The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1

the saving to the brewer was as nearly as possible one half.
The strength at which beer was made was one bushel of Malt
to twelve gallons of ale. This ale was sold at sd. per quart,
which made, at Is. Bd. the gallon, one pound for the twenty
gallons. Now the cost was for the bushel 7s. 7d.; for loss ls.
9d.; and the expence of brewing Is.; making on the
whole 10s. 3d., leaving a saving of the difference between
this and 20s. With these sentiments he would support the
resolution of the Noble Lord. He would not detain the
House longer, but would conclude by thanking them for the
indulgence they had shown him.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. WOOD said he would best consult the taste of
the House by abstaining from defending himself, from the im-
putations of factious motives thrown out by the Noble Lord who
had just sat down, but he would be content with resting his de-
fence upon the vote he meant to give that night, in concurrence
with his Majesty's Ministers.—( Cheers from the Ministerial
side.) He could assure the House that in giving that vote
he was not insensible to the distress that had been
described as prevailing among the agricultural interests. De-
riving whatever income he possessed from land, he was not in-
sensible to the pressure which he felt, nor was he unwilling to
alleviate it. If, then, he came to a different conclusion, and
gave his vote against the repeal of this tax, it was not from
want of sympathy for the farmers, but because he believed
it would be no relief, in competition with the amount of
the revenue with which they were called upon to deal.
The taxes upon articles of consumption were paid mainly by
the consumers. He would refer to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Peel) to prove that the consumption of beer had not dimi-
nished in the country. It was stated the heavy clay lands were
in a state of distress. It was notorious that the price
of barley was only two-thirds what that of wheat ought to
be. Within the last two years, and under the same land-
lords, whilst there had been a reduction of the rent upon
wheat-growing lands, there had been an increase of the
rent upon lands growing barley. There were other taxes
hich pressed more heavily, which it would be much better to
reduce ; for instance the taxes on raw materials, which would
give extended means of employment, and thus increase wages.
It was a consideration of vital importance, that there should
be some substitute for this tax. He did not conceive it pos-
sible to suppose that a reduction to the amount of four mil-
lions and a half could be effected in a very short time.._
(Hear, hear.) Then there was a talk of a property tax.
To that tax he was decidedly opposed, and when he recol-
lected the statements that had been made in 1816, he was
at a loss to know what popularity the question had since
acquired. He attributed it to nothing but this, that
those most loud in their call for a Property Tax,
(and such a tax as that alluded to by the Right Hon. Baroifet,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped he should never see
imposed)—he believed that those most loud in their calls for
such a tax, if the proposition for a fair income tax was made,
would be the first to object to it. He would not weary the
House by stating what his objections to a property tax were ;
a tax which could only be made equitable by inquisitorial
powers, such as he hoped and was satisfied never would be
carried, or if carried, maintained in this country.—( Hear.)
Believing, as he did, that the relief to the agricultural
interests would be but small—that the benefit to the working
classes could be more advantageously extended in another way--
and being convinced that no adequate substitute could be
provided for the amount of revenue they would be
obliged to forego, he could not give any other vote
than that which would be in accordance with the votes he had
given on two former occasions. He would call upon Hon.
Members, looking at the experience of the two last years,
to take warning by the example then set them by an in-
considerate vote—when he found that out of 162 Members
who voted for the motion of Sir William Ingliby, not
less than seventy-two, in a short week, refused to con-
firm that vote, and the House was placed in the disgrace-
ful situation of being obliged to rescind it.--( Loud cries of
" Hear," from the Ministerialists.) He would call upon
Honourable Members to take warning by that circumstance
and pledged though they might be to their constituents—
( Cheers from the Opposition)—to pause before they proceeded
in a similar course, and place the House in a similar predica-
ment. He was aware that that course was difficult for the
Honourable Members on the other side to pursue that night.
—( Hear.) He knew that they had given pledges and promises
to their constituents which it was no easy matter to forego.—
( Loud cheers.) Even in spite of the example of the
Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, many Honourable Members
would find it difficult to show the fallacy of the
promises they had held out ; and that they would feel
some awkardness in admitting that those Hon. Members
who occupied the Treasury benches were the friends of the
farmer.--( Cheers from the Treasury benches.) They would
probably feel some difficulty in resigning the advantage they
had obtained over his (Mr. Wood's) friends at the elections.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) They would
find it difficult to show to the world that they were wrong.
The Hon. Gentleman opposite claimed exclusive attachment
to their King and to religion, but this was not for patriotic but
for elective purposes. Nevertheless, now that they saw
the danger of their situation, would they stand to these
pledges—( Hear, hear)—and would they now hesitate to
break those pledges to preserve the credit of their country ?
As for those who pledged themselves to the repeal of the
Malt Tax, aad who had taken office, their situation was,
indeed, a sorry one. They must now desert their constituents
or their colleagues. Would the Paymaster of the' Forces—the
consistent advocate of the agricultural interest—would the
President of the Board of Trade now desert their former prin-
ciples ?—( Hear.) When they looked back to the conduct
of those Right Hon. Gentlemen in 1833 on the repeal of the
Malt Tax, they might expect them to do now as much for
their friends as they had then done for:the late Administration;
they would now put their principles aside, and be content with
what they had got in the scramble.—( Hear, and laughter.)
They would adopt at least that night the principles of their
colleagues. Whether from that side of the House or from
the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, he trusted that the
Government would obtain that support which the Right Hon.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, much to his credit,
given to the late Government in 1833, on the subject of the
repeal of the Malt Tax. He trusted that the decision
of the House would be such as to leave unimpaired
the character and national faith of the country.—( Hear.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL deemed that after what had been
said, he owed it both- to himself and to his constituents, not
to give a silent vote on the subject of the Malt Tax. He
would show that his conduct bad been quite consistent, and
that his vote of that night would be in perfect accordance
with it, notwithstanding what had been asserted by the Hon.
Member opposite. H had been asked whether he, who had
formerly voted for the repeal of the Malt tax, would now vote
against it ? But the Honourable Gentleman would have
done well first to have inquired what his conduct had
been on former occasions. In 1833 he advocated the repeal of
the Malt Tax. He was then, and was still, an advocate for
its repeal ; but at that time there was a considerable surplus of
revenue.--( Hear and laughter from the Opposition benches.)
He heard some Hon. Gentlemen say " No," but he said
" Yes,"—there was then a large surplus revenue. Last year,
on Sir W. Ingliby's motion, so far from voting for the repeal of
the Malt Tax, he had not only not voted, but he did not take
any part whatever in the discussion. He maintained, therefore,
that his conduct had been, and still was, perfectly consis-
tent. Every one allowed that somo substitute must be
found for this tax on account of its very large produce.
He trusted that what he had now said would completely justify
his conduct, and that the vote he would give would
be perfectly consistent. He must totally object to
the substitution of a property tax, and he need
only remind that House of the inquisitorial nature
of that tax, and of the manner in which it was taken
off the very first opportunity, from its very objectionable and
vexatious operation. He trusted the House would therefore

come to the conclusion, that the Malt Tax could not be
repealed, 'without deeply affecting the interests and credit of
the country, and rendering necessary the substitution of some
other tax, which would be more oppressive and objectionable.
Mr. SPRING RICE said that he should not think that
he was acting consistently with his former conduct and opi-
nions, if he hesitated to take the same stand against the repeal
of the Malt Tax as he had done before. The Noble Lord
and Right Hon. Gentleman opposite might indulge in attri-
buting factious motives to Honourable Gentlemen on that side
of the House—those Noble Lords and Right Honourable
Gentlemen who had called them the off-scouring of a party,
and the sweepings of public offices. He would refer them
to a speech made by the Right Honourable Member for Essex,
And to this he would wish to call the attention of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, as he thought it would be useful in refresh-
ing his memory, and he for his own part was sure he (Mr.
R.) should greatly profit by the explanation which the Right
Hon. Gentleman had made. He believed he was in possession
of his actual words.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, he were not, they
dwelt so accurately in his memory, that he would repeat them, that he
might have an opportunity of taking them down. If the Right Hon.
Gentleman thought it necessary, he would furnish him with an actual
copy—(Hear, hear, hear)—for he had made an extract of them.
What lie would take the liberty of urgiqg in answer to the Right Hon.
Gentleman, when he described the late Government, of which he had
the honour to form a part, in their absence, and when they had no op-
portunity of a reply, as the off-scourings of a party, and the
sweeping of offices, should be, that he and his friends
should receive their disinterested support. And this it would
be. He would also urge on the notice of the Noble Lord when he attri-
buted to him and his adherents factious motives. This, too, it
should be borne in mind was elicited by a reply td a Noble
Lord, whose speech, he thought, was characterised by none
of those feelings for which he had given him credit ;
but, on the contrary, as one of the most forbearing he had ever heard in
that House. He thought that they ought to withstand this kind of in.
ference, because, if they failed to refute the arguments which had
been used on the other side of the House, he thought the Right
Honourable Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would
a good chance of losing some votes.—(Cheers and laughter.) No one
could be more interested than he was in a majority on this question;
but if he were to be told that, in matters of politics, he was to be
precluded on principle from combining his vote with those—
with either the men or the party—from whom he differed on
other questions, how could he or those with whom he acted come
forward in support of a Government in whom they had no confidence?—
(Great cheers.) He dissented from this principle, and could as he would
on this occasion, honestly vote in support of the King's Ministers'
The principle had been admitted on various occasions during the last
Parliament; that did not, however, alter its intention in his eyes; because
he found, for instance, that one motion made by the Noble Lord the mover
on the present occasion, for granting relief to the agricultural interests,
that almost all the Hon. Gentlemen whom they now had around them
voting against it without a division, ar.d yet, for the purpose of
enabling the Noble Lord to call the House factious on this
occasion, that principle had Foen resorted to, and those Ho_
nourable Gentlemen were almost accused of treason.—(lllr. Baring
made a motion of dissent.)—The Right Honourable Gentleman
did not—no, he was aware he did not—and he was not alluding to him
when he dealt with these circumstances. The Right Hon. Gentlemen
said "he agreed that nothing could be mord painful to him
than to vote on that side of the House, from which he dissented, but
that he should be wanting in duty to himself if he allowed such a feeli:dg
to interfere with his sense of public duty." Such was the principle held
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, but against such a doctrine, as he had
before said, he was opposed to. He knew that there Was a strong

party, who were rather distrustful in giving their votes on this
occasion, because those votes would be in favour of a Government of which
they disapproved; and if this doctrine were to be enforced, it might
be manifested here, but it was fit for nothing in itself. Nothing could
be more conclusively argued in an argument which is conclusive in
itself; for there was nobody: who could not understand it, for
it left nothing to doubt on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) There
were a few words in the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman
which might have induced him to make some alteration in the vote
which he now purposed giving. It was that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had placed his plea for a refusal to accede to the subject on temporary
grounds, because he had not had time to lay before the House his financial
system, and that it might create great embarrassment to the Government.
It was because his arguments applied generally, and because they in-
volved and decided the whole question, that he was prepared to give
him his assistance. He did this, not because on former occasions he felt
himself, as connected with the Government, bound to take the same
course, and therefore that he wished to have an opportunity again in
opposition of vindicating his consistency; but because, if he had never
voted on this subject before, and if he now approached it for the
first time, upon the arguments which the Right Hon. Baronet had
brought forward, he could not Consent to sacrifice so large a portion
of the public revenue. It would not be safe to do so even if there
was a chance of finding and carrying a substitute; but was there
a single individual within the walls of Parliament who could earnestly
believe the possibility of doing so?—(Hear, hear.) But there was
one subject which had not been yet touched upon—(hear, bear)—•
and one that he really thought ought to have some weight
with Hon. Gentlemen—he meant the connection of the Malt Tax with
the present state of the Corn Laws. The attention of the House
had been called to this subject by a petition, which prayed for the total
abolition of the Malt Tax, and a great increase in the duties on Foreign
Corn. The Right Hon. Bart. had touched upon the financial part of the
case, and dispelled every thing that could be offered upon this occasion.
The Right Hon. Baronet had called the attention of the House
to the reduction that had already been effected in the article,
but the Right Honourable Baronet had undervalued the
extent of his own argument, because he might have
carried it much further. He had only compared the present state of
the duties payable on malt with the state of the duties previous to the
repeal of the Beer Duty, in 1830.—(Hear, hear.) Now he found
that from the year 1804 to 1817 upon the quarter of malt
the duty was no less than 31. 6s. 7d., and that for the year 1817, up to
the year 1830, after the reduction of the Malt duty, till the Right Hon.
Gentleman reduced the Beer Tax, the duty was 21. 12s. 7d., so that
there bad already been a reduction of the duty in the year 1830.
He would not go further into the argument with respect to the subject
of finance. The House was called upon to reduce the taxation upon an
article -on which the duty was increasing, and he felt no doubt that
those Members who stood by the late Govermnent in the course they had
pursued, would be ready to vote now as they did then.—(Cheers from
Mr. Cobbett.)—The Hon. Member for Oldham cheered; he was sure
if that Gentleman had had an opportunity of speaking, he would have
agreed with him.—(Cheers.) He believed the vote was called for by
public justice and duty to the country.—(Loud cheering.) The only
alarm which he felt was upon the question of pledges given on the hust-
ings.—(Cheers.) He believed that those pledges might have been hastily
and in some instances ignorantly and essentially made.—(Cheers and
cries of Oh.") He would repeat that it was very possible that those pledges
were given in ignorance, and that the very parties who had given them
would, on consideration, recal them.—(Cheers.) Those gentlemen who
aspired to the honour of being Members of Parliament had a right to know
what the Malt Tax was. It might be true that on their banners the
words " No Malt Tax" might be placed, and still they were in igno.
ranee of the bearing of that measure.—(Cheers.) The delusion upon
this subject had been great throughout the country; and for the purpose
of proving that, he would ask the electors of Derby what
their opinions were.—(Chesrs.) Circulars had been put forward
at the late elections, to the following effect :—" Farmers of England,
look to your representatives; recollect that Knatchbull out of office
voted for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and when in office he voted for
the continuance of it.—(Great Cheering.) Recollect that the Member
for Nottingham, out of office, voted for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and
when in office he voted for its continuance. Farmers of England, look to
your Representatives"; let them act consistently and do as Lord
Chandos has done, vote for the repeal of the Malt Tax, whether
in favour or against the Ministry." He did not refer to this
for the purpose of binding any Honourable Member to these opi.
nions ; all he required and wished was that Honourable Members
should vote according to what they considered their public duty.
He would now quote an authority of a different nature—one, too, that
went fde beyond any doctrine that he ever advanced. The language
was used in reference to the sinking fund, and was as applicable to the
question of the Malt Tax. It stated the opinions which, in 1830,, were
entertained by an Hon. Gentleman, in whose judgment on matters
of a commercial nature, he (Mr. R.) was willing to place the utmost
reliance. The Hon. Gentleman had a petition to present to the House
from the city of London, and he hoped that his language on that occasion
was still on the records of the Treasury.—(Laughter.) The gentleman
he alluded to was then the representative of the borough of Thetford,
(Mr. Baring.) He (Mr. R.) hoped that the opinions of the Rigle., Hon.
Gentleman had not been put into schedule A, along with the borough
he represented —Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. B.) then said,
in defence of the sinking fund, that no person but one whose political
knowledge was acquired at Penenden Heath, or in the markets
of Chelmsford, could hold a contrary doctrine to what he then main-
tained. He (Mr. R.) hoped that the words which the Hon. Gentleman
then used would never be forgotten by him whether on Penenden
Heath or in Chelmsford. Hehoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would be
able to justify his opinions to hisconstituents with hispresenteonduct. He
hoped all would act on principle, and that no man, however humble, would
be found who would not prefer the performance of his duty to consi-
derations of office, where questions of national interest and national in-
tegrity were involved.
Mr. A. BARING said he had no intention to speak, but merely to
vote, bad he not been so personally alluded to by Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite. He thought that the whole question was so clearly explained
by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel), that he did not
intend to say any thing in justification of the vote he meant to give,
had he not been so personally alluded to by the two Hon. Gentlemen
opposite (Messrs. C. Wood and Rice)—he could not tell why.—
(Laughter.) They said that he had thrown his principles overboard.
If his conduct, during the long time he had been in the House, did not
relieve him from the necessity of making any defence from such
a charge, he at all events would not make one.—(Hear, hear.) He
would assure the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he never
used the words which were attributed to him—the Hon. Member
now for Southwark was in his place, and he (Mr. B.) was sure he would
bear him out in his assertion—he would have been ashamed to have used
such words against any one, far less against men for whom he had a high
respect, not only from a market place in Essex, but from any other
place. The expressions attributed to him were "the sweepings and
outscourings of office ;" he had never used such words. At the election
the question he was arguing was the claims of the late Ministers,
exclusively to office% and the question he asked was, because the late
Ministers were the promoters of Reform, therefore, they were en.
titled to a monopoly of office, and he begged particularly to
know how long that monopoly was to last,--was it to
last so long as a single sweeper remained in the.Treasury.office, who was
there when the Reform Bill was passed?—(Hear, hear, and great
laughter.) It was not fair to bring forward such a trumpery charge
e i
of
guilty so
course f r
:ss
h t oal y g s
s
upon a question of so much importance. Then as to the question of
pledges, he had never given a pledge in his life—he never gave a pledge
et
it' nt s, se. H
aen ywd
at
ha gt
considered him bound to take all care of their interests as he had promised.
ainnpaidfi c
his voteepi
opinions
to
en be
freelygiven
t no h thatsc constituents,
was charged with being guilty, because some banners had been
exhibited at his election; but he considered that he was no more an.
swerable for them than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was for those
i i
exhibited in any company in which he might happen to be—(Cheers,)
He should certainly vote in opposition to the Right Hon. Gentleman ;
but there was a great difftrence in the two cases alluded to by the gen.
tlemen opposite. The whole amount of the taxation was sufficient to
allow of the reduction of the duty on malt, and he could not believe
that the total removal of the tax would be of no benefit. If the agricul.
tural interest suffered, of course every other interest of the country
must uffhear.) It had been said that the main.
ne
public
credit had enabled them to reduce taxa.
tenaseb of the
also.— (Hear,
tion, and of.. course no one would support taxation without
having that end In view—namely, the maiatenance of public
credit. The present price of wheat was thirty-seven shillings per
quarter, but if the returns were investigated, it woeld be found
that, in proportion as barley approached to the price of coffee,
foreign barley was brought into the market.—(Cries of" Hear, hear.")
His constituents entertained a strong opinion upon the question of the
repeal of the Malt Tax—he could not form any judgment as to
what they would think of his conduct, but he had given no
pledge on this question. Some Honourable Gentlemen had
contrasted the votes he had given one year against those
of another. All he would say to this was, that he would
not value any office or emolument, if it were to be purchased at the sa.
crifice in the slightest of his sincere opinion. He must at the same time
say, that he came to that House to express his own opinion, not those oj
others—to express the opinions of others would be nogratification to him,
Mr. C. WOOD explained.
Lord ASHLEY denied that he had voted last year for the repeal of
the Malt Tax ; on the contrary, being out of town when the repeal was
voted, he came to town for the purpose of putting it on again.—(flear,
hear.) He had always voted against the repeal of the Malt Tax, and he
always would.
Mr. S. RICE explained,
Mr. POULETT THOMPSON wished to explain on what grounds
he should give the vote which he was about to record, and at the same
time he must say that however inconvenient it might be to enter into a
discussion upon the probable financial state of affairs, still he regretted
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not taken that opportunity of doing
that which had been done by his predecessors in office, by making a
short statement of what he supposed would be the financial condition
of the country.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend the late Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer, in February last, and in April of the
previous year, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the
Home Department, when filling the same office, had occasion to do so;
and he (Mr. P. Thompson) thought it would have been an advantage,
not only with regard to the present discussion, but also with regard
to the public interests generally, if the Right Honourable Gentleman
had favoured them with some such statement.—(Hear, hear.) He was
aware that such statements could not be made with accuracy at that
early period, but it was quite possible and usual to make some approxi-
mation to them, and be trusted that the Right Honourable
Gentleman would not wait till the end of the financial
year, but would, pfi some early occasion in the Committee of
Supply let the [louse know what the financial statement would
be. The Right Honourable Gentleman, following the statement of
the :a-We-Lord, had declared that the surplus would not amount to
more than 250,0001.; he was sorry to hear that such was the case,as he had
anticipated that the surplus would have been something greater.—
(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the Right Hon. Gentleman would af-
ford them an opportunity of ascertaining how that surplus would
be laid out. With regard to the particular question before the House, 1
he begged to say that that surplus of 250,0001. only was not
necessary to influence his vote. That vote he should give upon the
principles laid down by the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) But while he gave that vote upon
htli'mes,ehperinciples, and with the Right Hon. Gentleman who sat beside
could not entirely coincide with him in the arguments which he
had advanced. The late Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Rice) stated
that he would have felt considerable difficulty in voting against the
repeal of the Malt Tax, had the question been met in any other way
than that in which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had met it. He
had met the question fairly, and was opposed to the repeal of that tax,
and he considered that looking at the amount of taxation which
in
ith the Right
RcigouhtntrHyonfooruriatbs penditure and eegagements, he did not conceive it could be dia.
trdpi
repealed
eanrt
seane
gtaeasdxti nit
aee
could
s e
Hsas
present
ea
brpye,
opposite that the present tax was as good as a tax ceand be—(Hear and
a laugh)—evil a tax always must be, but he 0- lePtil)Blaieroenxe;
Tax or any other of the tee es.
tax that could be found as a substit'ate. h nc whatever
which had been p7l4sosed to be
He
noitebaetteer
hthaiAranlyt
me time to come, that t la
measure until circumstances which could
4 with ; he should give his vote for
not now be foreseen re" •
Right Honourable •
-,ight render its repeal quite advisable. The
Trade, must, he Gentleman, the President of the Board of
the arguments madeasu sure, have heard with infinite pleasure
but it struck 'elm
P"Th" by
the Right Honourable Baronet;
have occir;red to
him before Tnih
pesoßn)i ash strange that they should not
Right Hon. Gentleman had justly
statedt with reference to that tax, that theg revenue was increasing with.
out. any great addition to aerate. He admitted that the price of barley
was last year lower than now' but that arose from the larger quan-
tity coining into consumption and
l.therefore would be only tem-
porarY. The argument which was most Right Honourable Gentleman, Whioeuhdlywascheseoredabbly the same
and
by his Right Hon. Colleague, was that urged by the Hon. liremellaelpresfoelir
permanent
done
yleaent
eekr
ne
toe. l
wr)
agreed r
fuo prw,

Oldham with respect to the enormous profits of the maltsters. The
Right lime, Member seemed struck with the intim:me importance
of that argument, Overlooking the fact that there Could not be
two rates of profits, and that, ;There there was so much competi-
tion, these exhorbitant profits could not be kept up.—(lfeae, hear.)
He would leave the Right Hun. Gentleman to reconcile those cont:Za-
dictions when next he made his appearance in Chelmsford market, where
he would certainly be called upon to give such an explanation.—(Hear.)
He did not wish to attack those gentleman who, in spite of their
pledges, would vote with him. The Bight Hon. Gentleman had mistaken
what had been stated by his 'Hon. Friend respecting the profit on
barley. The question, in that respect, was not the price of malt to
the consumer, but the profit to the farmer on the barley. But would
that profit remain with the farmer if the Malt Tax were repealed, and
the market for malting thrown open ? It that were the case, would
not the landlord take the lion's share ?—(Hear, hear, and " No.")
Hon. Gentleman might say no, but he said yes, and he maintained that
the Landlords would have a right to do so. It would only be the legi.
timate effect of fair competition, and no Landlord would hesitate to
take as much rent as he could get—(Hear, hear, hear.) The profit
would thus be taken by the Landlord, and the price and con.
sumption of barley or malt would be found to have nothing to do with
the question. He trusted that they would, on that occasion, lay aside
all feelings of party—this he and many of his friends were ready to do,
and to vote solely according to the dictates of their conscience and
duty—(Loud cries of " Question.")
Mr. Hume, and Sir Jemes GRAHAM here rose together, but Mr. Hume
gave way.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he ought to apologize for troubling the
House upon the present occasion, for his would only be another
speech in addition to several unanswerable and unanswered ones which
the House had already heard, and if he was anxious to interpose be-
tween his Right Hon. Friend who had just sat down, and the Right
Hon. the President for the Board of Trade, it arose from an earnest
desire to call the attention of the House to the matter really under
discussion, which appeared to him of paramount importance. He was
anxious, having on past vote to explain, to state his reasons for the vote
lie was willing to give on the present occasion. He was doubly anxious to
do so on account of what had fallen from his Noble Friend, if he
might be allowed so to call him, the Member for Lincolnshire, who
seconded the motion of the Noble Marquis. He stated the time of pro-
fession hail gone by on the part of the friends of the agricultural in-
terest, and that this was the hour of trial of their sincerity.
Now, if there was one member of the House more than another, by feeling,
by inclination, by habit, by common interest, he would add, by common
suffering, more than another, identified with the owners and occupiers o
land, that Member was the individual who was then addressing the Housef
He had the strongest possible feelling for the sufferings of that.
great interest. He had taken a part in the investigations which
took place in the Session before last in 1833, into the
question of that distress, and he was bound to state to the House that
as far as his judgment went, no fact was ever more clearly established
than that that distress was general, that it had been of long duration,
that it was progressive, and that it required the attention of Govern-
ment. But he was bound also to state, entertaining the opinion
that the agricultural interest was the foundation of the prosperity of
the country, admitting the distress and accepting the challenge of his
Hon. Friend, conscientiously he was of opinion that the remedy pro.
posed was not the remedy which was really applicable to the evil, and that
it was a remedy inconsistent with the other interests of the community.
He did not wish to detain the House, by entering on the argument,
which had already been exhausted by the unanswerable speech—a
speech, both for argument and detail, unanswerable—which had been
pronounced by the Right Hon. Bart. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
He conceived the argument to have been exhausted by that speech,
anti was therefore not anxious to weary the House by attempting to re-
peat what had been already said in a so much more perfect mantle,.
---Jlear, hear, hear.) He should merely glance at one or two
topics which had been most truly stated by Sir Robert Peel.
The evidence produced before the committee, went to show that the
distress arose chiefly from the peculiar situation in which heavy lands
were placed, on which wheat was grown, as contrasted with the light.
Now the argument of the Noble Marquis is in favour of a
measure, tending directly to raise the price of the low
lands which are not the species depressed in price, and to operate alto-
gether in favour of the light, where the distress is least felt. The Hots.
Member for Lincoln had introduced as argument that the heavy lands
would be relieved by the fact of wheat being grown on light. He thought
his Hon. Friend was under a mistake, and had overlooked its bearing on
the subject. He must recollect, if he supposes that au increased con.
sumption would take place, that the surplus required has hitherto
been supplied from Ireland, and that the price of the best wheat
during the last autumn had been from 28s. to 325. a quarter,
whilst there is a vast quantity of fine heavy land unbroken, and not
brought into cultivation, and that therefore the displaced growth of
wheat on the light lands would lead to an increased growth on worn lands
must be altogether a misstatement. He should detain the House for a few
moments longer, by exposing the fallacy of the Hon. Member for
Oldham—namely, that the process of malting led to an in.
crease of the barley, and this by its operation on the quan.
tity of the crop, caused a rise in the relative value of the lands.
He conceived there was this great difficulty—if the House repealed the
duty on Malt, the effect would be materially to lower the price, and then
the consumer would derive the benefit of it; but if it did not, the value of
land would not increase, and the demand not increasing, barley would rise
and the property would fall. If, however, that were not so, the fact
stated by the President of the Board of Trade was unanswerable._
(Cheers.) He agreed with the statements of the Member for Man-
chester, except so far as his observations related to tenants of under
leases.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") If his arguments were effective
the profits upon corn would be but short-lived.—(Cheers.) He would
not further detain the House, seeing that his Honourable Friend
the Member for Middlesex was anxious to address the House.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He was, however, anxious to say, that
he considered the arguments of Sir Robert Peel unanswerable,
with respect to the impossibility of the reduction of 4,500,0001. ; he
had no doubt that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex,
would not go along with that statement, and he was not surprised that
he should not do so, when lie recollected the arguments he used in 1823.
Ile thought the conduct of all the Governments since 1823 deserving
of great praise. By their conduct the expenditure of this country had
been reduced to a degree to which even the Honourable Member for
Middlesex (Mr. Hume) thought it impossible to bring it. They
had heard, on the other hand, of a proposed Administration in
which Messrs. Grote and Warburton were to form prominent Members.
He mentioned the names of those Gentlemen, not out of any disrespect
most certainly—both of them he respected most highly as private in.
dividuals—with one, the Honourable Member for Bridport (Mr. War.
burton) he might say he was on terms of friendship, but
he knew their sentiments, which they never attempted to conceal—
and he was obliged to say that in those sentiments he could not join.—
(Hear.) He saw that the Hon. Member for Middlesex was impatient
to address the House.—(Laughter.): Now, in any Government in
which those Honourable Gentlemen were connected, that Honourable
Member must be a prominent Member—(Cheers)—and by the notice
given by him on the other evening the part he was to take was chalked
out—he must be the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Laughter.) Then
there was the Honourable Member for Southwark—(Loud cries
of Question, question")—who had on one occasion declared that
he had taken the measure of public men, and felt that but for one thing
he was in no respect their inferior. There was but one particular
thing that kept him from taking office—he demanded enquiry.—
(Hear, hear.) That enquiry had been had, and so far as that
enquiry went, certainly he was now quite ready for taking
office.—(Question, question.) He would ask, then, whether the
House was of opinion that the repeal of the Malt Tax would lead
to a graduated property tax, and that they would entrust
it to the Honourable Gentleman he had named.—(Hear, hear.)
He would appeal to the landed gentry of England if they were prepared
for the consequences that would result from what must be an alterna-
tive of the repeal of the Malt Tax—he meant a Property Tax. On
that subject he would not repeat the arguments advanced by the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), but if a Property Tax be not a
substitute, what other means were suggested to supply the deficiency that
must take place. There must be some other method adopted—theremust
be some locus standi ; it was advised that the burden of the
County Rates should be removed, but on balancing the
whole of the evils that must result from the removal of
the Malt Tax—regarding the repeal of it as most fatal to the credit of
the country—foreseeing that the consequence of the repeal will be a
national evil, and knowing that the national revenue will suffer a re.
duction of one.third of its amount, and that a property tax can be the
only substitute, he could not hesitate as to the vote he would give.
Mr. HUME here rose to address the House.
Sir J. GRAHAM said lie was anticipating the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman, which he appeared so anxious to make—(Laughter)—but
there was a speech made by an Hon. Gentleman on the other side which
he would like to hear an explanation of. It was an electioneering
Speech, and as he was sometimes in the habit of recording electioneer-
ing Speeches, he happened to see this one amongst others. It was a
Speech made by the Hon. Member for Cricklade (Col. Gordon.) On
that occasion, he said such was his zeal for the Repeal of the Malt Tax,
that he was known by his colleagues, by a certain mono.
syllabic nickname—Malt.—(Loud laughter, and cries of " Question.")
He said he had a measure in contemplation for this repeal which was cut
short by the dismissal of the Melbourne Administration. He (Sir J. G.)
could not see why that occurrence should prevent him from carrying
that measure into effect, butt if the plans were matured, so confident
was he in the abilities and industry of that Hon. Gentleman, he could
not, until he heard his explanation, hesitate to give his vote in fine,
other way than that which he intended.
Colonel GORDON said, he had been rather unceremoniously
celled out by the Hon. Baronet, who, in the outset, declared
that he would not indulge in recrimination ; but the whole of his
speech was little less than an attack upon one member and another.
—(Hear, hear.) He was perfectly- at a loss to know how the ob-
servations that lionourabte Baronet made could bear upon the repeal of
the Malt Tax.—(Hear.) He must confess, that knowing, as that Hon.
Baronet must have known, that as he was very much indisposed, he did
not expect such an attack.—(Hear and laughter.) He might follow the
example of many other Hon. Members, and say that he had not read,
and was not responsible for those unauthorized speeches attributed to him
in the public papers, but he had no objection to say what he had
said to his constituents. He told them that he had uniformly supported
the repeal of the Malt Tax, and he had pestered the late Ministry until
they were sick. But if he thought proper to cut a joke upon himself,
no one else had a right to find fault with it. If he differed from his
Noble Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he
might have been so sanguine as to think his projects might have been
more favourably received than they were, he was not singular, and could
point to many Members on the opposition who were equally unfortunate,
where the benches might have been filled by men who would support
still greater measures of reform.—(Hear.) Ile regretted that such an
attack as this should have been made, and particularly the source from
whence it came.
Mr, HUME said the House has shown indulgence to my Hon. Friend.
I hope they will show the same indulgence to me. The Right Hon.
Baronet has joined the Member for Cricklade and others, and has said,
that if such an Administration were formed—
Sir J. GRAHAM rose to explain. He said that if such an Admi-
nistration were formed, they must propose a Property Tax and a repeal of
the Corn Laws

Mr. HUME proceeded—lt does not become the Right lion. Baronet
to charge Hon. Members on this side of the:House with a breach of
faith, he being himself the individual who proposed a measurC• that
robbed the public.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") The
Right Hon. Baronet may forget that he proposed a measure
to cut down the shilling to sixpence. Is he then the man to taunt Hon.
Members with a breach of public faith and public honour ? Is he not
the man who on a former occasion could not address his former associates
without calling them a Babel Opposition, and, in short, holding them up
to the country as men who did not deserve the siZnation they held, and
were unworthy the attention of the House ? Did not:the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet propose to clip the King's money and pay half the amount 't—

(Loud cheers.) When any Hon. Member made charges in that
House, I would advise him to look at home.—(Loud cheers.)
The Right Honourable Baronet, who held a high situation in his
Majesty's councils committed a breach of public faith and honour. I
I will refer to nip Clfr! publications to prove the charge—to the Right
Honourable Baronet's pubfiCatiora en the currency question.—
(" Oh, oh," froth scni:p Honourable Member near Sir James Graham.")
I do net doubt but that sortie Hon. Members desire to hear no more on
this subject, but there is a considerable number who are not of the same
opinion. I stated in the year 18:22, that a reduction to the amount of
eight millions might be made in the estimates. I was then laughed at
as a visionary, but j have lived to see every one of the taxes I then
desired to be remitiO, taken off.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
I believe, Sir, that two' :lions more than I anticipated hive been al-
ready taken off, but not 11 by four millions as I; now anticipate.—
(A laugh.) I thetero; So n'tk- have a right to caim some share of
confidence from this he say that ,s turned out as I anticipated.
I shall ask of the Ho kouste. a"
it
1",
tair hearing while I point
out to it how I m us- eq.!! me a On the late occasion
atiowdirspose of•
I voted for its repeear . situation of the
t 43s tax,
ant not now in to,

Hon. Members opposite who have risen to explain their votes upon
this question, and have claimed to be considered disinterested.
It would perhaps be very unfair to doubt their disinterestedness, but I
doubt it.—(Hear, hear.) When they were on that side of the House
they were equally unwilling to vote fur its repeal as when they were ois
this, but that is no proof to me of their disinterestedness—(Criea
" Hear, hear.") The Right Hon. Baronet has regarded this question
as if ithad been one in which the fanners and landlords alone were in-
terested. i pier entirely from the Right Hon. Baronet in the narrow
and unstatesmanliko view, and one which I consider unworthy of the ta.
fonts of that Right Hon. Gentleman, because he seems to think that there
are only two classes, the farms:.rs and landholders, for whom we ought
to legislate. It is the duty of the House to consider what ciiarges shall
fall upon the oommunity at large, and what taxes should be taketo
off where it is for the general benefit. The labourer who earns his
daily bread is as much interested in this question as the farmer, and I
doubt whether the farmer is a bit more interested than simiLtr
classes by the repeal of this tax. They arc benefited by it, inasmuch
as it renders the article cheaper, and on that ground I am anxious to
support it I appeal to the Right Honourable Baronet opposite
if I have ever stated anything likely to affect the public credit;
or whether in this House or out of it, I have ever uttered a syllable
likely to affect the public credit of the country. lam most anxious to
support the credit of the country; and if the taking off of five times the
amount of this tax was likely to affect our national honour or
character, I should be the first to oppose it.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
This tax has not been considered as it ought to have been. It
has caused great mischief to the population of the coma.
try; for I have always remarked, that in the same proportion as the
price of beer has increased, and its consumption has diminished,
that of spirits has augmented.—(Hear, hear.) The Right H 0...
nourable Baronet has taken the consumption of beer two
years ago, when it was at the highest; but if he had taken that of the
two years ending in 1826, he would have found that no more malt seas
then consumed than in 1780, when the population only amounted
to six millions. The Right Hon. Baronet must be well aware, that if
the Malt Tax were repealed, the result would be very different
I consider that we are bound to give relief to the lower and middle
classes, and to do every thing in our power for the improvement of their
morals whenever we can do so. The reduction which took place in the
duty on spirits has, on the contrary, produced the lamentable effects
on the morals of the lower classes, which every one now deplores.
Are Hon. Members aware that a great part of the large expense of
the Excise is occasioned by and kept up for the collection of the malt tax„
and that its repeal would, thereibre, cause a great reduction in the cost of
that department ? The expenseof the Excisedepartment was 1,200,0004
and I am satisfied that one-third of this expense might be saved by the
repeal of the Malt Tax. This would reduce the deficiency produced by
the repeal of the Malt Tax in the revenue, to 4,100,000/.—[Considerable
noise here took place, upon which the Hon. Member said that this arose
from some new members who were ignorant of the rules of the House]
This must be so, or they would not thus misbehave themselves. In
July last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that al-
though 16,000,000/. of taxes had been taken off, yet the
loss to the revenue had only been 3,000,000/. But I, at that time,
stated and proved that this loss only amounted in reality to 1,800,0001.,
and 1 am sure that the effect of the repeal of the Malt Tax will lead to
a similar result lam convinced that out of the 4,100,000/. already Men-
tioned the actual loss to the revenue would not be wore than 2,e50,000/.
It is a well known fact that in repealing one tax you always increase
the consumption of some other article. There is not an instance of
the repeal of a tax within the last half century in which a similar
result has not occurred. Therefore I ask what is the great risk:
to the Country—what is the disaster that will happen in the
event of taking off this tax 1 The Noble Lord in the preceding
year in bringing forward his Budget, although he had not more than
50,000/. surplus repealed taxes, exceeding the whole of that
amount, trusted to what lie would get by the increased
consumption of other things; and the House will recollect that last
year, he stated that the increase of the revenue from other sources had
exceeded his most sanguine expectations. Sir, lam bound to take the
benefit of that, and to state to the House, that the sum they have to prol
vide for on the praseat occasion is only 2,000,0001. But there are pen-
sions, diplomatic expenses, and other charges, included in the Civil List
which ought to be repealed' to-morrow. There are charges for diplo.
matic expenses for sending- put such men as Lord Londonderry—
(Loud cheers and laughter)—expenses which now exceed 20,0001., and
which ought at least to be reduces.' one half---(Hear, hear.) The pen.
sions ought to be reduced in the sane manner.—(Hear, bear, and cheers.)
If the Right Hon. Baronet will only Icok into the state of the Church
question in Ireland, we may withdraw one million
,now expended on
military establishments.—(Hear, hear, ;and cheers.) If he will do
justice to America, and our Colonies eves-ywhere, he may withdraw
60,000 troops, which would be a saving of ,300,000/. to the country.
In the same manner, we may reduce ;our military establish-
ments—take the militia, for instance, or .
take the volunteers,
who require about 190,000/., merely for those gentlemen to ride
about on fine horses. These ought to be reduced. From those
items he had read, composing twenty millions, or with ;Nine diminu.
Lion the various sums of which he had admitted, the gross amount be.
ing reduced to 14 millions; let 10 per cent. be deducted fra,M it, and
then see what an amount that would make. I appeal to those
whose objections rest, independent of their seats in this House,. that
there is a material ground that these military establishments should be' re.
duced. Look alone at the manner in which our military pomp is kept up--
the Staff, for instance. Why, it is extravagant beyond any other
country. Take one other department, and for the truth of my state.
ment I will stake my existence on the example I shall quote.
(Hear, hear.) When the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir James
Graham) came into office, 1 then referred to the state of our naval
establishments. That Right Hon. Gentleman had reduced that
department 300,000/., and it is now snore efficient than it ever was be.
fore.—(Cheers.) The principal circumstance to which I intend, how.
ever, to make allusion was that of the Ordnance. That establishment
consists of two branches,—the Engineers and Artillery forms one, and
the Stores form another; and in order so keep up the Store-house in
Pall-mall, there was 73,000/, expended on this useless incumbrancc.
• The expenditure is 11,000/., and in stating that, I behoove I speak
within the mark. lam quite satisfied that they might tae reduced
10 a much greater extent. I know there is a great outrage ak,•ainst the
reductions made in the Navy by the Right Hon. Gentleman, but I think I
shall be able to prove that these deductions are not only judicious
but will be productive of the best effects. I have no doubt they might
be carried much further, and I call upon every man who wishes
to effect reduction of taxation, and economy, to vote for the entire
abolition of this tax, in order that Ministers may be obliged to retrench,
and by that means save the country. Ido so for two reasons—first, be.
cause his Majesty's Ministers and the speech from the Throne have
held out no hope that the people shall have a reduction of taxation ; and
secondly, because there is no prospect held out of any alteration in
the system of taxation. It is absolutely necessary, if I may use
the expression, that the industrious capital should be relieved,
and that the fixed capital of the country should pay more
than it now does.—(Cheers.) If it were necessary to substitute a tax,
I could soon find one, but 1 do not think any substitution necessary.
(Cheers.) One instance of the inequality of taxation I will refer to-1
don't blame the persons who made the laws—(A laugh"---they
made them for their own interests —(Loud laughter)—
those who made the laws had large properties, and they made them for
their own benefit, without any regard to the million.—(Cheers.) Now,
I will put the case to which I have referred. Any man, a shopkeeper
for instance, with a family, who leaves, upon his death, 1001. toward'
their maintenance, immediately upon his death in comes the tax.
gatherer, and demands ten pounds in the shape of taxation ; while such
men as the Duke of Sutherland who died the other day, leaving
250,0001. a year landed income, pay nothing. I think such men as the
Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford ought to be subject to the same ordeal.
I say, Sir, it is gross injustice, and if there is any one here who has
been induced to alter his vote, because another tax cannot be pro-
vided, I say he is bound in justice to his constituents to
vote for the abolition of this tax. In 1798 Mr. Pitt introduced a bill
taxing :real property by descent—that bill was carried on the third
reading by the casting vote of the Speaker—an immediate stop
was put to that Bill because Mr. Pitt was told that if he persevered in
it he would lose the support of the country gentlemen—then it woo that
by the influence of the landed interest thepoor man was obliged to pay an
unfair proportion of the taxes. No man ought to sit as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who could be a party to such injustice. I ask the Right
lion. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) whether he' thinks there could be any
difficulty in reduing the 14,420,000/., when I have given him, upon
four items alone, that suns which would reduce the reduc.
Lion to less than ten per cent. Seven and a half, we ara
promised shall be reduced during the present session, Then, if the House
will help me to reduce pensions, sinecures, and diplomatic expenses only
one.half--indeed snore—for the diplomatic expenses will allow_much more,
that will alonegive 1,900,000/.. and from the collection of the revenue
at least 2,500,000/. Looking at these sums, why, every man with a safe
conscience may vote for the abolition of this obnoxious tax.—

(Loud: cheers.) I pledge myself that the u public credit will
rise in proportion, if you relieve the poor and tax the rich.—.(Chen
I never was, and never will be a party to rob the public creditor, and
therefore, what I have suggested is as capable of being done at the
reductions which I proposed and pressed in the Navy Esti-
mates. On that ground I will support the vote.--(Hear, hear.)
There is a number of my friends from whom I differ as to the course

that ought to be pursued on this occasion. They, in my opinion, take
an erroneous view of the subject; they think it will be preferable to
repeal other taxes to supply the deficiency that must be occasioned by the
repeal of the Malt Tax. I could myself, had I the liberty, point
out other taxes that might be more easily repealed. The
Malt Tax is in principle a bad tax, because if falls upon
the industry of people who are most unable to near it
entreat those gentlemen not to vote against the motion from any hopes
thoy May entertain of the Right Hon. Baronet bringing forward
meas'urcs of relief to the agricultural interest. A snore erroneous idea
could ao: be entertained, for they might not expect any measures of
economy
from that source.—(Louct cries of " Ouestion" followed the
conclusion of the Hon. Gentleman's speech )

Mr. PEASE ,begged to assure the House he would trouble them with
a very few words', far he had the conscience left not to do any thing
that would tend to iinjure the national credit, which, he believed, would
be the consequence at the success of the present motion. He did not
consider that the repel. I of the Malt Tax would be of no service
whatever to his constituents—he said—whatever; because the
habits of his constituents' were such as to preclude them from
receiving any advantage fi-o1:1 the repeal of the Malt Tax.—(Loud
laughter.) A more happy, healthy, or better-looking population,
he had never seen.—(Laughter.; Under these circumstances, he
would not vote for the repeal of this tax, because he was
never asked to do so.—(Hear.) lie was always in favour of a
property tax. He would not enter then into the merits of the question,
nor would he express any sentiments as W the speeches which Hon.
Gentlemen made on the hustings ; but he would give his vote
against the motion, satisfied that he would best discharge his duty to his
constituents, and best consult the interests of the country.—(Question.)
Mr. GRO'l said he would detain the House b:it a few minutes, nor
would he have troubled the House at all, had 12e not been spe-
cifically alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman opposite. (Hear.)
The Right Honourable Gentleman had thought prow to revile a
pledge given by the Honourable Member for Derbyshire„lnd to con-
nect his name with a probable Ministry, which he deeply regretted, as
such an association was as much above his ambition, as it was foreign
to his feelings and pursuits.—(Hear, hear, hear.) His Honourable
rr;end had appointed him to a situation in such a possible
minisLry ; but most assuredly such a ministry would not be united
on the question of the Malt Tax, for he held a very different opinion fl'om
the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and must vote against the motion
of the Noble Marquis.—(Hear.) He had given a similar vote before,
and he saw no roson to alter it. The repeal of the Malt Tax was not
the kind of reductim: he should support, and he was glad to find that the
Right Hon. Baronet had grappled with the agricultural fallacies that had
been put forth. It was said that the repeal of the Malt Tax would enable
the labourers to brew their own beer, or to board at the table of the
farmer; but both these phenomena were inconsistent with the
present state of society.--(hear, hear, hear.) He thanked the
House for hearing those few remarks which he had oftered, and
felt it his ditty to signify to the House that he did not agree
with the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—(Hear, hear.) Though at the
same time he did concur with that Hon. Gentleman in many of his wen.
timents and propositions, which he should, at any time he brought them
forward, be most happy to support.
Mr. H. FLEETWOOD said, one argument against the present motion
was, it was brought forward at an improper time, and ought to have been
kept back till after the Budget. He thought it as much the duty of the
representatives of the people to declare what taxes they wished taken oft:
as it was of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the current expenses
of the year. He therefore thought that the proper time to bring forward
this motion was before the introduction of the Budget. The Hon:
Member made some other observations, which were inaudible from the
conflicted cries of " Question" and " Divide." He concluded by
saying, that though he felt friendly to the present Administration, he
would support the motion of the Noble Lord (Chandos.)
Sir ROGER GREISLY said he wished to reply to the observations
of the Hon, Member opposite relative to those Members who had