The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-18 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 18, 18.66

tion. (Hear, hear.) The cause of that was that they
suffered themselves to calculate upon the present rate
of consumption ; but the fact was that their con-
sumption of coal increased with such extraordinary
rapidity from year to year that the practical exhaustion
of their :supplies had become no longer a question of
centuries, but a question only of generations. (Hear,
hear.) Probably some hon. members might be ac-
quainted with a small volume written by Mr. Stanley
Jevons, entitled the " Coal Question," and it appeared
to him, so far as a person not practically conversant
with the subject could judge, that Mr. Jevons' treat-
ment of the subject was almost exhaustive. He seemed
nearly to have anticipated everything which was possible
to be said against the conclusion to which he arrived, and
to have answered it. That conclusion was that if the pre-
sent rate of consumption of coal continued three genera-
tions at the most, or very possibly a considerably shorter
period, would leave no workable coal in existence
nearer the surface than 4,000 ft. in depth, and that the
expense of raising it from that depth would be such
as entirely to put it out of the power of this country
any longer to compote in manufactures with the richer
coalfields of other countries. (Hear, hear.) Ho thought
that if there were any one in that house, or out of it, who
knew anything which would invalidate this conclusion of
Mr. Jevons, it would be right of him to come forward and
make it known. Ho had himself read various attempts to
answer Mr. Jevons, but he must say every ono of them came
to nothing more than to make it more or less probable that
their supplies might continua a few years longer than the
term Mr. Jevons had assigned. In fact, it now came to this,.
that instead of being at liberty to suppose that future
generations would be more capable than they are them-
selves to pay off this debt, the present generation and
one or two more which would follow it, would have the
smallest chance of ever being able to pay it. What
was the duty which facts of this sort imposed upon
this nation ? Were they going to bequeath their pecu-
niary obligations uniiminished to descendants to
whom they could not bequeath their assets ? :(Hear,
hear.) Suppose it were the case of any private
individual. Suppose the property of any gentleman in that
house had become deeply mortgaged, and that the bulk of
it consisted of a mine, rich, indeed, but certain to be ex-
hausted in his lifetime, would he think it honourable to
waste the whole proceeds of that mine in a riotous living,
and to leave his children to pay off the debt out of the
residue of his estate. Now, what would be vicious
and dishonourable in a private individual was not
less dishonourable in a nation. They should think
of those things while it was still time. This country was
at prsent richer and more prosperous than any country
which they knew or read of, and it could without any ma-
terial inconvenience or privation set aside several millions
a year for the discharge of this important duty to their
descendants. (Hear, hear.) He did not think we were
much to blame as far as we had yet gone. It was quite
right to get rid of all very bad taxes—of all those which
produced a greater quantity of mischief than they
were worth for the purpose they wore now speaking of or
for any other. Thanks to the progress'of opinion, and to
the enlightened and far-sighted Minister who now for a
number of years had administered their finances this work
had been very nearly performed. (Cheers.) There were
very few taxes remaining which were utterly unfit to
exist. If there were any they did not yield so large a
revenue but that they could hope, without much
difficulty, to get rid of them also. (Hear, hear.)
The bulk of their revenue was now derived, and would
continue to be derived, from a comparatively small
number of imposts, each of them yielding a very con-
siderable sum, and none of which, he thought, was now
very seriously objectionable in principle, or very
greatly mischievous in practice, any further than it was
inevitable to the payment of taxes. (Cheers.) He
thought it perfectly legitimate to try experiments in
some respects, when there was any chance, by lowering
the rate of taxation, that the existing revenues they
yielded might be increased' or maintained. It was legiti-
mate also to vary the mode of imposing the tax, either by
levying it at a later stage in the production of the article,
which would get rid of a number of objections. To abolish
any of these taxes yielding a yearly revenue of .£5,000,C00
or £6,000,000, merely in order that they might have
the satisfaction or advantage et spending in some other
way _ the produce which it yielded, appeared to him to
Ibe a criminal dereliction of their duty. (Hear, hear.)
If we were able, either by increase of resources or by re-
trenchment in our expenses, to dispense with the malt
tax, how much wiser and better would it be to set that
aside for the extinction of the national debt. He would
press the attention of the house to the duty and necessity
of taking that ccnsideration for posterity which had been
strong in every nation that ever did anything great,
and had never left them till the nation, as in the case of
Rome under the Empire, was already falling into de-
crepitude and ceasing to be a great nation. There
might be some who would say, in the words of the old
jest, "Why should we trouble ourselves for posterity ?
Posterity had done nothing for us ?" Was it true that
posterity had done nothing for us ? He maintained that
whatever bad been done for mankind by the idea of
posterity, a philanthropic regard for posterity,
by a sense of duty to posterity, and even by the less
noble but still pure feeling of ambition to be remem-
bered and thought well of by posterity, Ly the
dors of natious, and by those second founders
of nations, the Reformers ; by laws and institutions
which caused free countries to be free, and well-
governed countries to be well governed; by all the
heroic lives that had been lived and deaths that had
been died iu defence of freedom and in defiance
of tyranny, from Marathon and Salamis to Leipsic
and Waterloo; by all those traditions of heroism and
of virtue by which the treasuries of nations were full ;
by all the schools and universities which bad handed
down tops the culture of past times and by that
culture itself ; all this is amassed for us only because our
ancestors have cared and talon thought for posterity.
We owe to it our great masters of thought -our Bacon,
and Newton, and Locke —our Shaksporo, Milton, and
Wordsworth. (Cheers.) It is said that some eminent man
when ho desired to assist any parson by pecuniary help
used to have a way of doing it thus. He would say :
"Mind, Ido not give it you. I only lend it you; and
I expect that if you are ever able to repay it you
will do so, not to me, but to some one else who may be in
a like position, and with the same stipulation, so that the
stream of benefit may go on as far as human honesty can
keep it flowing.', (Cheers.) He was not sure but it was
Franklin. And what Franklin did from benevolence, in
order that the benefit of his gift might go as far as possible
we should do from the gratitude we owe to our predeces-
sors, which we can never repay directly to those from whom
we, like the objects of Franklin's benevolence, received it,
but to others for whom they have cared and for whom, and
not for our own service only, their labours and sacrifices
have been incurred. What were we that we should usurp
to ourselves and employ for our own purpose and use ex-
clusively what was meant for mankind? It was lent, and
not given to us, and we were bound to hand on these gifts,
not only in full, but with interest, to those who stand in
relation to us as we to those from whom we have received
them. So shall we deserve and so may we hope to receive
a share of the same gratitude. (Much cheering.)
Mr. C. S. READ supported the motion, on the ground
that the farmers, as a class, had not only derived less ad-
vantage from free trade than any other portion of the com-
munity, but were in reality sufferers from the application
of that principle to the commerce of the country. The
whole system under the operation of this tax was, in fact,
a gigantic monopoly, which, beginning with the maltster,
continued with the brewer, and ended with the licensed
publican. It was worthy of the consideration of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a beer tax might not
be substituted for the malt duty. He believed that one
penny a gallon would produce upwards of £4,000,000 a-
year.
Sir E. BUL LER also supported the motion. He de-
nounced the tax as oppressive, partial, excessive, and pe-
culiarly unjust to the labouring classes.
Mr. SURTEES and Mr. P. URQUHART also said they should
vote for the amendment.
Mr. BEACH recommended the reduction of the duty on
the ground that the increased consumption of malt would
soon recoup the Exchequer for any loss it might sustain.
Mr. C. BUXTON viewed the question of " cheap beer,"
as stated by Sir F. Kelly, from a practical stand point. He
argued that, owing to the enormous expenses for casks,
water, horses, premises, delivery, bad debts, &c., that
beverage could never be sold at the low rate quoted. As
to the brewers' " monopoly," as it had been termed, if any,
it was entirely owing to the malt tax. But he assured the
house that there was no compulsion as to dealing with cer-
tain firms, since the publican had only got to go to some
other brewer and get the amount previously advanced, so
as to pay it off, and he could at once take his custom to the
other firm. Ho should not; however, vote for the resolu-
tion.
Mr. DE GREY supported the motion. He argued that
Parliament was bound to remove the present tax, if only
to redeem the pledge given by the late Sir R. Peel that the
abolition of the corn-laws should be followed by the revo-
cation of the malt tax.
Mr. APLAREN supported the amendment, since he con-
sidered it highly discreditable to Englishmen that no at-
tempt had been heretofore seriously made to reduce the
national debt.
Mr. DUCANE expressed an opinion that the farming
interest would be satisfied with the settlement of this
matter by a tax on beer. He deprecated the question being
even considered one of a more party character, since it
affected the interests of the whole community.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the motion.
Mr. HUBBARD thought the real grievance of the malt
tax was, that it interfered materially with the cultivation
of the soil, inasmuch as under its operation lands which
were peculiarly well situated for the growth of barley had
to be laid down in crops for which they were not so adapted.
There was, he maintained, no general call for the repeal of
the tax, although he should be happy to see it removed as
soon as the state of the revenue would allow . He
gretted, however, his inability to vote for theit motionre-
of
Sir F. Kelly.
Mr. SOLATER-BOOTH supported the motion. He
complained that the importation of the question of dealing
with the reduction of the national debt was not a fair
method of meeting the matter.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the

point involved in the amendment was far too important to
be dealt with in such a way. It was a subject which should
be fully unfolded before the house, and taken into its most
careful consideration; and, therefore, he intimated that it
was his intention to offer some observations respecting it
when he came to make his annual financial statement.
Passing, then, to the motion, the right hon. gentleman re-
peated his former protests against the attempts to commit
the mind of the house by anticipation in respect of the dis-
posal of an unknown surplus to one particular claim,
amongst various competing claims which were not then
before the house. Alluding to the suggestions which
had been made of substituting a duty on beer for the
malt tax, he observed that there were enormous
difficulties in the way of the accomplishment of that
object. Not that he meant to say that these wore insuper-
able ; but he knew not how they were to be overcome ;
, and if ever they were, it must be the result of a general
concurrence of views among the parties concerned, of
which there was now no distinct prospect. Without ex-
pressing an obstinate adherence to the present form of the
tax, he called on the house not to consent, by agreeing to
the motion, to the sacrifice of so large an amount of

revenue.
Mr. NEATE withdrew his amendment.
The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it .. 235
Majority B5
Tho select committee on the Vaccination Bill was
nominated.
Leave was given to Mr. Scourfield to bring in a bill for
the regulation of railway debentures; to Mr. Childers for
a measure to secure the repayment of public moneys ad-
vanced for the drainage and improvements of lands and
other like objects in Ireland ; and to Mr. Milner Gibson
olBn6elto.
The Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) Bill was read amend the Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c., Act,
a second time.
The remaining orders of the day were disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

In group 5, the Bristol and Portishead Pier was
adjourned, and the Bristol Harbour Junction Rail-
way and Wharf Depot was heard and adjourned.
In group 7, the Thames and Severn Canal Naviga-
tion and the Wye Valley were adjourned. In group
9 the preambJewasproved in the following cases :
The Hoylake, the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's
Quay and Hoylake, and the Chester and West
Cheshire Junction. In the case of the Manchester
and Stockport the preamble was proved. In group
13, the Lancashire and Yorkshire (West Riding
branches, &c.), was proceeded with and adjourned.
Yesterday, in the House of Lords, before Lord
Redesdale, the following Railway Bills passed
through with amendments :—Delabole and Bossiney
Harbour, the Central Ireland, Central Wales Exten-
sion, the Limerick and Castle Connell, and the
Furness. The following bills were proceeded with
and adjourned :—Waterford, New Ross, and
Wexford Junction, and the Ryde Station. In the
Standing Order Committee the Aberdare Northern
was found not to have complied with the stand-
ing orders, and also the Kingston and Epsom.
Before Mr. Smith, in room B, the following
bills complied with the standing orders :—Kid-
welly and Burry Port and Burry Port Amalgama-
tion, and London and North Western (new lines).
In the House of Commons, before Mr. Dodson's
committee, the following railways bills were passed:
—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire (Liver-
pool Extension) ; Llynvi Valley ; Lynvi Valley and
Ogmore Valley ; 'Worcester, Bromyard, and Leo-
minster ; Presteigh, Clun, and Bishop's Castle ;
Winchcomb and Midland ; Ellesmere and Glyn
Valley; Uxbridge and Rickmansworth ; Wrexham,
Mold, and Connah's Quay (Extensions). In group
1, the Metropolitan District passed, and the Metro-
politan (additional powers) was proceeded with and
adjourned. In group la, the London, Chatham,
and Dover, and South-Eastern (Kennington, Clap-
ham, and Brixton) was proceeded with and ad-
journed, and in the London, Chatham, and Dover
(various powers) appearances were taken. In group
5, the preamble was proved in the Bristol Harbour
Junction or Railway Wharf Depot ; the Wiltshire
bill was withdrawn ; the Wantage and Great 'Wes-
tern Junction was unopposed and referred to the
General Committee. In group 7, the Thames and
Severn Canal Navigation was proceeded with and
adjourned. In group 9, the clauses were settled in
the following bills :—Holylake, the Wrexham, Mold,
and Connah's Quay and Holylake, and the Chester
and West Cheshire Junction. In group 13, Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire (Wrest Riding branches, &c.),
the preamble was proved; the Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire and Great Eastern was withdrawn;
the Great Northern and Great Eastern arrange-
ments (Spalding to Lincoln) was withdrawn ; the
South Yorkshire was unopposed and referred to the
General Committee ; and the Great Eastern, Great
Northern, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire bill was withdrawn.