect of the remission of the whole of the duty would
only be to reduce the price of porter to the consumer
in this city to about one halfpenny a pot ; and there-
fore the effect of a remission of one half the duty would
only be to reduce the price one farthing a pot. Now, that
remission is not appreciable. (Hear, hear.) An hon.
friend of mine has alluded to the case of pale ale, and has
told us that it may be reduced in price about 4s. a barrel,
and that would be actually a reduction—if it were possible
to appreciate it—of something less than the reduction upon
porter contemplated by Mr. Barclay—a reduction of some-
thing less than a farthing a pot. (Hear, hear.) Now, let
us take the case of the barley-growers. With regard to the
real barley land, there is every reason why the remission of
any portion of this duty should not be desired in the strictly
barley-growing districts. The effect of the present law is
to give the strictly barley-growing districts a premium upon
their barley. The demand for barley of the first quality is
almost boundless ; the supply of barley of the first quality
is very limited. It is confined almost entirely to three or
four counties—to Hereford, Suffolk, Norfolk, and, per-
haps, Cambridgeshire ; and I believe that barley grown
upon first-rate barley soil, in consequence of the almost
boundless demand and the limited supply, will command,
under the exsiting law, considerably higher prices than if
arakaamaaa las 'Phan laitlarearardatn_thaalisaa;ats
of England—they have heavy soils, not suited to the
growth of barley, and they would derive no benefit what-
ever from its cultivation, and would not, in an agricultural
point of view, gain any advantage from the remission of
this tax. With respect to the remainder of the area of
this country, it consists of inferior soil—generally speaking
of a damp and cold description—not at all suited to the
growth of barley, and I believe at present prices that oats
would be found a more profitable crop. At all events I
am satisfied, with reference to the landed interest, that no
great benefit will arise from the proposed measure. (Hear,
hear.) Then, how stands the case with regard to Scotland?
I don't know what Scotch members may say, but it appears
to me that the proposition for taking off the discriminating
duty between barley and inferior descriptions of grain is the
harshest proposition that could be made with reference to
Scotland. (Hear.) There is an intrinsic inferiority in the
grain of Scotland, and I conceive that the proposed regula-
tion with respect to the drawback upon spirits in that
country, so far from being in favour of the Scotch agricul-
turists, will be a very severe blow to them. I will now,
with the permission of the house, pass on to another topic,
to which, if the country gentleman will permit me to speak
to them again as a friend—(the right hon. baronet was
here interrupted by derisive cheers from the Ministerial
benchos)—if you are not satisfied that I have a community
of interest with you—(Opposition cheers)—l am really afraid
I cannot plead any argument which will convince you with
reference to my motives • but still I have great reliance
upon your reason, and I ;rill put the matter to you, as I
think, with irresistible force with reference to the
oint I
am about to take up. lam about to refer to the Exchequer
Loan Commission ; and I may be permitted to say that,
although I have always opposed the transfer of local bur-
dens to the Consolidated Fund, yet, if ever there was
a fund which has tended to the constant benefit of the
landed interest, it is the Exchequer Loan Fund. (Hear,
hear.) It is a mat legitimate fund in aid of local pur-
poseses—a fund not costing the public at large any amount
whatever to its detriment or disadvantage, but a revolving
sum of 360,0001. a year, which is lent to the landed interest
throughout the -United Kingdom, from time to time, for
purposes purely local ; and these loans have been attended
with most beneficial results to the landed interest. (Hear,
hear.) Will you allow me to read a description of the pur-
poses to which this loan has been applied, and you will then
judge for yourselves whether I am not right in saying that
the works which have been aided from the fund are of
great local importance, and that, if the fund be withdrawn,
these works must be executed without such advan-
tages ? I will take the last returns presented to Parliament
for 1852, and I will show you what is the benefit which
has been derived from this fund by the landed interest,
and what is the corresponding benefit that the towns have
received. With regard to the land, the loans have been
applied to the construction of canals, rivers, drainage,
bridges and ferries, fisheries, roads, railways, colleries, and
mines. Now, hon. gentleman with whom I had the plea-
sure of sitting upstairs on the subject of county rates will
remember the heavy burdens to which land was exposed
with reference to lunatic asylums, law courts, goals,
and public buildings ; and they will also remember that,
under the new poor law, there has been the enlargement of
the workhouses, for which no less than 1,000,0001. has been
paid from this very fund. (Hear, hear.) Assistance has
also been given for the purpose of promoting emigration in
certain parishes. Now, all these works have been aided
from this fund. Stop the fund, and the greater portion of
those works must still be continued, but they must be con-
tinued at a great sacrifice on the part of country gentlemen,
either from their own immediate means or by the aid of
loans obtained in another way. (Hear.) Then, with re-
fard to cities and towns, by means of this fund churches
4ave been erected, waterworks and gasworks have been
improvements have been effected, harbours and docks
bli
eeve be
ehed:a
- made, and baths and washhouses have been esta-
many purposes of great local importance, which, in
aeeeans're it would have been absolutely impossible to
in cons%) I.nsbewithout such assistance. It has been said that,
such adv-teuec: of the present state of the money-market,
moment that are no longer necessary. At the present
ration for 30
anyTay be true, but this system has been in ope-
repaymeneaß,; I would observe with reference to the
preclude isk loans, that facilities are provided which
13:i),vf 1058 to the public, such as no private
individual could
no loss on these trape (Hear, hear.) Well, there has been
disturb the systemisac:t;thns. (Hear, hear.) Then why
tleman who have beea (Cheers.) I
nt wit appeal to any hon. gen-
appeal h
appeal to the Chancellor ojt Government, I will
even during the comparatively himself, whether
has held the high office with Period for which he
he is now entrusted,
crt.of
vtehe existence of this
he has not felt the convanieneeh
fund? (Hear, hear.) If the
whirnetment are asked
Care required in
to mare advances for certain works
Exciegileakner ot interfere
particular districts, their answer is, wn
wind Loan Com-
missioners these local matters ; go to the
; if you have a good case on
gain aid from them ; if not, we cannot assist yp°ti. you will
nder th-e
that is a system very convenient, and very econorcder
the public. Ido not think, either, it is possible that
fund devoted to such a purpose could be placed u
management of gentlemen of more unimpeachable in-
tegrity than those by whom its distribution is directed. It
so happens that gratuitous and honourable assistance has
been given by men of first-rate position, and of great emi_
nenee,—men who are above all possibility of suspicion—in
the distribution of these funds. I may mention that there
are among the commissioners, Lord Hatherton, Sir T. Arland,
. W. Whitmore Mr. Loch, Lord Fortescue Mr. Labou-
cre, Mr. A. Roba'ortes, Mr. T. Baring, my., kr. Norman,
co r. Warburton, Mr. G. Glyn, M.P , and Lord Overstone.
Now, it is impossible to have a fund.laced under more un-
exceptionable control, and I ask why
should the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, under these circumstances, lay violent
hands upon this Fund to meet a deficiency which he himself
has created, by tampering with the taxation of the country,
and by proposing to reduce simultaneously the malt tax and
the tea duties, which together yield an annual income of
10,000,0331., or no less than one-fifth of the whole revenue
of the country ? With a clear balance in the Exchequer of
1,500,0001., the right hon. gentleman tampers with these