The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1863.

lord at the head of the Government had stated that the em-

bankment of the Surrey side of the Thames was, more re-

quired than that of the north side, and he was perfectly cor-
rect. Before anything were done with respect to the new
street, funds should be provided to pay for the scheme.

Mr. HANKEY advocated the introduction of the bill.
The Lord Mayor's arguments were directly in favour of such
a course, and the suggestion of postponement by the hon.
member for Lambeth might be a reason for deferring the
second reading of the bill.

Mr. CU BITT hoped there would be no postponement of
the measure, as every day was of the greatest importance,
having regard to the increasing traffic. Tha embankment
of the Thames had been entrusted to the Metropolitan Board
of Works, and it was to be desired that the proposed new
work should proceed simultaneously. The question was one
purely of pounds, shillings, and pence, and he hoped that
leave would be at once given to bring in the bill.
Mr. CRAWFORD said that the bill contained some good
points, and some that required critical examination, and on
the whole he thought it could be best considered by a select
committee. The inhabitants of the metropolis at large were
as much entitled to share in the management of these im-
provements as the city of London. The improvements already
effected by the Board of Works did them infinite credit and
justified Parliament in entrusting them with the construc-
tion of the new street, An hon. gentleman, in alluding to
the pulling down of houses in the Poultry, observed that
there was no property in the city for which so large a com-
pensation would have to be paid. He was desirous that the
house should have an opportunity of coming to a well-con-
sidered judgment on the question. (Hear.)
Lord FERMOY complained that the city of London had
taken the 4d., which bad been spent and hypothecated, but
of the manner of its expenditure no clear, distinct, and busi-
ness-like account had been given. (Hear.) He represented
in that house a constituency not so fortunate as the city of
London, for instead of having four good members they had
only two inefficient ones. (Laughter.) He protested against
the city putting their hands into the pockets of his consti-
tuents to get the means of paying for city improvements.
This street was a serious matter. The hon. member for
Lambeth (Mr. Doulton),who was also a member of the Board
of Works, said the difference between the estimates of the
engineer of the Board of Works and those of the Government
engineer amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds; then
what must be the grand total in all the improvements, if the
difference in this one is so much ? He had assented to the
embankment improvement, ..hough his constituents would
not derive any more advantage from it than persons resid-
ing 20 miles from London, because the work was one of
great necessity and advantage to the metropolis ; but, at
the same time, he could not approve of all the proposed im-
provements being carried out on the same principle, espe-
cially the Holborn-valley improvement, which would cost
upwards of £1,000,000. If all that money was to be paid out
of the coal tax, when, in the name of common sense, would
his constituents be able to lay a finger on a penny of that
duty P We had been already going on mortgaging that tax,
but we should not do so any more. (Hear, hear.) He hoped
his right hon. friend would withdraw his bill until he was
in a position to inform the house as to the source from which
the money was to be derived.

Mr. NORRIS said the 4d. was an immemorial right of
the city of London, and did not belong to that category of
duties which came under the supervision of the House of
Commons. (Dissent.) Whether it was immemorial or not,
they had performed the obligation of spending it—(a laugh)
—in works of public utility, for which they deserved great
credit. By an txpenditure of £330,000, Holborn valley,
which was now in a disgraceful state and dangerous to man
and beast, might he improved. He hoped no single plan of
improvement would be adopted until all the projects of im-
provements were before the house, and considered together
and made to harmonise. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. LEWIS hoped the Government would postpone
the bill for a fortnight, and bring in both bills together. He
was as anxious as any man could be to see the contemplated
metropolitan improvements carried out; but he was con-
vinced if this bill be now brought in it would be discussed
with a total absence of all necessary knowledge. He thought
the general feeling of the house was in favour of the post-
ponement of the bill, and as respected that part of the me-
tropolis which he had the honour to represent, he felt very
great objection that it should be called upon to contribute
to the cost of improvements in other parts of the metropolis
far beyond its limits.

Lord PALMERSTON said if his right hon. friend who
had asked for leave to bring in the bill was appealed to on
the third reading in the manner he had been at present,
the appeal would be made with some foundation, because
then it might be said, " It is desirable to postpone it until
we see our way as to what should be done." (Laughter.)
But his right hon. friend had solely asked now for leave to
bring in the bill, and at a future stage its provisions could
be considered and discussed. He thought if his right hon
friend were to postpone the bringing in of the bill on the
grounds of objection raised to it in relation to the sum of
money it may cost it would be unwise. His right hon. friend's
duty was first to ask leave to bring in the bill, and the course
he had taken was perfectly Parliamentary. His right hon.
friend would also bring in another bill relating to the south
side of the river; but let them have "one thing at a time "
—(laughter)—and as it was impossible to know the bearing
of the two bills at once, and to make "a double barrel" of
the measure—(laughter) he hoped the house would permit
his right hon. friend to introduce the bill now before them.
It had bean said that the expense of improving the City
should not be defrayed by taxes upon the metropolis; but
it struck him that the improvements to be made were not
entirely to be made for the City of London; and surely no
man would say that the burden of the approaches from the
West-end was to be entirely borne by the inhabitants of
the City of London, the convenience to be obtained being
for the whole of the inhabitants of the metropolis. At
present the time they spent in going from Charing-cross
to the City was two or three hours, and it took them other
two or three hours to get back from the City to Charing-
cross. :(Loud laughter.) His hon. friend the member
for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton) objected to the introduction
of the bill because a bill was not introduced for the
south; but, let them begin one thing before another, and
then he agreed with his honourable friend the member
for Lambeth that it might be desirable to take into con-
sideration the necessity for improving the south side
of the river, and preventing the tides from flooding the
poor people's cellars. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had
been said about the difference of calculation as to cost
that was certain to: take -place between the different en-
gineers who had examined this matter ; but he bAleved the
difference of expense would not exceed £lOO,OOO. The noble
lord concluded by hoping the house would allow his right
hon. friend to introduce the bill.

Leave was given, and the bill was brought in and read a
first time.

BILL TO EXTEND THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF A
PORTION OF THE EXCISE DUTY UPON MALT.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in mov-
ing for leave to bring in a bill to extend the time of pay-
menton a portion of the Excise duty upon malt, said, as
regarded the general arrangement in relation to the credits
for the malt duty, he thought it was not liable to impeach-
ment in point of equity, because the average of the last nine
1 weeks was given to the maltsters without calling on him to
pay between the time the duty was charged and the time he
had usually sold his malt. But there was a particular part
of the year, namely, that in which the brewing was almost
suspended, when it might be said the measure caused some
degree of inconvenience which it was desirable to alleviate.
During the first period of the financial year there was a very
considerable demand indeed for the malt which the =Oster
had made, and he was, in consequence, liable to pay the
duty on:the malt before..he could sell it. He (the Chan-
Icellor of the Exchequer) now proposed to introduce a bill
which would have the effect of establishing a fair equili-
brium between the time when the duty is charged on the
mister and the period when ho has the power to get it
back from his customer. The financial year was divided into
eight periods called rounds, consisting of six weeks and a
half each. Under the present system the malt duty was
levied on the next round but one after it had been charged.
Consequently the malt duty charged in the first round was
levied on the third round. The duty amounted to about
£BOO,OOO in the first round, and he proposed to authorise the
Government to grant to malsters (if they thought fit to avail
themselves of it in the usual manner—a bond being taken,
and paying 4 per cent. during the period) an additional cre-
dit of three months. That would enable them to postpone
the first payment until the fifth round of the financial year
in the October quarter. The title of the measure would be
" A Bill to extend the time for payment of a portion of the
Excise Duty upon Malt." In conclusion, he moved for
leave to introduce the bill.

Mr. PULLER expressed great disappointment on the
part of his constituents engaged in the malt trade because
his right hon. friend had not proposed a Lill to give them
a more substantial measure of relief than that which had
just been shadowed out in the speech he had made. The
maltsters would be likely to obtain a better price for their
commodity if they were not driven by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to pay the duty on a certain day,and, to aggravate
the difficulty, they were compelled to manufacture within
seven • months the quantity required for the whole year's
consumption. He contended that the measure proposed by
his hon. friend was most delusive, and he hoped his right
hon. friend would reconsider the subject. Three years ago,
when the right hon. gentleman brought in his bill for the
extension of the malt duty, he (Mr. Puller) expressed an
opinion that the plan would ruin the small maltsters, and
he believed his right hon. friend would concur with him
that to some considerable extent he was correct in that
opinion, and the small misters were diminished to the
extent of four hundred. His right honourable friend had
told them truly that the malsters had not sufficient time
allowed him for his payments in each financial year;
but the fact was, that during the whole of the year
the master was placed at a very great disadvantage, be-
cause of the charges to which he was subjected, and the
shortness of the malt credits in relation to those charges.
And here ho might remind his right hon. friend that al-
though this was called a tax upon malt, it was, in point of
fact, a tax upon beer; and the parties upon whom the
burden of payment fell ultimately were the drinkers and
consumers of Leer. Therefore, when his right honour-
able friend tallied of extending the time till the malt
comes into the market, he ought to extend the time,
also, till the beer comes into the market. It might be
that at one time the tax fell upon the malster, and at
another time on the brewer; but under the old financial

system it was a most rare case that they ever lost any part
of this duty. Under that system they gave 18 weeks'
credit to the malster, and the malster gave three
months' credit to the brewer ; but the maltster
was now placed more at the mercy of the brewer than he
ever was before, and the brewers knew perfectly well that
the maltster must sell without being able to wait to get his
full price. The maltster was compelled to manufacture for
seven months the article which he sold for twelve. The fact
was, that the quantity rEquired for the year was spread
over seven months, and during that time he had a quantity
of malt on his hands for which he was obliged to pay duty
to the Excise without getting due credit. If the right hon.
gentleman would give up the other six weeks, and make it
twelve instead of six, he would improve the measure which,
as it now appeared, was, he (Mr Puller) must repeat, most
illusory. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DODSON, who spoke in a low tone, begged to ask
the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not,
without loss of revenue, collect a smaller duty upon the malt
after it had been made into beer, instead of as now before
it was made into beer.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXC EIEQUER said his
hon. friend invited the attention of the house to matters of a
much wider scope than were included in the bill which he
had just moved for leave to introduce. On the subject of
the reduction of the duty he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) would say nothing, for that was a subject of very
great financial extent and importance, and could only be
considered in conjunction with the financial arrangements
necessary for meeting the public expenditure of the year.
He admitted freely that in many points of view the second
proposition was most desirable; but, ore the other hand,
the objection to the change suggested by his hon. friend
was indisputable. Under the system now in operation the
Excise survey was applied to 7,000 or 8,000 men, but if
they made the change suggested by his hon, friend they
mutt establish a similar supervision quite as stringent over
a body of 40,000 men, for the brewers were in number not
less than 40,000. Then they should, after making such a
change, give to every person who choose to brew in private
the power of brewing without paying any tax at all, or they
must carry the Excise supervision into every private brew
house in the country.

The motion was agreed to, and the bill was brought in
and read a first time.

The following bills were also brought in and read a first
time, namely, the Tobacco Duties Bill, the Post•oice
Savings Bunks Bill, and the Thames Embankment New
Street North Side Bill.
The house then adjourned at 8 o'clock.