The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-16 00:00:00

CASE OF COLONEL GREVILLE.

The Marquis of WESTiVIENTEI moved for copies of
correspondence between himself, as lord-lieutenant of the
county of Westmeath, and the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land, relative to certain language used by Colonel Gre-
ville and others at an election dinner at Navan in
Jan nary last.
The motion, after a few words from several noble
lords, was withdrawn.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
EXCISE DUTIES BILL.

Mr. WILSON moved the second reading of this bill. went, which would be very unpopular, and as Le ho 'our
Mr. CAYLEY rose to move an amendment, that the ' of England was now embarked in the war, he should be
bill be read a second time this day six months. He dis- sorry for anything which could afford an excuse to the
avowed all personal considerations in bringing forward this Government for not vindicating that honour. He did
amendment. He could not help coming to the conclusion, not believe that Government were sincere in wishing to
after reading the despatches impartialiy, that the war carry the people with them in the prosecution of
in which we are now engaged has been brought about the war. They might have made another selection than
by the vacillation and obsequiousness of the Govern- this tax. They had heard of no objection to the arrest of
went. (Hear, hear, hear.) He believed the Empe- the sugar remission, and there would have been none to
ror of Russia hail been misled as to the course which the arrest of the tea remissions ; but he believed that this
this country would purne. He thought if Lord Claren- tax had been chosen because it was known that it must be
don had adopted in 1853 the language he adopted last Jan., opposed. He dwelt upon the income needlessly thrown
we should not now be involved in war; for it was away last year to complete a coxcombical arrangement in
clear the Emperor or Russia did not wish for war any the customs list, and said, that if the ordinary sources of
more than we ourselves did. If the Emperor of Russia revenue, to the amount of 7,000,00010 had not been thrown
ha l been confidential with our Government, they ought to away, there would have been no necessity for the present
have been equally confidential with him, and have told demand, The Government were doing their best to make
him that if he once crossed the Pruth, and entered taxation odious. He then entered into a financial argue
the Principalities, anxious as we were for peace, we went to show that free trade tended to a drain of bullion,
mild no longer permit the status quo to continue, and said that Government had not pursued a system calcu-
but must have recourse to force of arms. That was the lated to develope the resources of the country.
lengusge they ought to have used to Russian last June. Mr. WILSON would not dispute with the hon. member
With respect to the malt duties they always got 12,000,000/. as to the meaning of free trade, so long as the principle of
of taxation from barley, out of 15,000,0001. of excise free trade was not abandoned. The principle laid down by
taxation. (Hear, hear.) Don't let gentlemen imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which the house had
this malt tax was a barley question ; it was a tax of 11.Ior acquiesced, was that at the commencement of the war it
11. ss. on every acre of cultivated land from John o'Groat's would be unworthy of this country to resort to loans, and
to the Land's End. (Hear, hear.) They would not tax that we ought to pay the expenses of the war, as far as pos-
the shopkeeper or the man with an income between 101. sible, from the income of the year. (Cheers.) But, although
and 601., but they would lay a t.x on the national the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the proposal of in-
beverage, which was consequently a tax on the poor man. creased taxation now before the house, it did not follow
(Hear.) Why did they not tax yarn, or cotton wool ? If that the right hon. gentleman would not make other pro-
the duty of a halfpenny a yard hit the manufacturer too positions hereafter. The first principle adopted by the
hard, did they think a tax of 100 per cent. on malt would Government, in their financial scheme, for meeting the ex-
not hit the landed interest and the consumer far more penses of the war was, that direct taxation should take
oppressively? The effect of the malt tax was to make the precedence of indirect taxation. (II ear .) The Chancellor
produce of malt four times dearer than it would if that of the Exchequer had' also thought it fair that those
tax did not wait. If this tax were repealed the demand classes of the community who did not pay tho income-tax
for barley would increase at least three-fold. The natural should likewise contribute to the expenses of the war.
effect of that increase would be to produce a larger re- The question was, having to raise 2,500,0001. by indirect
venue, for we, who are the barley growers of Europe, taxation, what, was the least prejudicial mode in which
would grow less wheat and oats than we do now. • that could be done? One hon. member thought the Go-
By our present fiscal laws we now depress the price vernment ought to have levied a 5 per cent. duty on im-
of wheat and oats at least ss. the quarter. They ports; but had he forgotten the great experiment of 1841,
were now about to increase the wrong to the agricultu- when, under circumstances of financial difficulty, the Go-
ralists by adding to the tax on barley, and he vies vernment of that day proposed a 5 per cent, increase of
really at a less to know to what motive to attribute duty? Instead of reaping the advantage they expected,
this blow aimed at the agriculturalists. If there were the Customs' duties were as much as possible the same, or
no licenses, no penalties, no more interference with very little more than in the preceding year. It was neces-
the trade of the agriculturist than with any other trade sary upon an occasion like the present to be sure of the
—the maltstor and the publican would not, as they do now, result when they proposed to increase a tax. There
pay three taxes, besides the tax that goes to the Chancellor was no article of general consumption in regard to
of the Exchequer ; for, at the present, this tax took from which increased duties had been so generally followed by
the public, not 5,000,0001. but 20,0')0,000/. Tho brewers increased receipts as in the article of malt, which showed
had already sent out their notices that they were going to how very little the consumption of beer was affected by a
raise the price of beer, and the Government had no means, slight increase or decrease of the malt duties. The hon.
by reason of their present laws, to check in any way member who spoke last asked why the Government had
this gigantic monopoly. And this was what they called thrown away the Customs' duties of last year? But, not-
free trade ! (Hear.) When in 1849 the right hon. gentle- withstanding those reductions, instead of a loss of revenue,
man the member for Buckinghamshire moved resolutions the Customs were greater in amount last year than during
for the relief of the land, the member for Montrose moved the year precedine. (Rear, hear.) The Customs' duties
as an amendment the repeal of the malt tax, declaring it in 1852 were 20,531,100/. before the reductions were made.
to be opposed to the principles of free trade, and that it Last year, after the reductions, they were 23,902,000/,
interfered with the trade of the agriculturists. It was one being an increase of 500,0001. The Excise duties in 1852
of the inconveniences which the agricultural interest had were 14,835,0001. ; in 1853, notwithstandingt he repeal of
to contend with since the repeal of the corn laws, that the the soap duty, they were 15,337,0001., being an increase
free traders would not he true to their principles, and the of 500,0001. in the Excise. A Parliamentary paper laid
agriculturists always contended the duties on malt and upon the table by the President of the Board of Trade
hopes were a violation of the principles of free trade, and showed that from 1842—the ye,r in which these vast re-
now it was proposed to increase those duties. Could no ductions in the Customs and Excise had begun to be made
other commodity hare been found to imPoso a duty on --up to the I.rewnit moment, the i'mtnease of revenue front
when you were about to violate your jai:lQ:pies, when you of,iluary sources Was 2,0UU1. tiloVe this.; in 1811. The total
were about to tax this great staple refreshment of the work- net revenue in 1841 was 47,000,000/. ; in 1853 it was
ing classes: The amount of the value of imported goods 54,500,0001., being an increase of 7,500,0001. If from the

Mr. FLOYER combated the view of the preceding Upon the failure of that proposition, a party supposed to be
speaker, taunted the Treasury bench with its silence— very friendly to the landed interest, came into power, and
which was hardly courteous, considering the magnitude of now your attempt to add 50 per cent. to this tax, which
the interests involved—and contended at some length that the friends of the agricultural interest desire to reduce,
the proposal of Government was oppressive, will be regarded as a fresh blow, as a new humiliation ; it
There were loud cries for a division, and strangers were will exasperate those feelings which it was desired to extin-
ordered to withdraw, but at length guish, and, by damping the ardour with which the war
Sir B. LYTTON, who was received with cheers, spoke
tEshhnoncruiliiibue,eopntr,olßvseillcilisrtieea,,dd,iiictcishsueFlillii)tntogFit,n,rmtheersexcliiksevemzaaioirnlnentztouhutbesire
to the following effect :—I cordially concur in the desire
expressed by all gentlemen who have risen on this side of provided you can convince them that they
the house to assist the Ministers of the Crown in providing ask you whether any farmer can upon any principle look
the necessary means to carry on with vigour and effect the upon this tax as a fair one ? (Hear, hear.) You force on
war in which we are unhappily engaged, and as all that him free trade, by which you concede that ho has been a
may weaken the Government by party disputes on matters sufferer ; you refuse to retrace your steps by a single import
duty, and when he asks you for free trade for himself to
of domestic policy would, in my judgment, be injurious to enable him to cultivate that crop which he prefers, you not
that aspect of moral power which this country should pre- only refuse his request, but add fifty per cent. to the tax
sent to Europe, I rejoiced when the noble lord the member upon the only article in which he conceives that free trade
for London, much, I think, to his credit, and with the re- would be desirable to him. (Cheers.) Why did we
spectful sympathy of the house—withdrew from discussion decline to proceed with the Parliamentary Reform Bill ?
a reform bill which must inevitably have roused the most It was not so much because we could not find time to
determined opposition. I did hope that opposition itself deal with it on account of our being occupied with the
might remain dormant during therest of the session. I was details of the war ; it was not so much because the public
not prepared to expect that the dispute which the leader of mind was distracted from a'l such considerations by the
the Government in this house so patriotically forbore, idea of the war, as it was because your hill contained pro-
would be forced upon us in another shape by the Chancel- visions affecting agricultural constituencies, which could
for of tho Exchequer. That right hon. gentleman is too not be discussed at a popular hustings without re-awaking
experienced a politician not to know that he has delibe- the division of classes, without raising the mischievous
rately introduced into his budget the very item that must cry of " Town and Country ;" but what you could not
revive the most bitter resentment of the class against effeet by your Reform Bill you are resolved to effect by
which it operates, and that most of us on this side of the your budget. (Cheers.) For where you proposed to in-
house would be traitors to our constituents if we sub- crease the franchise of the great towns, you now propose to
omitted to it without a struggle. (Cheers.) The issue exempt them from all partial burdens, and to throw those
of that struggle may be against us, but I fear that the very partial burdens upon the agricultural constituencies,
proposition of the right hon. gentleman will materially which you proposed by your Reform Bill to enfeeble and
weaken the bands of the government in the fitting conduct deluge with an inundation of urban voters ; so that it
of this war, because it elaborately tends to create the deepest does seem as if you desired t o justify the suspicion that
dissatisfaction in that very portion of our people on whom you have some determined hostility against the agricultu-
for the endurance of war all governments must proverbial- rists of the land. (Cheers from 1. Osborne.) Oh !
ly depend. (Hear.) I shall imitate the example of those you grant that. The hon. and gallant gentlemen has
who have preceded me, and refrain from discussing the ge- the courage to avow what his superiors disguise.
neral propositions of the budget. With respect to the pro- (Loud cheers and counter cheers.) You have a
posed duplication of the income and property tax, however, determined hostility against the agriculturalists of
I must at least enter a strong demur against the assertion the land, and you carry on a party warfare
glibly made by the right hon. gentleman, that it was ire- against them now against their political influence, now
possible to reconstruct it upon a more equitable basis; but against their pecuniary interest. (Cheers.) I must say
whether this be or be not possible, I say that a direct tax that the whole proceedings connected with this war and
in which the whole mass of the public complain of anemia- with this war budget do ievite one to inquire whether we
lies and injustice, not rendered more tolerable by your as- have really gained so much by that stupendous sacrifice of
sertion that they are not susceptible of mitigation, and private inclination which the public virtue of our Ministers
avowedly to be continued for the whole duration of the war induced them to make when they consented to share among
—maintained, as it were, upon that tenure—is precisely them the disagreeable seals of office. (Laughter.) Most
that tax which the Emperor of Russia will rejoice to hear Governments have been formed by the combination of
that you have doubled. (Hear.) However, there is at least opinions, but this Government was formed upon the
this consideration left to those who have to pay the income gran •er principle of the div rsity of talent. Great men,
and property tax—its inequalities and injustice are respec- long rivals and hostile statesmen, consented to act together.
tively divided between all the wealth and industry of Lord Aberdeen announced himself as a Liberal Conser-
the community whose incomes reach the limit of 100/, a vative ; the noble lord the member for London was a Con-
year; while the right honourable gentleman then proceeds servative Liberal ; but until we saw these great men
to select a single article of home production, and with acting together we should no more have supposed that a
a complacent eulogium on the principle of fair dis- Liberal Conservative in one house was the same thing as
tribution, calculates to raise from the additional tax a Conservative Liberal in the other, than that a horse-
-which, if finally paid by the consumer, especially affects chesnut was identical with a chesnut horse. (Laughter
one single department of industry—a sum a third in and cheers.) But what has this talent done for us—
amount of all which he calculates to obtain from his fresh where and how have these wonderful capacities, this
demand up n the united property and income of the en• extraordinary experience of public affairs, been displayed ?
tire community. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman The First Lord of the Admiralty evinces his remarkable
thinks the malt tax a duty which combines all those fe t- sagacity and foresight by entering office with a vehement
tures that should determine his choice in selecting it. invective against the E eperor of France, whose flag now
" You can raise it," he says, " without additional expense, sails beside our own. (Hear.) The Ministers who under-
and collect it without additional machinery." But in this take our foreign affairs can only exonerate themselves from
the hon. member for Westbury I.as followed him through the charge of having taken in the Emperor of Russia, by
a variety of small arguments. I think the hon. member lamentable complaints that they were egregiously taken in
for the North Riding has rather proved the contrary; but, themselves. The domestic genius of this incomparable
grant that it be so, the reasons alleged are very well for a Cabinet is shown in the preparation of a Reform Bill, for
mere tax-gather, or even a Secretary of the Treasury, but which you are compelled, e ;en before war was announced,
there are other reasons—reasons of policy and justice— to own the ungrateful apathy of the people; and your ex-
which should weigh more with a gentleman of such lofty perience in practical affairs is thus evinced by 'being as
pretensions to the character of a statesman. And I say blind to the temper of the Englisn public as you were to
that all such reasons combine to make this tax one of the the designs of the Russian enemy. (Cheers.) And now,
very last you should have thought of. (Hear.) The right in that department of finance, on which the right hon.
hon. gentleman in proposing this additional malt tax, spoke gentleman has been so severe a critic upon his predeces-
only of making the general consumer pay his fair share of sore, from William Pitt to Lord Monteagle, from Lord
the burdens necessary to carry on the war. He spoke only Monteagle to my right hon. friend the member for
of the general consumer; not one single word did he con- Buckinghamshiro—(a laugh)—what have been all your
descend to say of the effect of the tax upon agriculture. fiscal operations ? A series either of fallacious promises or
(Hear.) He spoke as if there were no persons in this noun- costly blunders. Where was the stateman's prophetic eye
try engaged in the cultivation of land—he seemed to ignore when last year the right hon. gentleman based all his cal-
their existence. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentle- cnlations upon the removal of the income tax in seven
man need not have looked deeper than into the familiar years, when be would not listen for a moment to being
pages of Mr. M'Culloch,—whom he afterwards quotes with told of the possibility of war. What became of that cheer-
deserved respect as a high authority—to have known the ful complaisance with which be replied to that inquisitive
injury to agriculture which the malt-tax, even without an clerk who complained of his income tax; and what was
addition, evidently inflicts. What says Mr. M'Culloch? at least one-half of the right hon. gentleman's speech the
" The malt tax, like other taxes on commodities, falls other night composed of ? Why, an eloquent vindication
wholly on the consumer ; still, however, it must be ad- of what the world still believes to be mistakes. Now, sir,
witted that it is, indirectly at least, if not directly, espe- Ido not pretend to be a competent judge of the right hon.
eially injurious to the agriculturist. Barley is a crop that gentleman's financial schemes. But let me put an mina-
is peculiarly suitable to light lands, and may be introduced logous case more in my own way, If I were to publish
with the greatest advantage in an improved rotation after new book, and I prefixed to it a preface that Wipz.ld
green crops. But it is obvious that, by imposing a duty occupy three or four mortal columnsofthe
of 20s. Bd. (that is the present duty) per quarter on malt newspaper, tending to show that
the notable the three
(the produce into which barley is almost wholly concocted) books I had last written were not
the demand for the latter is materially diminished, and failures which, whether through ignorance nto stcehoormilae criticsligniatym
the farmer is in consequence prevented from sowing bar- the public had been led to suspect—(laughter)—sere
triumphpect_(lauehter)—sure I
ley, where, but for this circumstance, it might be more that I could not give a greater
suitable than any other variety of corn. It is not easy to or take a course more likely to make the friendly infer that
b t
estimate the injury which this indirect influence of the I bad some misgivings on thieasseaudnjtenoc xnflimfveso.eulrf.
thOonceotmhping
ii,
malt tax inflicts upon agriculture ; but the fact of its in- is clear—success never needs
e
ewdatshep other night on Mr. Pitt with
(Hear.) the
lhe
w
flitting an injury is undeniable. Suppose such a high duty right hon. gentleman
were laid on bread as would lessen the demand for wheat, ments thatrherboesanh
on the errors of that Minister. I am
would any one presume to say that was not especially in- a sarcastic reproach .
b st
of all defect , what is thathawvheicer thmei
forEsrruioa e. may
jurious to agriculturists ? Or suppose a high duty were not Mr. Plit
,apsoolloea:itsst.
censure? Why, that Mr.
right
g d
laid on calicoes and broadcloths, is it not clear that it no doubt ;
would be a serious injury to the manufacturers engaged hon.
on it?" (Cheers.) Nay, Mr. M'Culloch goes further; for, a distance ; that Mr. Pitt was
Pitt (fled gentleman
see the themwanarat
short sighted. And this
while he thinks, nevertheless, that it may be a tax in case
out of his own Cabinet who could
charge comes from a gentleman
nwohtofowraeLe the wyar which he has now to provide for—from
of necessity which you might increase, yet, even as it now
gentlemanhn who converts stocks anti can't foresee the
exists, he thinks it entitles the farmer to a compensation.
And what is the compensation this eminent Free Trader
resultst—iws . has one budget in March, and another in
insists on ? Why, he says, "the peculiar pressure of the
h t
tthe gentleman who sneers at Mr. Pitt as
malt tax upon land gives the agriculturist a peculiar claim *ay
short-sigh el . Sir, whether Mr. Pitt did or not commit
—though all claims on account of tithes were abolished--; j
aoinerrtoordby his system of loans is not that very easy to have a certain fixed duty imposed upon foreign corn.'
ques-
(Hear.) "It would be unjust," says Mr. M'Culloch, "see- ti ecide, which the right hon. gentleman presumes it
to be, on Mr. M'Culloch's authority. Mr. M'Culloch was
ing that the malt tax, by narrowing the demand for barley,
and obliging the farmers to adopt imperfect rotations, is no authority for the right hon. gentleman with regard to
especially inimical to their interests, to expose them, with- the malt tax ; but, Sir, whether as a political economist
out any corresponding protection, to the competition of Mr. M'Culloch be right or tot in censuring Mr. Pitt's
foreigners. Perhaps it might require a fixed duty of Is. financial policy in the first year of the French war, there
6d. or 2s. a quarter to counteract the unfavourable circum- are other and grander Views than those of political
stances alluded to." That is the malt tax ! So that here, economy and finance involved in the Government of man-
after you have abolished all duties on foreign wheat, you kind and the safety of nations. (Hear, hear.) On enter-
select the very burden which, according to political eco- ing into war with a formidable power, Mr. Pitt may have
nomy, entitle the grower to some protection, and add to it reasonably suppdsed that it was not wise to discourage
50 per cent. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Westbury con- the people by onerous measures of taxation in the
ceives that an Excise duty on malt is very different in effect first instance. He may have thought, as an English-
from an Excise duty on soap. He can reduce ths duty on man and a patriot, that his first duty wee to maintain the
soap and yet increase the revenue. On malt, on the other spirit of his countrymen, and that posterity would pardon
hand, he thinks he can increasethe duty withoutdiminishing the loans he raised in return for the ample remuneration
consumption. But the facts of the past are against him there• of interest he secured—remuneration in an extended em-
We know that, notwithstanding the increase of wealth and Aire augmented commerce, imperishable honour. (Cheers.)
of population, the consumption of malt varied little for 100 And these were our returns when at the close of the war
years, until the duty on malt was reduced in 1822—when England emerged the first State in that Europe her arms
even before the beer duty
.was repealed, it rose from more had freed and delivered, and so lightly shook off from her
than 26,000,000 bushels in 1821 to moro than 30,000,000 shoulders the burden of these loans you have the ungrateful
bushels in 1828 ; and since the repeal of the beer duty in arrogance to condemn that every year throughout the peace
1830 it has risen to more than 40,000,000 bushels. (Hear.) we have increased in wealth and resources, and since 1831
Now, lam opposed to all tuxes that fell more upon one almost every year has sren some vast diminution of
class of industry than another ; but if the stern Deccan- taxes accompany the payment of the debt.. (Cheers ) So
ties of war compel yon to violate this strict• rule, and some much 'as been said about our not' saddling posterity that
class must be partially affected by your burdens, we might it seems as if it were intended to insinuate that this ie
regret it less if it were that class who have a paramount not a war to be waged on behalf of posterity. but for some
interest in bringing the war to a speedy close by vigorous fleeting and selfish purpose of our own. If that be so, I
and effective military operations. What is that class ? oa on our ministers to recall our fleets, and to disband our

armies—a war which is not for posterity is no fitting war for
us. (Cheers) But, surely, if ever there was a war waged on
bahalf of posterity, it is the war which would check the
ambition of Russia and preserve Europe from the outlet of
barbarian tribes, that require but the haven of the Bospho-
rus to menace ie liberty and the civilisation of races as
yet unborn. (Cheers.) It is not our generation that need
fear if the flag of Russia waved to-morrow over the ruins
of Constantiuop!e. The encroachments of Russia are
proverbially slow ; it would require a quarter of a century
before she could recover the exhaustion of her own vic-
tories and tame into convenient serfs the brave population
she had conquered. It is for all time that we wage the
battle. It is that the liberties of our children may be
secured from some future Attila, and civilisation guarded
from the irruptions of Scythian hordes. On this ground,
then, we might fairly demand the next generation to aid
us in the conflict we endure for their sake. (Cheers.) Into
that question in all its bearings I will not at present enter ;
it is complicated and difficult ; but, at least, my plain
common sense makes me sure of this—that if you desired
to make the people as _reluctant to proceed with the war
as you were slow and blind to prepare far it, you could
not could take more effeekive means than by such speeches
as the Chancellor of the. .:xchequer delivered at Man-
chester, and such taxes, derived, at the very first com-
mencement of military open •lions from sources the most
direct, palpable—odious iu themselves, and unfair in their
assessment—as you propose. by this budget to create.
(Loud cheers.)

Mr. DRUM3IOND had quite' Approved of the bold and
mauly budget of Mr. Disraeli, which was intended to
carry out the principles which the present Government
had falsely inculcated. (Great Op:xi =ition shouting.) But
this was not the question. All sides had cheered on this
war, and now it would be said that they shrunk as soon as
its realities were felt. Could a tax be proposed that the
stupidest man in the house could not, object to ? Were
they going to raise money or not ? IT they were, the only
question was, whose pocket should be picked ? He thought
that the terms Mr. Gladstone used towards Mr. Pitt were
an indecent sneer, and if the former intended to live to the
termination of the war, he had better be tender of Mr.
Pitt's reputation. In thei course of & sarcastic address, he
expreeFied a wish that we had a Foreign Minister who
could write as good despatches as M. Drouyn de Lhu7s,
and he intimated that the Emperor of France was begin-
ning to believe that we should not support this war and
there wa- an enormous camp forming at Boulogne, which
some people were good enough to believe was to watch
Prussia. He advised that we should form three great
militia camps, and, so far from thinking of getting off the
malt tax, be trunkful if we escaped with a doubled malt
tax, income tax, and house tax, and so saved England
from being the battle-field of Euroi e.
mingled with w
a i
Sir J. PAKINGTON, who rose amid loud cries of " Oh,
oh,"in g.
andde "Divide,"
stshu relcheers
th o sfer ofrm from
hon. the
m gentlemen t
he Ministerial
Opposition,
w ho
side of the house,
nostiodnityhatht
ehne.
begged
but during the last Lew hours, had endeavoured to stifle
the discussion and to interrupt the debate by more inde-
corous and unseemly conduct than he believed he had ever
seen in that house, that he should not stand for many mi-
nutes between them an 1 the d; vision for which they pro-
fessed to be so anxious. He had risen principally to express
his astonishment that a Government which had asked for
2,500,0001. of taxes had not condescended to rise to vindi-
cate their proposition. (Oh, oh.) The objections to this
tax had been stated at the beginning of the evening in a
most able and elaborate speech by his hon. friend the mem-
ber for the North Riding. It was true that his hon. friend
had been answered by the noble lord the member for Ports-
mouth and the hon. member for Norwich, but he did not
think that the house had heard from either of those hon:
members any very forcible reply to the speech of his hon.
friend; and he thought that even the arguments of the
hon. gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, such as they
were, had been more than disposed of by the able and
powerful speech of his bon friend the member for Hert-
fordshire. (Hear, hear.) He contended that they had a
right to call upon the Government to answer those powerful
arguments which had not been wet, and that they were
justified in expecting some explanaton of the reasons why
they had selected this t..x, which had been shown to be
most unjust in its operation, as one of the modes by which
they intended to defray the expenses of carrying on the
war. Were they deterred from entering into that expla-
nation by the speech which had just been made by his hon.
friend the member for West Surrey? (A laugh.) What
the vote of his hon. friend would be he found it difficult
to collect from his speech. He confessed he did not know;
but a more severe censure of a tax than be had passed
upon that now proposed by the Government he had never
heard. (Hear.) When his hon. friend, however, went on
to say, after passing a most just censure upon that propo-
sition, that he felt in the present condition of the house
that whatever tax might be proposed, whether it were A,
B, C, or D, objections would be raised to it, as they were
now raising objections to their proposal for increasing the
malt tax, he must say, that he thought his hon. friend
had not airly met the question before the house, or done
justice to the motive by which the Opposition were ani-
mated in the objections which they now made. He felt
the painful position in which he and his friends were
placed in having to oppose a means of carrying on the war,
but the fault was with the Government that had made such
a selection. The Opposition Nadi met Government in the
fairest spirit throughout the session, had ooncurred with
them in the justice of the war, and in the doctrine that
its expense should be met, as far as possible, from the ex-
penses of the year; but they had a right to a fair taxation
and one from which there was a reasonable hope that the
expected amount would be realised, and the malt tax was
deficient on both points. He denounced the proposed im-
position as most impolitic at a crisis when unanimity was
so desirable. He azain called on the Government to an-
swer to the powerful arguments which had been advanced
that night.
Lord J. RUSSELL--I cannot let this debate close with
out declaring that I think the question now before the
house is a much wider one than the right hon. gentleman
opposite, and those who preceded him on the same side of
the house have been willing to admit. They have said,
and I admit the justice of theollegation, that, with regard
to measures calculated to carry on the war which they
think and we think just, they have given their support to
the present Government, although differing with them on
many points of public policy. lam ready to acknowledge
that support and generally to thank them for it. But
really the question upon which the Government were
likely to m ast with difficulty, and upon which they
were to call on the patriotism of this house and to
appeal to the spirit and feeling of the country to support
them, was in reference to the taxation necessary to carry
on that war. (Cheers.) I cannot believe that it is a con-
sideration of the nature of this particular tax which really
induces honourable gentlemen opposite to reject it. (Dis-
approbation from the Opposition.) Will they tell me,
when we are engaged in a just war with a mighty
power, which now threatens to swallow up the dominions
of our allies, and which is moving mighty armaments
over the face of Europe in contemplation of the impend-
leg conflict, and when, therefore, we are in readiness to
make an effort to preserve to this country its character
and its station, and to render great service to Europe, that
they are ready to incur an immense sacrifice, but that
ls. "el. a bushel upon malt is really too great. (Cheers and
laughter.) Why, sir, the right honourable gentleman (Sir
J. pakington) and the honourable baronet the member for
Hertfordshire (Sir Bawer Lytton) really speak as if the
whole of this taxation was to be laid on the land. (Hear,
hear.) But the right hon. gentleman and the hon. baronet
reminded us of what the question was when we had to
consider the income tax last year. and the consideration
we ought to bear in mind this year. What the right hon.
gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
when in office, and what the honourable baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire said when out of office, was, that we
should make a discrimination wi h respect to incomes, and
that a discrimination in favour of trade, in favour of great
incomes derived from commerce and professions, adverse to
the land. (Hear, hear.) So that fortunes of 20,0001. or
30,0001. a year derived from commerce were to pay at a
less rate than persons having an income of 2001. or 2501.
lerived from land. That was the proposition which came
from the opposition side of the house, and against which
we protested. And my right honourable friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who is represented as so hostile
to the land, said if you made this distinction, although
it was adverse to you in a time of peace, it .would be-
come far more adverse to yeti in a time of war to
triro
cbeienecdcooeml
,me i
aatn
(dtixi
If,
earnednoethoaft
itei.doirffeiroteln.ce,
aonf47sod.
oi. nnr csa7sl a.
you i ev oy uou
pl
venture to say that if you once
begin with such a distinction, that it must be carried fur-
ther, and that to the prejudice of the land of the country.
I believe no more dangerous proposition to the land was
ever made than that which was made by those who de-
clared themselves to be the friends of the land and of the
farmer at that time. We have preserved the income tax
such as Mr. Pitt framed it, and such as it was continued
throughout the war; but my right hon. friend said, after
all, an income tax cannot be carried to the lowest incomes;
there must be a point at which you must stop; but are
those who have a less income than nat. a year to be free
from taxes which are to be borne for the honour and cha-
racter of the country? He said he thought that was un-
wise, and he proposed to tax consumption. And when
once you come to articles of consumption, which are at
the same time articles of necessity, you inflict great injus-
tice and hardship on the community at large. Therefore
the rule, if possible, should be to impose such taxes on
articles of general consumption, but, at the same time,
which are not articles of necessity and I know no articles
to which that description more applies than the articles of
spirits and malt. (Cheers.) They are both of them articles
which are of very general consumption, upon which you
are sure to raise a very considerable revenue, and upon
which there is not likely to be any very great diminu-
tion of consumption —( hear, hear),—and yet which no
man can say are such articles of necessity as salt,
candles, soap, and the like, the duty upon which we
removed last year. If this is the case—if you are to add
to your income tax, there can be no better argument on
which you can impose some additional taxation on the
article of malt, and that addition to your taxation is only
to raise that taxation to one-half what it was during
nearly all the latter part of the last war, and isnot much
greater than it was in 1775, when Adam Smith pointed
out the policy of taxing beer and malt. There was another
point which the hon. baronet the member for Hertford-
shire quoted, and to which also my hon. friend the member
for Surrey referred, and which, having now reason to ad-
dress the house, I cannot omit to notice, namely, the ob-
servations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon
the policy of Mr. Pitt during the first year of the war.
Nothing could be more unjust than to say that those ob-
servations were without necessity, or without intending
to have a most important bearing upon this debate. (Heart
hear.) My right hon. friend pointed out that a large sum
was collected in loans during the first year of the great
revolutionary war, and not more than 480,0004 wasim-
posed in taxes. He said that course was pursued till you
had added very greatly to your debt, which then amounted.
to 200,000,0001. ; and that in the course of Mr. Pitt's
proceedings you raised no money for the support of the
war, and that the cost was inscribed on the debt,
and that that was the sum for which we were now
paying. He pointed out that that was a most im-
politic course. Can anything be more true than that the
loans which Mr. Pitt contracted were at 4,5, and in some
instances 6 per cent. ; and that that six per cent. was to
be payable for over? My right hon. friend pointed out
that that course was ruinous to the country, and he hoped
that this house would not repeat it Not that my right
hon. friend attempted to pledge this house, or pledged the
Government, never to contract loans in support of the
war ; but he said that to make a great effort to raise
141,000,000/e and to add that sum to the revenue of the
year, was not too great an effort for a country about to
be engaged in a great war, and that such an effort might
save you from a debt like that which was so improvidently
contracted by Mr. Pitt. lam not a very great admirer Of
Mr. Pitt, but I think, after the efforts he made in 1777
and 1778, that, his conduct is worthy of admiration, and
that if you are to make the war, you ought to make an
effort in order to sustain that war by taxes to be paid
during the year in which it is being waged,_ and that it is
not a to loan to postezity the whole burden gl the ear.

►. -~"- -