The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-28 00:00:00

HIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1865,

time not only calamities of a rarer kind, but the ordinary
calamity of a bad harvest would either greatly reduce the
improvement in that item, or even destroy it altogether.
Now, as regards the state of the balances, on the 31st of
March, 1864, they amounted to £7,352,000, and on the same
day in 1865 they were £7.690,000, showing an increase of
£338,000. The advances for public works, which usually
contributed to feed the balances, had lately become a drain
upon them. The advances made were £2,069,000, and the
repayments £1,706,000, showing an excess of advances of
£303,000. The debt paid off in the year has been—of Ex-
chequer-bonds, £300,000; of Exchequer-bills, £2,100,000,
and of stock purchased with surplus revenue, £939,000,
making a total of £3,338,000. The capital value of Tannin-
able Annuities extinguished is £2,006,000, making a grand
total of £5,340,000, subject to a deduction of the amount
raised for fortifications, which has been £726,000, leaving a
real reduction of debt to the extent of £1,614,000. (Cheers.)
I have ventured to state to the committee what is the real
condition of our debt as a whole, because I have to take, so
far, blame to myself, although I might share it with those
who have gone before me, of never having on previous occa-
sions stated the absolute amount of the debt. We are in-
debted, in fact, to the Statistical Department of the Board
of Trade, for having adopted a very simple, but effectual,
method of showing the full amount of the national debt.
Our ordinary practice has been to look to funded and un-
funded debt alone, and to make no allowance for the very
heavy sums which we have been liable to pay prospectively
in respect of Terminable Annuities. In the statement of the
debt now presented by the Board of Trade from year to year
—the Statistical Tables—there is included the full capital
amount of the Terminable Annuities which we still have
to pay. I have that full account to the 31st of March. Of
course, the effect of this arrangement is that our debt is
somewhat larger in amount than we believed it to have been,
but for a comparison of the total debt of the country, I can
give the particulars of the funded and unfunded debt, and
the capital of the Terminable Annuities, if it be desired for
the purposes of comparison. I may state that on March 31,
1859, our total debt was £825,934,000, and on March 31,
1865, it was £808,288,000, showing that since March 31,
1859, there has been a diminution of debt to the extent of
£17,646,000, or nearly, on an average, £3,000,000 a year.
(Cheers.) The estimated capital of Terminable An-
nuities was in March, 1859, £18,856,000, and in March,
1865, the amount had risen to £21,778,000. But, after de-
biting the account of 1865 with that augmentation, and giv-
ing credit for the reduction of the funded debt, which is
very large—some £ll,ooo,ooo—and for the reduction of the
unfunded debt—about £7,soo,ooo—the result is that the
total reduction is not very far short of £18,000,000, a sum
which may sound, and does, sound well; but at the same
time, I cannot say that it is a very brilliant result of our
labours to find that £3,000,000 a year are taken from our
debt, considering the enormous amount of that debt and
the difficulties in which we might possibly be involved if
we were ever again engaged in a struggle for existence,
and I cannot say that as legislators we have as yet risen
to a sense of the full extent of our obligations with respect
to a reduction of the debt. (Cheers.) Now, when I
turn from the revenue of the last year to the movements
of trade, there is but one particular branch of trade upon
which I need trouble the committee with any remarks,
That is a trade in which this house has felt a peculiar, a
natural, and an abiding interest. I will, therefore, just refer
to the condition of the paper trade. lam very far from
denying—on the contrary, I greatly deplore it—that the
period of transition has been for many members of that
trade a period of very great severity. Of that I make no
doubt whatevet. At the same time it is right to say that
the paper trade, as a trade, not only has not left the coun-
try, but it shows no intention of leaving the country ; on
the contrary, it evidently means to strike its rodts deeper
and deeper here, for it calls continually from year to year
for the importation of more _materials from abroad, while
at the same time the consumers in this country are sup-
plied with paper more largely andmore cheaply than at any
former period. (Cheers.) The importations of paper and
paper-hangings from abroad have risen from the insignifi-
cant amount at which they stood six years ago to no less
than £447,000 in value in 1864, while at the same time the
importation of materials for paper making rose from 13,700
tons in 1859 to 20,400 tons in 1862, to 44,000 tons in 1863,
and to 67,000 tons in 1864. (Cheers.) It will be observed
that this cannot be accounted for by the disappearance of
cotton-waste, because for the last year or two, at any rate,
the supply of cotton-waste has been tending to increase.
It was in 1861 and 1862 that the supply of cotton-waste
'was at the lowest ; but, while the supply of that material
from our manufactures has been somewhat reviving, here
is that immense increase in the importation of other paper
making materials from abroad. [An Hon. Member—Rags.]
Rags aro included, but I do not distinguish between rags
and other materials for paper making, of which there are a
great variety. No doubt rags only form a small proportion
of the whole, and raw vegetable products represent the mass
of the imports. But that is a remarkable fact. Such has
been the advantage of the stimulus given to the search for
new materials for the manufacture of paper (cheers) that
the owners of cotton-waste now complain that they can
only obtain half the price for that material which they
used to obtain. That is the state of the case, and speaking
of the papermakers as a class, I may say that it is not be-
cause less paper is made that cotton-waste does not fetch
the same price as formerly, but because the papermaker
has found that be can obtain cheaper materials from other
sources. A gentleman who himself produces a large quan-
tity of cotton-waste has informed me by letter that in 1860,
when middling cotton cost him sid. per lb., he could get
225. per sack for his sweepings, yet now, when ho was
paying so much more for his cotton, he could not get more
than 9s. a sack for the waste. (Cheers.) I will now notice
our trade with France, which is also a subject of special
interest to this country, and there I find an increase. It
varies, and although the export of British produce has
slightly diminished since two or three years back, yet the
total increase of trade with France has been steadily on
the increase on imports as well as exports. In 1859 the
total amount of our trade with France was £26,431,000,
and in 1864 it was £49,797,000 (cheers), showing an in-
crease of £23,366,000, or nearly 90 per cent. And there has
not been a single year in that period in which, if we take
our exports of all kinds together, our exports to France have
not shown an increase over the preceding year. In com-
paring the condition of our relations with that country, I
would desire to occupy a moment in removing a common
misapprehension. It is believed, and it has been used by
some of us as a consolation under the burden of our great
expenditure—it is believed that the public expenditure of
France is much higher than the public expenditure of this
country. That belief is erroneous. It is brought about by the
mode in which the accounts are rendered, and in which local
charges in France are passed through the medium of the
Imperial treasury. (Cheers.) I have no account later than
1862, because, as is well known, although the French ac-
counts are perfect models of scientific precision and clearness
(cheers), yet they do not appear—the final accounts do not
appear until considerably in arrear of the period to which
they refer. But for the purpose I have in view it will do
just as well to take this account. In 1862 the apparent ex-
penditure of. France was £88,493,000, but of that expendi-
ture a large proportion was forpurposes of a local character,
and for purposes which do not at all appear in the Imperial
expenditure of this country. The expenditure of France in
that year, for the purposes of comparison with that of this
country, was £60,815,000, and the expenditure of this
country in the year 1862-3—the nearest period I can take
—was £70,352,000, or an excess on our part of about 91
millions over the expenditure of France. The accounts, I
think, now stand somewhat better. We have made a little
progress since that period in reducing our charges. lam
not quite sure that our neighbours and friends across the
Channel have as yet been so fortunate, although they ap-
pear to have at length a prospect of obtaining the desired
end. As regards the whole trade of this country, I stated
last year the immense amount which it had reached. I
think the total then reached was £445,000,000. It has since
undergone a large further increase in the year recently
passed. The accounts of the year ending 31st December,
1864—for we do not take notice of the financial year as
regards trade—those accounts show that our imports
amounted to £274,000,000, and our exports to £213,000,000,
or a total of £487,000,000, being an increase of more than
£219,000,000 since the comparatively recent period of 1854.
And here I come to a point of very great and clear interest
which may deserve a few moments' attention. There is,
again, a misapprehension that while the increase of the
trade of this country of late years has been undoubtedly a
remarkable increase, yet that it has been less than the in-
crease in the trade of foreign countries. That is a matter
which somewhat touches not only the reputation of the
Parliaments of England, which for the last 25 years have
attached so much consequence to the removal of shackles
from industry and commerce, but also appears to press ma-
terially upon the wisdom or necessity of continuing thatpo-
licY for the future. It is quite true that the trade of France
exhibits a larger relative increase of late years than ours
hasdone, but I would venture to- say it would have been
strange indeed if that had not been the case. And why ?
Thi; trade of France languished after the close of the great
war, and especially after the wasting and crushing depopu-
lation
of the last years of that war, which destroyedalmost
one-half of the labouring and productive power of the
country. It was not surprising, then, that for 30 or 40
years that great country should have remained in an
un-
natural position as regarded its trade. It is
not wonder-
ful,
then, that the trade of France should show greater
relative increase than that of England, which hasa grea
nevert
lost the energy and vigour of her commercial orai
and which happily has never been subjected to
supcehswen;eeP-
ing losses of her best blood through the desolating
influ-
enceence of war. (Hear, hear.) lam only able to compare the
exports, but they are quite sufficient and effectual for the
purpose. The exports of France in 1854 ware £78,000,000
and in 1863 they
were £141,000,000, being an increase of
81 per cent. The exports of the United Kingdom in 1854
were £116,000,000, and in 1863 £197,000,000, an increase of
no more than 70 per cent. I grant that if that fact stood
alone it would authorise you to say that a country which
had done little in the way of relaxing its commercial laws
had achieved relatively more than a country which had done
much and had made great progress on the road of commer-
cial freedom. But when we look at the absolute increase we
find that while France has added £63,00.0, 000 to her exports,
England has added £81,000,000. But if we want to have
a fair comparison we should not take a country like France,
placed under circumstances so abnormal in consequence of
the ruin and ravazes of war ; let us take two neighbouring

countries with free institutions, which have not undergone
the same sufferings, which have been in a more normal
condition, and which have been free from war and revolution
—and it is difficult to find countries on the Continent
which have been free from war and revolution—let us take
Belgium and Holland. There is no con ,try which has
benefited more fully and more enormou ;ly than Belgium
from the application of the railway system. The in-
crease in the imports of England, as I have shown, from
1854 to 1863 has been 71 per cent., but the imports of
Belgium, one of the most flourishing countries of the
Continent, only grew in the same period from £28,000,000
to £40,000,000, or 43 per cent., and the exports of
Holland only grew from £24,000,000 to £30,000,000, or 25
per cent. With regard to Austria it is difficult to make a
favourable comparison. It is really lamentable to find that
in a country of that vast extent and with that immense ca-
pacity the exports, which amounted to £11,000,000 in 1844,
in 1858 (though there had been a great increase) had only
risen to £22,000,000. Let us hope that my right hon. friend
who is now in Vienna engaged in the good work of com-
municating to Austria the results of our experience may
succeed in persuading the Imperial Government—not that
it is a matter of vital importance to England that they
should alter their tariffs, but that it is of vital importance
to themselves—(hear, hear)—and that if they will act in that
spirit with a view to their own interests, we shall be perfectly
satisfied with the share of the benefits which must necessa-
rily redound to us in a process which always "blesses him
that gives more than him that takes." (Hear, hear.) Upon
the whole I come to this conclusion—that we have indeed
derived enormous, almost boundless, advantages from the
inventive spirit which has distinguished the present age and
from the application of new principles of locomotion. I believe
that the railway companies have received from the public
for the services they have performed above £30,000,000
sterling, and I thinkit would be a moderate estimate to say
that a further sum of .00,000,000 represents the addition
to the wealth of the country which has been gained by the
introduction of the railway system, after making every
allowance requisite for the capital invested in other modes
of locomotion which have been either wholly or partially
paralysed by the introduction of railways. After all that
has been said on the subject these figures go to show that
immense advantage has also resulted from the apparently
simple but in practice sufficiently difficult process of re-
moving the bars, fetters, and obstructions devised by the
perversity of man himself from the path of human indus-
try, and trusting to the simple expedient of freedom for
the development of the productive power of the country.
(Hear, hear.) It is no small honour that as in regard to
locomotion, so in regard to the freedom of trade and industry
it has been given to this country to lead the vanguard of
civilisation, in the words of one of our old poets,—
" To serve as a model for the mighty world,
And be the fair beginning of a time,"

..,
I (cheers)—of a time richly fraught not only with economical
advantages, not only with results which can be exhibited in
statistical tables, but fraught more richly still with results
which lead to the union of class with class, and even, as we
may hope, of nation with nation throughout the earth.
(Cheers.) And in closing such a survey I hope I shall not
trespass too much if I avow that I cannot forget the man
who bore a larger share than any other man in realising
this system which has been so beneficial to the country.
Well and nobly has testimony. been borne to him in these
walls, and it may be impertinence if I presume to repeat
that testimony, but closely associated as I was with Mr.
Cobden in all the transactions connected with the conclu-
sion of the commercial treaty with France, I cannot forbear
from rendering such a tribute as is in my power both to
his character and his acts. (Hear, hear.) The praises
which have been bestowed upon him here and the sorrow
which has been felt for him by his countrymen have
spread all over the world. (Hear.) Those praises have
been re-echoed and re-echoed cordially in every foreign
land,and there is no civilised country which has not claimed
to share with us in the honour we have paid him. (Cheers.)
Mr. Cobden requires no eulogies from me. His memory is
part of the inheritance of his country—(hear)—and this I
feel that, along with the recollection of his distinguished
services, there will always survive among us a remembrance
of his character, so true, so manful, so courageous, so simple,
so unselfish, so devoted, so genial—a character which has
added as much lustre to his greatest actions as it has re-
ceived lustre from them. (Cheers.) I come now to the Esti-
mate of the expenditure and revenue for the service of the
year which has just opened. The charge of the funded and
unfunded debt for 1865-66 is put at £26,350,000,the Consoli-
dated Fund charges are £1,900,000, the votes for the army,
£14,348,000 ; for the navy, £10,392,000 ; the collection of
the revenue, £4,657,000; the packet service, £842,000; and
1 the miscellaneous civil services, £7,650,000. This last
amount is not yet precisely fixed, but it cannot vary much
either one way or the other, and I have no doubt this sum
will suffice for the total amount of these charges. That
gives a total charge of £66,139,000, which is £1,110,000
less than the estimates voted in the year 1864-65. I will
next take the revenue for the coming year. The
Customs I put at £22,775,000, the Excise at £19,030,000,
and in that estimate of Excise allowance is made
1 for a considerable deduction from the receipts we have
had this year on the article of malt. The Stamps I put at
I £9,550,000 ; Taxes, £3,350,000 ; Income-Tax, £7,800,000;
I Post-office, £4,250,000; Crown Lands, £315,000; miscella-
I neous receipts, £2,650,000; and China Indemnity, £450,000.
In the miscellaneous receipts which come to our credit this
year are included several sums mentioned iu the first page
1 of the Army Estimates, and which are there taken credit for
as forming virtually a reduction of army charge. Formally
they are not a reduction of any charge, because the money
will be voted and repaid, but virtually and really they are,
because they will come back to the credit side of the account
as well as going into the debit side. They are chiefly con-
-1 nected with repayments from India and the colonies. The
I total estimated income of the year is £70,170,000, and the
total estimate charge £66,l39,ooo—showing a probable
surplus of £4,031,000, or about:£4,ooo, 000. (Cheers.) I come
now to the difficult question of the disposal of the surplus
—(hear)—and I will first call the attention of the committee
to several small changes which it will hardly be necessary
for me to take into account, as they will make no change in
the balance and income and expenditure since they are of
too insignificant a character, and will probably balance each
other. It is proposed, with regard to the transfers of
shares and conveyances to make a change in the steps of
the duty payable on those transfers for the convenience of
parties, so as to enable them more precisely to adopt the
amount of their transactions to the sum they have to pay,
instead of driving them to make two conveyances in lieu
of one, for the sake of effecting a small saving. It is
proposed that the anomaly which now exists with respect
to the duty on scrip certificates and receipt bonds shall
be removed, as it is found to lead to inconvenience. At
present the duty does not apply where the loan on the com-
pany is in a foreign country, but it does apply to all domes-
tic transactions. As I am opposed to protecting the Eng-
lishman against the foreigner, I am equally opposed to pro-
tecting the foreigner against the Englishman. (A laugh.)
It appears to me that if the transaction have reference to a
person living in this country, the stamp duty ought to be
the same in one case as the other. (Hear.) An application
has been made to the Government, which I think is a pro-
per
one—it is that the stamp on the letting of small teue-
ments for periods less than yearly should be reduced. It
is now felt to be very burdensome. The stamp, so far as
the sum paid conveys an idea of it, is not very burdensome
—for it only amounts to 6d. ; but when we come to consi-
der that in many places houses are let at such low rents as
2s. 6d., 35., and as. 6d. a week, it appears highly probable
that the payment of the present stamp may have the effect
of deterring people from using it. We, therefore, propose
to reduce the amount from 6d. to ld. in the cases of these
small lettings. (Hear.) In the case of the present minimum
duty levied on property under £5O we propose to make an
alteration. We propose that if the property only amounts
to £5 the duty shall be only 3d. instead of the present £5O
duty of 2s. 6d., and from 3d. we shall go upwards in pro-
portion to the amount of the property. (Hear.) We propose
to give relief to certain gentlemen who labour under an
anomaly. How this anomaly arose I don't know. Special
pleaders and conveyancers now pay the same license duties
as attorneys and solicitors; but the latter are allowed one-
half the duty for the first three years,while special pleaders
and conveyancers have not that allowance. We propose to
give themthe benefit of it. Then, with respect to the stamps
on ecclesiastical licences, we propose to make a reduction.
It appears the present licences are so high as either to be
felt as a burden or to prevent the use of the stamp alto-
gether. We propose to make an alteration with regard to
the stamp on what is called the " charterparty," and this
will be a matter of some importance to several ports, espe-
cially in the north of England. The present duty is ss. ;
but we propose to reduce it to 6d., subject to the condition
of having the document drawn in accordance with a
printed form, and then put on stamped paper. We think
it better to have a 6d. duty which we shall get rather than
a ss. duty which we may not get, except in a fe;/ instances.
(A laugh and "Hear, hear.") We also propose a change in
respect of policies of marine insurance, to the effect that
policies issued abroad shall not be recoverable here except
they be stamped within a certain time ; and we propose,
likewise, to wake the time for reinsurance in England less
limited, as the existing limitation is found to be attended
with inconvenience in the case of time policies of marine
insurance. The last change we propose in respect of as-
surances of this nature is one to make more equitable the
arrangement of the stamp duties on assurances given by
certain companies for three purposes. Two of these hang
together, but the third does not seem to be so closely con-
nected with the other two as they are with each other.
There are three classes of companies—one assuring a pay-
ment on accidental death, the second a payment on per-
sonal injury, and the third a payment on the breaking of
plate-glass. (A laugh.) Those assurances are somewhat
alike, and the duties paid on them require an alteration
which will bring them more in harmony with each other.
Now, "paulo majors canamus." (Hoar, hear.) I QOM to
a great subject which, one evening this session, received
the attention of the house and formed the topic of an inte-
resting debate. I refer to the malt duty. (Hear, hear.)
When that subject was under discussion on the occasion
to which I allude my right hon. friend the President of the
Board of Trade, on the part of her Majesty's Government,
expressed their sense of the great importance of the ques-
tion,
and stated that it required careful and laborious con-
sideration at their hands. My right hon. friend stated so
fully and clearly the reasons which prevented the Go-
vernment from agreeinu to the resolution moved by the

hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Sir F. Kelly)
that though possibly he did not satisfy all who heard
him, he must at all events have convinced many
that we were justified in the course which we then adopted.
In approaching the consideration of this question I will
begin by deprecating an argument which has been constantly
put forward by those who advocate the repeal of the Malt
Tax. It is constantly stated, "In all your resolutions you
have done nothing for the class of agriculturists." (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) Well, I should like to know
the class for whom you have done anything. In my opinion
the most marked of all the characteristics of our legislation
of recent years is that we have been steadily endeavouring
to restrain ourselves from the vicious habit of looking to
classes, and to as steadily legislate for the interests of the
country generally. (Cheers.) I know there are constitu-
encies in the country by whom the opposite view has been
taken, and by whom gentlemen who were disposed to place
confidence in the present Administration have been re-
jected, on the ground that her Majesty's Government were
in favour of a policy injurious to the interests of the agri-
cultural class. But I want to know in what instance we
have asked Parliament to surrender, or in what instance
Parliament has consented to surrender, any portion of the
revenue of the country which is the property of the coun-
try on any other interest but the broad and comprehen-
sive interest of the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe that
legislation for the benefit of a class is a mistake of the
grossest order. In the first place, it is a betrayal of our duty
to the nation, whose trustees we are, without distinction of
class; and, in the next place, such legislation confers far less
of ultimate advantage, even to the favoured class, than the
share which they would derive from wise legislation im-
partially applied and spread over the whole community.
(Cheers.) I think that the only proposal we have made which
has at all favoured a class—and I don't say it was an un-
fair one, because we had to deal with a peculiar case—was
one in regard to which you, Sir (Mr. Dodson), must take
your share of the responsibility, though we ourselves are
ready to take our share of it also. I allude to the measure for
relieving the hop growers from the duty which they had to
pay. I propose to discuss, in the first instance, with the
permission of the Committee, the important question of
the amount of relief which the removal of the malt duty
would confer upon the consumers of beer. It is stated, and
stated seriously, that although the malt duty only brings
£6,000,000 into the Exchequer, yet the cost of that duty to
. the consumers is .£20,000,000. I think one distinguished
gentleman in this house has elaborately stated so, and has
supported in argument that bold proposition. We are re-
proached with being a beer-drinking nation, and we are told
that the use of that excellent liquor deadens the imagina-
tion ; but if there be conformity between the practice and
the preaching of the advocates of the repeal of the malt tax
the latter assertion would appear not to be well founded.
There seems to be no deficiency of imagination on their
parts when they feel justified in asserting that a tax which
brings only £6,000,000 to the Exchequer costs £20,000,000
to the consumer. When we come to that I shall endeavour
to show in a few minutes what is the real amount of the
burden caused by the malt duty and by the licenses imposed
on the traders, in addition to the cost of the beer itself. The
next accusation against the malt duty is that it seriously
restricts the application of malt for the feeding of cattle. I
am persuaded, however, that, as far as the purposes of
serious discussion are concerned, we have heard nearly the
last of that charge. (Hear, hear.) A long series of experi-
ments have been made which have incontestably esta-
blished this proposition—that if malt is to be used bene-
ficially in the feeding of cattle it must be used only ex-
ceptionally and occasionally. It is for particular cases, and
is not intended to be a substitute for any of the great
modes of feeding generally in use. (Hear, hear.) If, how-
ever, it be held by any person that malt is valuable, whole-
sale, for feeding cattle, I say that under the Act passed
last year there are ample means now existing of sup-
plying it for that purpose. Twenty-eight malt-houses
were opened for the purpose of preparing malt for feed-
ing cattle, after the passing of the Act of last year.
Out of those eleven are closed—(" Hear, hear," from the
Opposition)—some of the remaining ones are doing an
active business, and others, I believe, are doing but little.
Now, shall I be told that this result has been caused by the
burdensome and restrictive character of the regulations
which are imposed by the Excise on those houses ? There
is no evidence of that ; but there is this significant fact on
the other side—that not one of the persons who have closed
their malthouses have alleged that their having taken that
course had any connection whatever with the regulations•
of the Excise. Their reason merely is that they have not
found a sufficient demand for feeding malt, and that they
find it more profitable to use their malthouses for the pur-
pose of preparing malt to make beer. I have here the names
of several of those gentlemen who have permitted me to
quote their letters stating the cause of their having closed
their malthouses ; and in not a single instance has the
closing been attributed in difficulties arising from the re-
strictions imposed on the trade. The next charge against
the malt duty is that it operates injuriously upon the price
of the middling amil lower barleys. (Hear.) That is a
charge of great importance, and to it I will presently, with
the permission of the Committee, give my attention for a
few moments. I think the last serious charge against the
duty is that it discourages brewing at home. Now, it is
impossible that that charge should be maintained by those
who say that the malt duty, although producing only
£6,000,000, yet, through the medium of the brewer, costs
the consumer £20,000,000, because the man who is to brew
at home will be relieved only of his share of this X 6,000,000,
while at present he now pays a share of the £20,000,000.
It is evident that if alf these factitious additions are made
to the burden of the malt duty before the beer comes to the
consumer, the present system is that which offers the highest
possible premium upon brewing at home, because, instead of
paying these enormous sums, in which he is taxed through
a factitious medium, all that a man has to do is to pay 21s.
or whatever it is per quarter, and then he can brew for
himself. (Hear.) Now, what is the question before us ?
Are we asked to consider the abolition of the malt duty
or its reduction? I put aside the question of the abolition
of the duty. The abolition of the malt duty would
be the death-warrant of the whole of our system of
indirect taxation. It is idle and futile to the last degree to
suppose that having beer made free from taxation you can
tax. wine and spirits on the one side or tea and sugar on the
other. The consistent man who supports the repeal of the
malt duty is, if I may presume to say so, the sly but deter-
mined foe of indirect taxation. I can quite understand the
speeches which are made by such gentlemen in favour of
the repeal of the malt duty—" Take it away," say they, " it
is a very imprudent and improper tax." They make speeches
in this House which are received on the opposite side with
loud cheers, and they are on these occasions welcomed as
allies with remarkable cordiality, the gentlemen who so
welcome them not perceiving that the real end of all this
must be the imposition of the whole burden of our taxation
upon property. (Cheers.) The repeal of the malt duty is
the death-warrant of indirect taxation. (Hear, hear.) I say,
therefore, that the question before us is not that of the re-
peal, but that of the reduction of the malt duty. Now, con-
fining the question to the reduction of the duty it must be
admitted somewhat weakens the argument, because you
still have all those magical terrors which are connected
with the operation of our Excise; and, morethan that, you
have all the real disadvantage which amounts to something,
and which must continue as long as you maintain a system
of Excise at all. I take it for granted, however, that the
practical question is, at what cost can we make such a re-
duction of the malt duty as will sensibly lower the price of
beer ? That, I hope, states the question fairly and honestly.
(Hear.) To answer that question we must ascertain what
is the proportion of the present price of beer which is really
due to taxation. I say now " to taxation," and not " to
the malt duty," because, although the bulk of the taxation
consists of the imposition on malt, there is also the com-
mutation of the hop duty, which comes out in the shape
of the brewer's licence : and there is a trifling charge for
the maltster's licence, of which account may be taken.
Now, Sir, this is a subject on which it is not possible
for me to ask the Committee to accompany me
through all the details of the inquiry through which we,
however, have patiently passed. My right hon. friend the
President of the Board of Trade stated that the malt duty
imposed upon beer a tax of 121 per cent., and I am able to
say two things—first of all, that I believe that that state-
men of my right hon. 'friend was a rigidly just one, in every
sense of the word, for the purpose of comparison with the
duty now imposed by law upon tea ; and secondly, that
very high authorities connected with the trade, men inti-
mately conversant with all the details of the brewing trade,
have, upon being applied to, given the very figure that was
mentioned by my right hon. friend—viz, 121 per cent. as the
value of the malt duty. The other minor duties of which
I have spoken would not make an addition of more than
from one to two per cent., so that undoubtedly upon that
showing, the duty would not amount to more than from
14 to 15 per cent. However, I think it is possible that that
may have in view the price to the consumer, and I will
take it upon the barrel of beer ; that is the fair way for the
purpose of comparing it with the chest and half chest of
tea ; and having, on the one hand, caused the officers of the
revenue drpartments to make a most careful and sifting
examination, and having, on the other hand, conferred with
those whom I believe to be best informed, and who, at my
request, have kindly gone with great care into the details, I
am prepared to allow that the taxation upon beer, as sold in
barrel, of which all but one or two per cent. is the malt
duty, may, for the sake of argument, be taken at 20 per
per cent., and I think I am safe in challenging any attempt
seriously to impugn that statement. Well, then, sir, if 20
per cent. is added to the price of beer by the duty upon
malt, how much must we take off that duty in order to pro-
duce a sensible effect upon the price of beer ? I mean the
price to the consumer, because, although thus far I have
been speaking of the price per barrel, the great bulk of beer
is not ultimately sold in the barrel but by the pint and quart;
and I do not think that anything which would reduce the
price less than a farthing a quart ought to be regarded by
Parliament as a sufficient object to induce us to interfere
with the malt duty. I think that is a moderate statement.
Some might go beyond it ; but I will assume that you must
reduce the price by a farthing a quart. What is the reduc-
tion of the malt duty that would be absolutely necessary in
order to reduce the price of beer by a farthing a quart ? We
must reduce it to somewhat less than one-half of the present
amount. It is now 2s. 81d. a bushel, and it must be reduced
to ls. 2d. a bushel in order to give to the consumer a reduc-
tion of a farthing a quart in the price. (Hear, hear.) Now,
what would be the cost to the Exchequer of such a reduc- 1

tion ? because when the advocates of the repeal and the
strong advocates of the reduction of the malt duty come to
this question of the cost to the Exchequer, they have a
dangerous habit of dealing in generalities, and of saying
that in one way or other, especially by increase of consump-
tion, the cost would be very greatly reduced. I will state,
first, what would be the first cost and then what would be
the effect of the increase of consumption. The proper time
at which to reduce the duty, if it was reduced at all, would,
I think, beyond all doubt, be about the Ist of October.
That is the period at which the stock of beer in the coun-
try is the lowest ; and it is, therefore, the period at which
we should have to pay the most moderate amount of draw-
back. At that time we should have to pay drawback on
about 15,000,000 bushels of malt, costing £1,160,000 ; and
we should have an estimated loss of duty charged for the
remainder of the year of £1,320,000. That is to say, that
we cannot touch the malt duty for the purpose of giving to
the consumer one farthing upon the quart of beer at a less
cost to the Exchequer for the first year than £2,480,000.
But that is not the worst of the story. That is the cost of
the first year, but what will be the cost of the second year?
According td the estimate formed at Somerset-house, the
cost of the second year of the reduction from 2s. 81d. to Is.
2d. would be X 3,360,000. I might almost rest upon these
figures ; they are far more eloquent than any comment that
can possibly be made upon them ; but I must touch upon
one topic that might possibly be raised, and that is the
increase of consumption. We may be told that there
would be a great recovery arising from the increase of
consumption. Now, sir, what I venture to say is this, that
in the case of malt not only would there not be a great re-
covery from increase of consumption, but that there would
be no recovery at all ; and, on the contrary, it is probable
that the increase of consumption, with whatever other ad-
vantages it might be attended, and I am not considering
that, I am looking at it as a fiscal question—that the in-
crease of the consumption of beer would in all likelihood
be attended with a further loss to the Exchequer. Gentle-
men may hear these words with some surprise, but the
explanation is this—lf there is a large increase in the con-
sumption of beer, a portion of that increase displaces the
consumption of spirits. (Hear, and cheers from the Opposi-
tion benches.) Very good ! Oh, set out upon your mission
of philanthropy, and I am ready to go with you, perfectly
ready to go with you, but then I beg you to find me the
money from some source. (Cheers and laughter.) We are
now, sir, looking at this question from the driest point of
view, that of pounds, shillings, and pence ; and after all,
setting apart the hustings and the poll and everything else,
it must at last come to that. Now, supposing that of every
additional thousand pounds laid out upon beer after this re-
duction one-fourth part displaced spirits, and I do not think
that an extravagant estimate, I believe that more would dis-
place spirits ; but taking it at one fourth, what would be
the gain to the Exchequer ? Why, sir, it would take £8 laid
out upon malt after this reduction to bring into the Ex-
chequer what X 1 laid out upon spirits now brings in ; and
if £2 worth of spirits are displaced by the additional con-
sumption of £8 worth of malt, it follows that we lose, and
lose heavily, at every reduction that takes place. But I
will not argue the question between malt and spirits fur-
ther than this, that I have made good, and more than made
good, my propositions—that if the malt duty is to be re-
duced it must be from 2s. 81d. to Is. 2d. ; that with such a
reduction you must in the first year lose in round numbers
X 2,500,300, that in the second year that £2,500,000 will
be raised to more than £3,250,000, ' and that
you must lay your account to a further loss
in consequence of the increased consumption of
beer, and the consequent displacement of spirits.
Now, I am bound to say that I cannot put out of sight in
dealing with this matter the Irish and the Scotch question.
(Hear.) In think that in the nature of the Scotch there is
great patience, and in the nature of the Irish great vivacity
—(laughter)—and I believe that the patient and the viva-
cious would combine together were we to reduce the malt
duty for the benefit of this country, and would say, " In
some manner or another—you may find out the way for
yourselves—we insist, if you reduce this tax for the ad-
vantage of England, upon your doing something for us.''
To the three other sources of loss, therefore, which I have
mentioned a fourth would be added, arising out of the de-
mands of the representatives of Scotland and Ireland. That,
I am sure it will be admitted, would not be a very hopeful
prospect for us in a financial point of view. (Hear.) What,
let me ask, are the grounds for this great innovation, this
dangerous inroad on our established fiscal system ? Is the
consumption of beer declining ? Is the trade a dying trade ?
Has the Englishman changed his nature ? Has he ceased
to supply himself with a sufficiently liberal proportion of
this excellent and truly national drink? On the contrary,
the figures allpoint upwards. The members of the present
Government and the right hon. gentlemen opposite, too,
may claim the honour of having each done a good deal to
promote the consumption of malt by means of the burdens
laid on the consumption of spirits, and what has happened?
I find—l cannot give the returns for Ireland, but for the
purpose of what I am about to state that is not material--
that in 1841 the consumption of malt in. Great Britain was
1.701 bushels per head of the population, while in 1863 it
had risen to 1.793 per head. .Now, that, I think, furnishes
evidence of a very handsome growth. (Hear, hear, and a
; laugh.) But- how stands the case with spirits, on which
year after year during the period to which I am referring
additional burdens have been laid 1 In 1841 the consump-
tion per head of spirits in Great Britain was -763 gallons;
while in 1863, to my great joy and satisfaction, it sunk to
-645. The case, then, as represented by those figures, is
not such a very hard one after all; but there is another
way of putting it. It may be said— " It is, perhaps, true
that things, as regards the consumption of malt, are a little
better now than they were some years ago ; but, then, let
us go back to the good old times of our forefathers and
see how the matter stands." Well, adopting that course
and going back to the year 1722—(a laugh)—for I dare say
that will be far enough, I find that the consumption of
beer in England was 6,000,000 barrels—or at the rate of a
barrel per head, for the population at the time was only
6,000,000. In 1830 the consumption was 8,000,000 barrels,
and in that year, I regret to say, it had sunk from one
barrel to two-thirds of a barrel per head. In 1864, however,
so powerful were the restorative processes which had been
introduced, and so much had the consumption of beer been
assisted by the legislation which took place with regard to
spirits, and otherwise—we go back, with a population of
20,000,000, to the good old scale, and consume 20,000,000
barrels, or exactly the same quantity per head as in 1722.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I see before me my hon. and
learned friend the member for Suffolk, and my right hon.
friend the member for Hertfordshire, whose able and elo-
quent addresses in bringing this subject befoul the house
were overspread and coloured by a tone, I will not say
lugubrious, but somewhat tragic--and I am slue they will
feel their arguments are capable of being qualified in an
opposite sense to that which they intended, and that the
facts of the case are not so unsatisfactory as they had been
led to believe. (Hear, hear.) But what, let me ask, is now
the consumption of beer in England ? In some instances
it is astonishing. I am about to relate an anecdote in con-
nection with this point, which I may preface by saying
that I have many good reasons to look upon it as authentic,
though I confess I was disposed to be a little itcredulous ,
for the moment when I first heard it. The authority from
which it came, however, entirely forbids the continuance
of any, such feeling. The subject of my tale is a labouring
man, whose ordinary avocations are on the river Thames,
and require great muscular exertion.: An accident occurred
to this man's hand, and he went into an hospital at the
east end of London. One of the surgeons there dealt
with 'his case, but the result was not quite satisfactory.
The surgeon accordingly said he should wish to open the
hand, but that before he performed the operation he was
anxious to be assured that his patient was in every
sense of the word a temperate person. He asked some
persons who knew him whether he was temperate, and
they informed him that he was. He put the same question
to the man himself, and he said, "Certainly, I am temper-
and have always been so." "What quantity of beer: do
you you usually drink ?" asked -the surgeon. The reply
was, "Never more than eight quarts a day." (Loud laugh-
ter.) I inquired, that being the consumption of a tempe-
rate man, how much an intemperate man might be supposed
to drink, and I was told that the quantity ran from 12 to
16 quarts a day. (Laughter.) But if, including the whole
population of the country, hon. gentlemen will have the
goodness to take the number of barrels of beer brewed
annually in England, to reduce them to quarts, to make a
fair deduction for the population of Scotland and Ireland,
who drink but little beer, for women, who drink but a small
proportion relatively to the men, and for young persons
under 15, who likewise drink but a very small proportion
of the quantity consumed, they will find that every adult
male in England consumed not far short of 600 quarts
every year ; and when you take into account the pauper,
the criminal, the sick, the wealthy, too, and that very large
and respectable class who pass under the sobriquet of " tee-
totallers," all of whom come more or less into calculation,
I do not think the demand for the repeal of, the Malt-tax
can be supported by the argument that access to a sufficient
quantity of beer is extremely difficult, or that the consump-
tion of it is gradually dying away. (Hear, hear.) More than
£40,000,000 starling is, as far as we can learn, laid out by
the population of England every year in the purchase of this
valuable beverage. So much, then, for the consumption of
beer, which I think I may fairly say is not declining, but is
steadily on the increase. (Hear, hear.) But what is the
case of the producer—because, although I deprecate class
legislation, I should like to see whether the producer of
barley is suffering any hardship ? I will try the point by the
fairest of tests—l am not now dealing with the question
between the better and the worse class of barleys—and these
are, first of all,—what is the average price of barley rela-
tively to that of wheat now as compared with former years?
and, secondly, what is the price of barley absolutely
during the same period ? Taking the average price of bar-
ley relatively to that of wheat, I find it to be as follows :
For ten years before the repeal of the beer duty (1820-29),
as 541 to 100 ; for ten years after the repeal of tho beer duty
(1830-39), as 571-7th to 100; for ten years further (1840-49),
as 581 to 100; for ten years further (1850-59), as 621 to 100;
for the year 1864, as 74, to 100. ! Then you will say that
the price of wheat has gone down greatly, and that this
standard of comparison is not a fair one; but taking the I
price of barley without any reference to the price of wheat,
I find it stands thus :—Ten years before the repeal of the ,
beer duty (1820-29), 31s. 10d.; ten years after the repeal ,
(1830-39), 325. 5d.; ten years further (1840-49), 325. 9d.; 1
ton years further (1850-59), 335. 2d.; while the average price

for the five years ending 1864 was 345. 4d.; so that the
price has regularly and progressively been tending upwards,
and this greatly suffering interest—and I am now speaking
of it as a whole—when its grievances are examined into
• turns out to be the victim of an increasing consumption
and a higher price for the raw material. I for one cannot
see how, under these circumstances, the producers of barley
can be regarded as having any just cause for complaint.
But there is another topic to which I wish to advert : I
allude to the relative taxation of malt as compared with
other articles—a point which I look upon as of great con-
sequence, although the right hon. gentleman the member
for Oxfordshire found fault with my right hon. friend the
President of the Board of Trade for the comparison which
he made on the subject. Compare the taxation on beer with
the taxation on spirits. Beer is taxed at one-fifth, or 20
per cent. ; spirits are taxed at 4-sths, or 80 per cent. If
you want to mark your moral indignation at the use of
spirits through the imperfect and defective medium of fiscal
arrangements, I think you cannot well go further than a
rate of taxation under which whenever a man is disposed
to lay out ss. he only gets ls.-worth of spirits for it, while
the other 4s. go into the Exchequer. Upon that side there-
fore there is no injustice in the taxation on beer. What is
the case as compared with wine ? It has been said that the
duties upon wine have been reduced practically to nothing,
a duty of ls. a gallon amounting only to 2d. a bottle. But
the relation which the wine duties bear to the whole of the
wine imported into the country has been examined by the
very competent gentlemen who look after that branch for
the revenue, and it is found that while beer is taxed at 20
per cent., wines of all descriptions, from claret and cham-
pagne downwards, are taxed at 27 per cent. But even that
is a very fallacious way of stating the case ; for the tax on
• clarets and champagnes has no relation at all to the price
of beer; beer sold by the pot is not in competition with
• clarets and champagnes. If you want to estimate the rela-
. tive taxation you must take articles capable of coming into
competition with one another; you must, therefore, take
the poorer and lower wines capable of being sold at prices
somewhat approaching that of beer, andtherefore of coming
into competition with it. I have inquired into the charac-
ter of the wines consumed by the poor, who are the great
. drinkers of beer ; and one of them is called Hamburg sherry.
(Laughter.) The people of Hamburg have the reputation
of being adulterers of wine—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—but
it is always to be borne in mind that, according to their
own view, they understand the chemistry of wine, and
what we call " adulteration" they say is nothing but scien-
tific mixture. (Hear, and laughter.) The price of Ham-
burg sherry is ss. a gallon, duty paid, and of that 2s. 6d., or
50 per cent. is duty ; beer is only taxed at 20 per cent.
(Hear.) Spanish red wines have recently been imported to
some extent, and the same observation' applies as to duty
; upon them. The common sherries from Cadiz pay about
the same rate—that is to say, they are sold at ss.pergallon,
the duty being 2s. 6d., or 50 per cent. The common clarets
imported from France for popular consumption are sold,
. duty paid, at about 2s. a gallon. The duty upon them is ls.
a gallon, or at the rate of 50 per cent. This class of wines,
therefore, which might enter into competition with beer, is
. subject to a taxation of 50 per cent. ; while beer itself contri-
butes but 20 per cent. • (Hear, hear.) I pass now to another view
of the question. Malt lies, we may say, half-way between
the stronger liquors, such as wine and spirits, on the one
, hand, and tea on the other ; and appealing, as I do, to gen-
tlemen who make honourable manifestations of the strength
• of their disapproval of the consumption of spirits, I appre-
hend I shall find a way to their hearts without any difficulty
when I plead for moderation in the impost on tea. (Hear.)
If beer ought to be taxed more lightly than the wines which
compete with it, and more lightly than spirits—as I grant
it ought to be—then I put it confidently to the house, ought
, tea to be taxed more heavily than beer ? (Hear, hear.) I
ask attention to that proposition, because it is one which
entails consequences. If the principle that tea ought to be
taxed more heavily than beer be sound, then it is desirable
to uphold that distinction ; but if the principle be unsound
. I then it is very desirable that it should be exploded. The
• tax on beer, as I have already stated, is about 20 per cent.;
' the tax on tea cannot be stated at less than 40 per cent.
The short price of tea for some years past has not been
above ls. 6d, per lb., sold by the chest ; a few days ago it
stood at Is. 3d. If we take the price at Is. 6d., the tax upon
tea will be at least 40 per cent. ; if we take the price at ls.
3d., the tax will be about 45 per cent. Under the circum-
i stances of such undue relative taxation, I ask what ground
is there for making the vast sacrifice of revenue that I have
shown would be entailed by reduction of the malt duty ?
And do I not further show that up to this moment we
have failed to do justice to the consumers of the article of
tea ? (Cheers.) It is alleged that injustice is done rela-
tively to the lower and middle classes of barley as compared
with the higher classes of barley by the present system of
raising the revenue. I have shown that there has been a
progressive and steady rise in barley, not merely year by
year, but ten years after ten years ; and I might easily
contend that the lower and middle classes of barley have
participated in the advantages of these improved prices.
; But I admit that the incidence of the malt duty does not
press on barleys of the middle and lower qualities. (Hear,
; hear.) The duty is laid on a measure of malt, which
1 for the purposes of this discussion is just the same as if
; laid on a measure of barley, and a bushel of barley of high
quality will naturally yield mor6 malt than a similar quantity
• I of barley of lower value. We have been asked whether it is
not possible to devise something in the nature of a remedy
for the inequality created by the operation of this system,
and I am happy to say we have found a partial remedy at
least, and which I hope will prove something more than a
partial remedy. It would be very unjust to alter the form
of the duty absolutely from a duty by measure to a duty by
weight. because many persons might not wish to adopt the 1
substituted system, and the growers of fine barley espe-
cially might believe that their interests would be affected.
But what we think may be done, and what we shall ask the
house to do, is to give to the maltster the option, if he thinks
fit, of having the duty charged by weight. (Hear.) Hon
members will at once perceive the operation of the proposed
plan. Those who wish to be charged by measure will not
be subject to any change ; but in other cases a certain
weight will be assumed as the yield of a bushel of barley of
such quality as is now ordinarily used for malt, and the
duty paid by that weight will be the duty payable here-
after by all the malt that may go to make up that weight.
I hope it is not too much to expect that the effect of that
change will be to improve the position of the middling and
lower barleys in the market, by giving them fair play as
compared with the higher barleys, which now undoubtedly
derive something of a factitious advantage from the form. in
which the duty is laid. (Hear.) This measure, it is right •
that I should add, will not form any part of the taxation of
the year, but will form the subject of a bill that I shall
have the honour to lay on the table. Perhaps it may be
said that the prospect I have held out is a* prospect of the
indefinite continuance of the malt duties. On that subject I
I do not profess to offer any opinion. But I do venture to
point out that our position with reference to the repeal of I
indirect taxation is scarcely as good as it may possibly be :
a short time hence. Down to the present time we have felt ,
it a paramount obligation to apply whatever measure of
relief we felt ourselves in a condition to give towards th,e
reduction of the Income-tax. (Cheers.) Supposing the re- !
Iduction of the Income-tax now to have reached its term—
(oh,
oh)—or when it has reached its term—(hear, hear, and I
a laugh)—it is evident that the state of things, and thepo- I
sition of the House of Commons with regard to the remis-
sion of indirect taxation will be different. (Hear, hear.)
The Income-tax having been abolished, or redueed to a point
at which the house may deem that it is not called upon to
( do any more in that direction, this house will be free to deal
much more largely than it can do at present with indirect
taxation. I do not presume, however, to hold out any pro-
spect, or to offer any opinion on this point, nor do I ask the
I committee to imply any such opinion. My business, and
that of my colleagues, is simply, from the case before us,
to arrive at the best conclusion we are able, and we have
arrived at a double conclusion. First, that it is not in our
power, with justice, to ask the house to absorb so very large
a portion of the surplus of the present year as would be
absolutely necessary, together with the further burdens that
would be entailed, to make a partial remission of the Malt-
tax ; and secondly, as the result of that examination of the
relative weight of taxation to which we have been invited,
we are of opinion that the first and best step we can ask the
house to take is to do an act of justice which has hitherto
remained undone, and to place the duty upon tea in the
same position as the duty upon beer. (Hear, hear,) Con-
sidering it our duty to make a proposal on this subject, we
have thought it better to make a proposal of a decisive
character, such as will afford to the consumer the benefit of
a considerable reduction. Taking what is called the long
price of tea, we find it is usually delivered out of bond at
2s. 6d. That is somewhat higher than the present rate ; but
if it should be lower so much the better; and we feel that if
we can reduce the duty by so large a sum as 6d. in the lb.
we shall cause a reduction in the whole price of 20 per cent.
This reduction, with the increased importation which it
will no doubt occasion, must give a powerful stimulus to the
consumption of the article, and will, we trust, place this
most valuable and most healthful of all the luxuries of
the poor within the reach of many who now do not enjoy
it at all, or only enjoy it in a very limited degree. (Cheers.)
Under this head I make a very considerable proposal, and
I do so on this account, because if the committee when it
comes to vote upon it should agree to the change, it will
not be in our power to make any other proposal bearing
upon the subject of indirect taxation during the present
year. The estimated consumption of tea, apart from the
reduction of duty for the yaar 1865-6, was 92,000,0001 b.,
the loss upon which at 6d. in the pound—supposing it were
all loss—would amount to £2,300,000. I have taken, however,
the recovery upon that loss to be £225,000, and I think that
with favourable circ =stances it may go higher, but no higher
figure could be taken in conformity with the usual prudent
rule in the department which is the best judge of the subject.
That would cause for the full period of 12 months a loss of
£2,075,000, but a portion of the year would elapse—and in-
deed a month has already elapsed—before the change could
come into operation. And here I may take the opportu-
nity of saying that if it be agreeable to the committee I
should ask them to vote upon the resolutions I am about to
submit on the subject upon Thursday next. On the assump-
tion, then, that 1-10th of the year would have elapsed before
the new duty would come into operation, and therefore de-
ducting £207,000 from the £2,075,000, the loss for the finan-
cial year by the reduction of the duty would be £1,868,000,
and in the year 1866-7 there would be a further loss of
£207,000. The next subject -upon which I have to trouble

the committee is the question of the Income-tax. (Hear.)
Now, I think that if this Parliament was challenged as to
the reason why it has not dealt with the income tax in a
more sweeping manner than it has done, it would be easy to
point for an answer to ft single one of the many figures which
I laid before the committee at an earlier period of my ad-
dress, showing that £12,000,000 a year have been added to
the expenditure of the country. But, allowing for the relief
from the Annuities in 1860, I think we may say that
£10,000,000 a year has been added to the public expendi-
ture. Therefore it would not be just even if it were possible
to have deferred all other remissions of taxes for the pur-
pose of applying their whole force to the reduction of the
income tax. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly if we had done
that we might now be in a position to extinguish that tax ;
but I don't think it would be conformable to the equity and
fair dealing which usually distinguish the proceedings of
this house if any such plan had been pursued, independently
of the fact that a wide-spread opinion prevails—which, for
aught I know, may be the opinion of the majority of the
house, but upon that point 1 don't undertake to say any-
thing—that the income tax is a tax fit to be permanently
retained. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) My own personal
opinion has little to do with the matter. All I meant was
that if this house had doubts as to the question it is a sub-
ject of great importance which in another Parliament may
have to be considered. But at all events I think it perfectly
clear with regard to the fulfilment of that pledge which
some hon. gentlemen are pleased to regard as an obligation
contracted by me personally and not affecting anybody else.
I do think it is appropriate to the function of this Parlia-
ment, and the Government is of opinion that it is part of
the duty of this Parliament that we should do what we can
towards the reduction of the income tax. (Cheers.) It is in
our power to make a proposal which will leave the income tax
within manageable limits. The Income-tax at present is at
the lowest point it has ever heretofore reached—l mean
practically at the lowest point. It is perfectly true that for
a moiety of one year it was 5d., but for the other moiety it
was at 7d., and the yield for the year has never been lower
than 6d. Well, we propose to ask Parliament to remove
from that tax of 6d. one-third of the amount. (Loud
cheers.) If that proposal be accepted—and I confess I don't
anticipate its rejection—(hear, hear)—the effect will be to
reduce the annual yield of the Income-tax to £5,200,000.
That would be the amount of the tax, and that would be
the condition in which we should hand it over to the new
Parliament. I think that £5,200,000 would be the produce
of the Income-tax at 4d., for the value of the penny has
progressively risen. It was once my duty to state for your
pleasure that the value of the tax was one million for each
penny ; it is now my duty to state, and it will give you no
less pleasure to hear, that each penny of the income-tax
produces £1,300,000. (Cheers.) By giving an income-tax at
that amount over to the hands of the new Parliament, I
think we shall accomplish a double object. If it be the
pleasure of that Parliament to deal with it with a view to ex-
tinction, the amount of the tax will have been brought within
such limits that it will not be beyond their reach to adopt mea-
sures which would enable that object to be gained. But if,
on the other hand, it shall be the view of Parliament and
the people that it is wise permanently to retain an Income-
tax—an Income-tax at a low rate—as part of the ordinary
financial provision of the country, that is the rate at which
we believe it may be most justly and wisely so retained in
time of peace, and in the absence of any special exigency.
(Hear, hear.) A penny of the Income-tax produces, as I
have said, £1,300,000. The final loss to the Exchequer,
therefore, and the final restoration to the public
from our proposal will be £2,600,000. Of that sum
a loss of not quite two-thirds will accrue in the
year 1865-6—namely, £1,650,000 ; the loss of the remainder
or £950,000, will not accrue till the financial year 1866-7.
So much for the Income-tax, and now I come to the only
remaining resolution with which I shall have to trouble
the Committee. There can be no doubt on the minds of
those who hear me, even before I speak it, that I refer to
the subject of fire insurance. (Cheers.) I may remind the
House that on the 21st of March it arrived at this resolu-
tion :—" That, in the opinion of this house it is expedient
that the reduction of the Fire Insurance Duty made in the
last Session be extended at the earliest opportunity to houses
household goods, and all descriptions of insurable pro-
perty." On that resolution the house divided with the fol-
lowing result :—Ayes, 137 ; Noes, 65. Among the " Noes "
were found many gentlemen who have been the steady and
invariable and constant supporters of the repeal or reduc-
tion of the Fire Insurance duty—(hear), and also many
members of the Government, who in asking the house in-
effectually not to adopt the motion, did not grapple with it
upon its merits, acknowledged the fairness of the judgment
which the house had been pleased to give, and only depre-
cated what they thought—but the house did not think the
same—a premature declaration. (Cheers.) I have thus re-
ferred to the resolution, and in some degree analysed the di-
vision for the purpose of showing that little room for doubt
has remained upon the mind of the Government as to the
course which they should take. Indeed, the two sums which
I have given—£l,B6B,ooo for the Tea Duty, and £1,650,000
for the Income-tax, amounting together to £,3,518,000,
show that there remains to us but a narrow mar-
gin. At the same time that margin is sufficient to enable
us to meet the express wish of the House. (Cheers.) Now
the measure of last year will require notice for a few mo-
ments. The portion of the duty with which we dealt last
year was essentially distinct from the portion with which
we did not deal in this respect—that the former was a tax
upon trade, upon industry, and therefore virtually a tax
upon consumption, whereas the remaining portion is a tax
upon property. But let not the house be afraid that in
stating that distinction particularly I am about to venture
upon it as an argument for a difference of rate. The desire
of the house for an uniform rate has been clearly and un-
mistakably expressed, and we have not the smallest idea
of disputing it. (Hear, hear.) The experiment of last year
has not yet been fully tried ; it has only been nine months
in operation, and we have not as yet got so much as a full
year's receipt of the new duty upon stock in trade ; but as
far as it goes it does not enable us to be very sanguine as
to the ultimate results of the reduction in producing a re-
covery of revenue. There seemed to be high authority
for taking a more sanguine view at the time ; but although
my estimate was framed upon a moderate recovery—
namely, an increase of 10 per cent., which was included
in the annual increase, the result has shown a figure even
less. It was stated, and stated strongly, by hon. gentle-
men in the discussion of last year that when we came to
deal with property the result 'would be more satisfactory,
and that a larger increase and a larger recovery of
revenue would take place in regard to that portion of the
tax. How that may be I don't presume to say ; but
undoubtedly as far as stock in trade is concerned the re- I
mission has not been very successful in its results. Still,
I do not grudge the reduction which has taken place, be-
cause that tax, as applied to stock in trade, was compara-
tively a tax upon industry, and the benefit of the remis-
sion is certain to find its way to the consumer of those

articles which are the subject of the tax. It has been usual
to say in the House of Commons that the tax on fire in-
surance is a tax on prudence. In such arguments as I have
ever employed, so far as I can recollect them, in resisting
motions for the repeal or reduction of the duty, I have not
defended the tax upon its merits, but I have felt doubtful
as to the sanguine anticipations of recovery upon which
most of those motions have to a great degree been founded.
However, I think that the definition of the tax as a tax on
prudence may be amended, and that we may call it with
greater accuracy a tax upon property with a double exemp-
tion—the one being an exemption in favour of improvi-
dence, and the other an exemption in favour of those large
holders of property in the form of houses and buildings
who are able to take their chance and perform the function
which is called "insuring themselves." I must say that no
part of the argument ever used on the subject of fire in-
surance has appeared to me so strong against the present
state of the law as this, because it is said, I think un-
answerably, " If you are to make insurance against fire the
means of imposing a duty upon property"—and my hon.
friend (Mr. Hubbard) showed clearly that the duty of 3s.
per cent. was equivalent to an income tax of 7d. in the
pound upon houses and buildings—" it ought to be im-
posed equally, Sand there ought not to be a virtual exemp-
tion on behalf of large holders of property." I think that
that is an argument to which there is no reply. (Hear.)
Now, as I have said, the general expectation of the house
is that if we make the reduction which is pointed out by
the resolution adopted on the 21st of March there will be
a considerable recovery of revenue. Whatever recovery
there is will undoubtedly be a very great good, because it
will indicate some approach to equality in the• imposi-
tion of the tax, and it will show that the inducement to
self-insurance is operating with less force than that with
which it has heretofore operated. We, therefore, at once
admit, but especially under the authority of the house, that
the experiment is perfectly well worth trying ; and as we
have still remaining in our hands the means of trying the
experiment, we will propose a resolution to that effect. If
the experiment should succeed ; if, relatively to the amount
of reduction, the recovery should be large, then, as I have
said, a great good will be accomplished. If the experiment
should fail, then undoubtedly it may be the duty of another
Parliament, and of other Governments, to look further at
the question, and to say whether fire insurance ought not
to be placed on a footing yet more liberal and free. (Hear,
hear.) I know there are those who hold that insurance
against fire is a thing which ought not to be encouraged,
because it is an encouragement to carelessness. I take it,
bowever, that the house has adopted the opposite of that
proposition, and desires to see fire insurance placed upon
the best possible footing, and carried to the greatest pos-
sible extent. It may, therefore, be the duty of some
future Parliament, and of some future Government to
consider the question, if the results of this measure
should not be satisfactory; and if it should be found
necessary to give a further relief at some future time
from the duty on fire insurance, undoubtedly the
house will be disposed to look at the elements of which
the duty is composed—one of them being a tax upon
property, which must be considered in conjunction with
other taxes upon property forming part of our fiscal
system ; and the other a tax on insurance, which is purely a
commercial operation, and ought to be looked at in regard
to the nature of the risk rather than the value of the pro-
perty to which it applies. I come now to the estimated finan-
cial effect of this reduction. The revenue from fire insur-
ances in 1865-6, apart from any change, was taken at
£1,450,000. We propose to reduce the duty to a uniform
duty of ls.6d. from June 25. We shall add to the resolution
of the house a further change of minor consequence, which

was not indicated in the resolution, but which lam-quit°
sure will be universally approved, and that is the reduction
of the duty of is. upon the insurance policy, which is quite
distinct from the 3s. imposed annually on the renewal of
the policy. That charge of is. forms a serious impediment
to small insurances. In the larger and even in the middling
insurances, the company takes upon itself the payment of.
is., but in insurances from £3OO downwards the company
requires the insurer—and it is not at all unnatural—to beer
this charge. The consequence is that the man who is in'
suring £lOO has to pay 4s per cent. upon his first year, and
the man who insures £2OO has to pay 3s. 6d. We therefore
propose to substitute for the ls. duty a ld. stamp, but at
the same time to require the ld. stamp to be put upon the
receipt given for the money, which the spirit of the pre-
sent law requires, though I am not sure whether it is en
forced. The financial result will then be this :—For the
half-year we should receive the old duty. The
_old duty
was taken at £1,450,000, and half of that would be
£725,000, which we should get. The yield of the new uni-
form duty of ls. 6d. we take at £930,000. That is a reduc-
tion of £520,000 by the measure you are now adopting,
after allowing for an increase of 10 per cent. upon the de-
scription of insurances we are now going to reduce. One-
half of the old revenue which we should get would be
£725,000. On the remaining half-year we should get
£465,000, and putting these two sums together we have
£1,190,000, showing a loss for the present year of £200,0009
and in the next year of £260,000 more. I can put together
very simply the results of • the several changes which vie
ask the house to adopt. Fiist, I will give the total amount
of relief which these changes will give to the public vibe°
they have taken full operation. The relief given upon tee
will be £2,300,000 ; upon the income-tax, £2,600,000; 'Oen
fire insurance, £s2o,ooo—the total' of these figures, repre'd
senting the whole of • the operations you are nowcane
upon to sanction, will be £5,420,000. I now come to the
loss which we should have to experience in the financial
year already commenced. The loss from the reduction on
tea would be £1,868,000 ; from the reduction in the income'
tax, £1,650,000; and from fire insurance, £260,000. The
total loss for 1865-6 would thus be £3,778,000. In 1866.'
there will be a further loss upon tea of £207,000 ; upon the
income-tax, £950,000 ; and upon fire insurance, £260,000;
showing a further burden for 1866-7 of X 1,417,000, or ate°
loss for the two years taken together of £5,195,000. The
figure at which we have to look most minutely now is the
total amount of the loss for the present year—£3,77B,ooo',.A
That has to be deducted from a surplus which I stew;
at £4,031,000; and the remainder, a slight surplus which
I ask the committee to permit us to retain in °".
hands, will be £253,000. It will be seen that, deducting
that surplus from the burden of loss to be laid upon al:
year 1866-7 by the legislation proposed for the present Year
there will be a sum of about £1,160,000, which we are ne,.l
imposing on the resources of that year, and it may be ask'.
whether that is a prudent measure. My answer will betite-
fold. In the first place, when you deal with taxes uponPre:
party, it is absolutely inevitable that you shall to a CO
extent affect the balance of the year succeeding that
r,
which you immediately legislate. That is my first answe
But I likewise say that, looking to the state of the country'
and the fact that the increment of the revenue would, nr
the natural and ordinary course.of things, come to a larso
sum, I do not think that the committee need scruple on wit
score of prudence to accede to the proposition I am r,to
making. There is, however, another request whieltl_lho
to make of the committee, and which I trust they 'o'l' ill
disposed to grant. It is that they will join with ne
of
shielding against invasion the modest sum of a quart°,
a million, which .I ask that we may be permitted to retap-00
(Hear, 'hear, and a laugh.) Sir, we have been like pera°4
enclosed within certain precincts while outside the c 1",
we have seen crowds of hungry claimants. The more Pr for
perous the country is the larger the surplus available ho
the remission of taxes, the greater is also the number vt
demand remissions. We see them on all sides and of
kinds—

circumstant fremitu denso, stipantque frequentes."
We have let in those who we thought had the strong
°
claim. But there remain many behind. There are
customs duties with which it will be still desirable to deal'
(Hear.) It is nit necessary to name them ; but there ,
the duties upon raw materials and other duties Whit
doubtedly it would be most desirable to repeal. But I her
the committee will think with us that we have acted wi%e
in giving a heavy reduction on the great article of tea rat't
than in restricting it to what we should have been ah10,,,0
afford in small and less perceptible amounts. (Hear.) -es
there is the claim to the abolition or reduction of the dil"1-il
on public conveyances. That is, I think, a claim for whitt,
there is much to be said ; and glad shall I be when ,p-
-time comes that a favourable ear may be given to therf-til
plicants on that subject. (Hear.) There is also the Pow% of
claim of those who are connected with the business
marine insurance. I cannot say that I think their -7 be
by any means so urgent; yet at the same time it
„;700.
within certain limits a fair subject for future conswe;--1
Sir, there are other claims immediately hanging over lig-8
.0
respect to which I trust that the house will support
declining to make further inroads upon the Exclieclil-
And now I have in view a matter to which I was 101clef.,r;
stood previously to refer—a proposal that will be made
the relief of a particular class from a duty to which ill%
have for some generations been accustomed. I an' snnif
that if the house is prepared to enter upon the question,"
the relief of one particular class from duties which it ,0
pays, whether in the shape of an annual licence, or in -ci
shape of a stamp upon admission, it must be PreP3rier
to deal with the whole body of those interests in °1",1e,0
to satisfy the demands of justice, and to deal With f
whole body of those interests, or to deal with any :r
them, is neither compatible with financial prudence, 13-/
with the elementary principles on which the conduct-e,
Parliament in fiscal matters should rest. I trust, there f° for
Sir, that we shall have that support from this house
which I have asked if it thinks that our proposals are tiro
the whole reasonable and just, and carried to an Olen;
wide as the circumstances in which we stand Warran,„i'le
must confess that I cannot but entertain a very snub.:
to belleio
hope as to their acceptance. I am so sanguine as
that the immense difficulties I have described as behto
the way of any effectual dealing with themmalt 0 „or
have made an impression even on minds which were fay" es,
ably predisposed towards its remission. It is a great St! 0
faction to myself, as it is also to my colleagues, to beil 4
that the proposals we now make are proposals whiell,f of
not be unacceptable to hon. gentlemen on the other sl"-10,
the house. (Hear, hear.) They are few, they are aim 0,
they are intelligible. They might probably have been, 1110
parted in fewer words than those of any Budget thn'
auk
ever dealt with an extended remission of taxation. are
Sir, strong in the persuasion, first of all, that thei that
likely to win the approval of this house ; and second' tioil
they will likewise obtain the favourable verdict of the rI9-0,)
over whose interests it is our duty to watch. (Loud cheedi
The right hon. gentleman concluded a speech of 2111 ct
duration by moving one of the resolutions for givilige e

to his scheme.
• gyp,
The resolution was put from the chair and carried
dis.
Mr. WHITE complained of the enormous expen-,1
of the country, and expressed his opinion that no Gaw.i,eicil
ment was deserving the support of the couutil
brought estimates before the house exceeding sistf
lions sterling.
kcellvt

Mr. BENTINCK criticised the speech of the Chall`freeir
of the Exchequer, urging that although the right boriao
tleman would not reduce the malt tax on the grow 13 010
it would be a boon to a class ; he had legislated follotti
by conferring a substantial boon upon the special
involved in the production of penny newspapers. r°ooo
own part he would rather see the Frenchman
taxed than the beer of the Englishman. of
mditio,:ag

Mr. MARSH suggested that the anomalous co. If
the timber duties was a subject well worthy the COISI

tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. t tll.
Mr. SHERIDAN was somewhat disappointed th,
tl
right hon. gentleman had not dealt more liberally °laud'
fire insurance duty, which he thought ought to be

to a uniform rate of ls. per cent. V v ,tioo
Mr. Du CANE and Mr. BARROW advocated the redll-r.
of the malt tax as a matter of simple justice to the fitr,.Doeore,
Sir F. CROSSLEY gave a general approval to tu'i:;ol‘;
positions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but cve4
have been better pleased had the fire insurance dot,'
reduced to ls. per cent.
Lord G. MANNERS did not offer any objection tDa
portion of the budget, but expressed his regret tlt A"tof
Government had not held out even a remote hope theftwould accede to the claims of the agricultural illter pp
-
reducing the duty on malt. CAt"
Mr. SCLATER BOOTH and Mr. SERTEES also a- °
the case of the barley growers. 01,
Mr. MAGUIRE spoke of what he termed tifis'to
blunder committed by the Government with reg'a'rd 014,
importation of rags, and said that the paper make'', par;
willing to bind themselves not to raise the price
4.°li gin
on the consumer if the Government would repair
they had made. The hon. gentleman also took excer-r
the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exche4noo of
ignored the claims of the Irish distillers to a reductl
ula
duty
BASSupon g whisky.
Mr. ave it as his opinion that the budge' At 13°
meet with the general approbation of the country not 0'
same time he regretted that the Government lind - dais
tempted something towards removing the wide-Sp, rata
satisfaction felt at the maintenance of the present lII'
rll
of duty on malt. geee
Mr. R. LONG hinted that, at the forthcoming oft '
•
election, the " country party" would make the rel'e- a
malt tax a conition for re. election. 10, ,
The ontomot report progress was then agree'.
the house resumed. iea 0f,9

The other business on the paper was disP°9
the house adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock.

The quotation of gold at Paris is about 16 per Mille P . (33
the short exchange on London is 25.174 per £1 sterif:ei
comparing these rates with the English gint P. ,01,4.,,
• ?a. too. per ounce for standard gold, it appe.rs th. 11.
rat;
der more than 1-ILth per oent. dearer in POO
London.
- 2 0'
London : Prin'ed and Published by W 11. I,lA3l'''. No
-
of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at THE SUN 0111 alit/
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in lbe
Aliddlcus.—Friday, April 28, 1815.