The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-01 00:00:00

such a tax had not yet come ; hut he also knew well, that
the time was not far distant whe❑ a property tax must be
adopted for the purpose of preserving the public faith. He
regretted the manner in which the Noble Lord had row
placed the question. The consequence of it was, that the
Noble Lord would drive him either to stultify his own

vote, or else to carry with it the reduction of a tax which
would go to relitve a cliss of rich citizens, rather than the
peop!e at large. In all the reductions of taxation which,
is a humble Member of that flouse, he had recommended,

he had endeavoured in the first instance, to get those re-

duced which chiefly affected the necessaries of life, and the
comforts of the lower ozders of the people. In his opinion,
th. tax on malt was one of this kind. The persons who

paid the house and window tax were in general per-
sons well able to hear it. That tax was, in point of

fact, paid by the landlonls, not by the tenants, and it
chiefly fell upon the rich citizens and shopkeepers of Lon-
lon. But it was the labourer who paid the malt tax ; it

was he who suffered, either by being totally deprived of the
use of a wholesome beverage, or by being compelled to
drink beer (.f a very inferior kind. He (Mr. Benett) re.
membered the time when the labourer went forth to the
field wirh a gallon of good beer given him by the farmer,
but that excellent custom had been totally put an end to
by the effect of a heavy malt tax. To remove that tax
would he to relieve the 1 tbouring classes of the country.
fie wished, therefore, most earnestly to see that tax re-
moved, and he was sorry that the Noble Lord had mixed

it up with another tax of a different description, and rest-
ing on different ground•. He regretted Vie result of the
motion made the other night by the Hon. Member for
Whit,haven, for, if it had been adopted, he did not think
that the consequences would have bee❑ what the Noble
Lord anticipated, for he was by no means convinced that
the standard of value must necessarily have been lowered,
or that pubic faith must have been broken. In his opi-
nion a property tax, such as than recommended by Mr.
Ricardo, 'nicht be adopted, and indeed ought to be adopted;
and that the ',vying of such a tax would fully enable the
Ministers to meet the difficulties arising from the abolition
of the malt duty, at the same time that it would press
with less oppressive weight on the lower classes of the
people. Some of the taxes, ton, proposed by the Noble
Loid in opening the Budget to be repealed, might be
continued without so serious an injury to the comforts
of the lower orders as the continuance of the malt duty.
—(Hear, hear.) The duty on cotton, that upon tiles,
and that up',n shop windows, the repeal of the last
of which had produced very little satisfaction, might all be
altered so as to meet the deficiency occa•ioned by the re-
peal of the malt tax. But if none of these \vould do—if
those taxes proposed to be repealed must be repealed—
then there was another mode of meeting the deficiency,
which was, by a tax upon beer—(Hear, and Oh !)-1 tax
which he did not believe would raise the price of r
one farthing ; for the reductions effected by the abolition

Of the malt tax would be more than sufficient to meet the
increase that would to occasioned by the imposition of a
tax upon beer. He thought there w.-re so many ways of
me,ting the deficiency to be occasioned by the reduction of
the malt tax, that he saw no reason for giving up the
matter in the way now proposvd by the Noble Lord,
and he should, therefore, vote against the Noble Lord's
amendment.

Mr. COBBETT rose at the same time with Mr. Slaney
and perhaps half a ii zen other Members : the Speaker
called upon Mr. Cobbett, and he procee led. I am sorry
to interpose between the House and the speech of the Hon.
and Learned Member ; but I hope he will hereafter find a
time for making it. It seems to me as if every gentleman
who has addressed the Chair to-night sedulously kept out
of view the only important point to he decided, viz., the
character of this House. My opinion is, that if the House
rescinds the resolution of Friday last, the conssquences to
the country may be most fatal. Be it observed, too,
that the Noble Lord says not a word about resigning
his amendment ; that also he has kept sedulously out
of view ; but I shall make a few further remarks upon
that before I conclude.—(Hear, hear.) Various obser-
vations have fallen from Hon. Members, which it is ne-
cessary fer me to touch; and I believe I must go back-
wards with them, as my memory will serve me better that
way than any other. First, the Hon. Member for South
Wilts said a great deal about a property tax, but nothing
distinct as regards a plan—nothing that could be very
clearly understood and defined. However, he quoted an
authority ; and men should he very careful when they
quotes authorities that they are good for something. What
they tender us as the results of their own judgment, that
we are hound to respect—and, generally speaking, it is
worthy of it ; but he told us that he had Mr. Ricardo's
authority in favour of a property tax. Do not let us
forget, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert
Peel), had Mr. Ricardo's authority that his Bill of 1819
only reduced prices 3 per cent., while the Hon. Member
for South Wilts himself, must know that it reduced them
a vast deal more.—(Hear.) Therefore he should pause a
little before he relies upon such an authority as the said
Mr. Ricardo. It is always dangerous to find fault with
those Who bestow praise, because it generally arises from
the kindness and generosity of the applauder, but the Hon.
Member for Worcester (Mr. Robinsen), after eulogising
the chat acter of Mr. Huskisson as a sagacious politician,
and an enlightened statesman, told us that on his
authority, we are to proceed to an income tax. True,
Mr. Huskisson did not say so himself; but he is to
be ureh•rstoo I as meaning it, being, according to the
Hon. Merneer for Worcester, a grata man and a pro-
found statesman. But is the Hon. Gentleman aware that
he might have quoted Mr. Hu•kisson's authority as to
the operation of the Bill of 1819 ? He produced, in
fact, the Bill of 1819, which, however, goes by the name
of the Right Hon. Baronet; for, in 181 1 , Mr. Huskisson
agreed to a resolution of a Commit-ee, of which, I believe,
he was chairman (no, Mr. Horner, I remember, was its
chairman), the effect of which was to compel the Bank at
once to pay in gold, without restraint and without pi epa-
ration.. Then, ton, the whole Whig party urged the ne-
cessity of the Bank returning to cash payments within
two years after 1811—this, ton, in the very middle of the
war, while loans were going on, and all the world knows
by this time that the plan was little short of downright
madness.—( Cheers.) For this reason, I say that Mem-
bers should know the history of the conduct of these great
and profound statesmen before they hold them up as autho-
rities. The consequence was, that Mr. Huskisson ap-
proved of the Bill of 1819. It is my unhappy lot to be
doomed to censure the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet
in this resaect in a very public manner—to c nsure his
whelem ; but this I must say, even for the Right lion.
Baronet, that he was innocence itself compared as ith Mr.
Huskisson.—(Cheers and laughter.) He was spotless
innocence: for Mr. Huskisson might he truly called, and
not the Right Hon. Bironet, the Coryphicatt of that band
of blunderers.—(Laughter.) But, corning to more sober
• and enlighten d days— (Question, question)—Mr. Hus-
kisson was one of the Ministry when the BM of 1826
passed—he it was that declared in the House of Commons
that the country was within 48 hours of barter. Now,
such a prominent person, though he might be thought at
the time wise and prolound—the Mentor of a Ministry—is
not txactly the p ,rs,in in our day to be eulogised. We are
liable to be misled by such praises, and I therefore request the
Hon. Member for Worcester not again to commit such an
error.—(Question.) I will now touch upon the question
before us.—(Hear.) I was sorry to hear the Hoc. Mem-
ber for South Wilts, and one of the lion. Members for
Lincolnshire, draw a supposed distinction between their
constituents and the other inhabitants of the empire. They
may be well assured that this is not the way to promote
peace.—(Hear.) I have the honour to represent a great
manufacturing town, where there is not an inch of land,
where no person seems to know what land is—(Laughter)
—bat have I shown any want of sympathy for the agri-
cultural districts? Am I less anxious than others to give
teem the repeal of the malt t-A ?—( He tr.) Nu ; I
should feel ashamed if I had any such feeling on my miod,
for it is any duty to do whet I can for the w hole people.—
(Cheers.) Such remarks as I have allured to must base
an injerioue, perhaps a fatal tendency—they divide the
people among themselves, and prevent the restoration of
hat numy—they set one class against another, and produce
that irritation which, with the prospect before ns, is most
to be apprehended. The same Hon. Gentleman spoke of
the rich shopkeepers of London ! rich shopkeepers of
Lundati ! rich ehopk•epers ! Does lie know how often the
same leg of mutton hone in aches backwards and forwards
to the table of rheas mirth shopkeepers ?—( Hear.) If he
had to pursue the same frugal habits— if he had to eat the
bread of care—in short, if Le had to endure what they
er-lure, he would not call them the rich shopkeepers of
London. —(Cheers.) It is nut the landlord who p ors any
part of the tax upon houses and windows; the tenant
pays the whole of it, and the house he occupies would be
merely four walls, and worth not ing withhut the talent,
the industry, an f attention of the tenant. Let me ask
how many houses are male valuable merely by the reputa-
tion of an industrious tradesman? It receives a character
from his character ; and, in such a case, how can it
he said that the landlord pays the tax? I now come to
the speech of the liable Lord, some parts of which 1
heard with very great pleasure. He told us that the motion
of Friday night took him somewhat by surprise. By surprise!
Why a notice for the repeal of the malt tax was given on
the first day of the session by the Hon. Member for Surrey.
The Hon. Member for Lincolnshire subsequently gave a
no ice which seemed to supplant the other, and he altered
it from the whole to half of the malt tax ; but the subject
was nut brought on until three months after the first
notice, and it was talked of from the beginning of the