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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11,1835.

I propose, but will hail it with joy and satisfaction.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) If we look at the question in
another point of view we find that the great profit of the trade
finds its way into the pockets of the maltsters. The consump-
tion of Malt, I find in the table of the Revenues, page 94, to
be, up to the month of October, 1830, 40,758,900 bushels, at
Bs. per bushel, which produces in round numbers 16,330,6001.
Now, Sir, what was the duty paid to his Majesty's Govern-
ment for Malt in 1833? It was this-4,923,0741., and the
expense of the maltster in the manufacture of Malt
is about 3s. per quarter, and the extra charge of tax which is
made by the Excise altogether amounts to 3s. 6d. per quarter.
The whole sum, therefore, being 16.336,0001., I find out of
that only 4,923,0741. finds its way into his Majesty's Exchequer.
What becomes of the rest ? The rest must become the pro-
fit of some individual, and a great portion of it does, more
or less, find its way into the pocket of the maltster. A profit
the maltster certainly has a right to have ; but if this sum
of money has been expended, I think the government is
entitled to receive that duty, and that such a large amount
ought not to go into the pockets of any individual whatever.
If you make any alteration in those duties it would be a help
to us, but if you take away the whole of the Malt duty
you do away with monopolies, and you throw the trade
more or less open to a large portion of his Majesty's subjects ;
consequently the relief would not be confined to the farmer alone.
It would extend to the whole of the community, and more
or less, you would find every man benefited in some degree.
Now, Sir, the brewer, no doubt, makes also a considerable pro-
fit by not giving to the poor man that sound and nutritious
beverage which he has a right to expect, and which he ought
to have ; but by taking off the duty on malt, opening the trade in
every direction, and enabling; private persons as well as farmers
to brew, you would ensure to the community at large that
wholesome and proper beverage. Sir, there is another
point which affects farmers most materially.—( Hear,
hear.) You will find in many counties, that feeders
of cattle, for instance, would prefer to bring the large cattle up
to Smithfield upon the refuse barley they have. In my own
county there are a number of graziers, most respectable men,
who are in the constant habit of sending up their cattle to
town, which they feed with oil cake, provided they can
obtain the materials, and I find that the benefit to
the farmer from the feeding the cattle in that way
would be great and most beneficial to the trade.—( Hear. )
The maltster only uses the best quality of barley ; but if the
Malt Tax were repealed, the farmer and labourer would gladly
use the inferior sorts for making for their own consumption.
I will also mention, that for the purpose of feeding cattle, two
bushels of malt are equal to four of barley. In my own vicinity,
I admit that the repeal of the Malt Tax would not af-
ford any very sensible relief ; but I know, and it is uni-
versally acknowledged, that in most other districts it
would afford a great relief, and the whole agricultural
community, therefore, pray that the whole of the tax
may be repealed; and any approach to that desirable object
will be received by the farmer as an earnest of the goodwill of
this House, and of its desire to afford all the relief in its
power to the agricultural interest. I regret to know
that I shall not have the support of my Right Honourable
Friend, but I must leave the question to the support of the
country gentlemen of England, many of whom I know are
pledged to the repeal of this tax.---( Hear, hear.) I am well
aware that my Right Hon. Friend has a right to ask for a sub-
stitute, and I might claim the example of a precedent used
by an Hon. Member in a former Parliament (the Right
Hon. Mr. Tierney), that it was not his business to suggest
taxes but to take them off ; but I would advise as a means of
proceeding to supply the deficiency, the increasing of the duties
on wines, spirits, and other articles of excise, by which means
they would not trespass on the lower classes, but levy the tax-
ation on the higher classes of the community. It is impossible
to go on year after year without affording relief to the farmers
and labourers, and that relief was not to be afforded them
by any remission of trifling taxes, but by some decided
reduction, like the repeal of the Malt Tax.—( Hear, bear. )
I was certainly induced to think that in proposing this motion
to the House, I should have to enter into a resolution
more at length than the one which I have now the honour
to submit for their consideration. I wish, however, to take the
opinion of the House on the actual state of this burthen on the
agricultural districts, and to ascertain from them whether, in
this state of affairs, these duties should be taken off.—( Hear,
hear.) Finding that the maltster would, in a great mea-
sure, be afforded a relief in the return of the duty,
but not wishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
be called on to give a drawback on the present amount of stock,
making every allowance for the difficulties which would arise, I
I feel, however, notwithstanding all this, that I shall best con-
sult the interests of the country at large, if they shall agree
with me in the resolution which I have the honour to pro-
pose, which has for its effect an entire abolition of the
Malt tax, leaving it to the House to bring in a bill
which shall have for its object the abolition or dimi-
nution of these duties, not all at once, but by a gradual pro-
cess of two or three instalments, and which would thus relieve
the Government from the consequent embsrrassment of its in-
stant repeal. God forbid that I should be a man to dictate an opi-
nion to this House, or force on them a measure which would have
for its effect an injury upon public credit ; I am not the man
to give to the country opinions such as that ; but I am the man
to introduce stable, substantial, and decided measures of relief.
I call on you, to relieve the distress of the agricultural in-
terest, of which you cannot be ignorant ; and whose in-
dustry cannot but command your respect. I find that
in looking back to the debates on this question, individuals
whom I new see in this House holding high and distinguished
situations, have more or less given their opinion that this subject
should meet with a speedy settlement. I appeal to a vast body
of English country gentlemen whose returns have been made
on the express understanding that they are to vote for the re-
peal of this tax.---( Cheers from the Opposition.) I call upon
this House to advocate the cause of the farmers, that they would
give effect to the motion which I have the honour to propose.
I would not call the conduct of any Hon. Gentlemen into
question, but I would appeal to them to consider the in-
fluence of their vote on this occasion.—( Hear, hear.) I
bring the question forward honestly and sincerely. I bring it
forward, as I conceive, from an actual duty I owe my consti-
tuents. I redeem the pledge I gave to the country, and what
ever may be the result of this debate, I shall have the comfort
of knowing at least that I have endeavoured to relieve the agri-
cultural interests, as well as that I have not swerved from my,
duty. I could have wished that I addressed a House more in-
clined to favour this measure than the present.—( Hear.) I wish
that I could speak with confidence as to the result ; but this the
House may depend upon, that the malt duties cannot long
maintain their position in the financial arrangements of
this country—(Cheers, and cries of " Hear hear")—and
it may perhaps fall to the lot of some advocate for the
repeal snore worthy than myself, to witness the defeat of that
tax in a way which the country calls for.--(Loud cheers. )
As I stated before, my intention is now to propose a reso-
lution calling upon the House to vote for the extinction
altogether of the duties upon malt ; but at the same time I
beg to state, that if I should succeed in that motion, I shall
ask leave to bring in a Bill in which it would be a matter of
arrangement as to the time when these reductions should take
place. Therefore having stated this my object, I wish it clearly
to be understood, that Hon. Members do not, by voting for
my motion, bind themselves to any specific time or day. The
question afterwards will arise, as to the time when the reduc-
tion shall commence, and the way in which it shall be effected,
whether in two or more instalments. I thought it right
to throw out this remark to the House, because I am aware
that it would be inconvenient to encumber my resolution by
lengthened explanations and details. I cannot justify my-
self in standing longer before this House, and the many other
Hon. Members who are anxious to address it on this occasion.
I feel that no words or ability of mine, feeble as it is, can add
any strength to the cause which I advocate, or place in a more
forcible light the position in which the English farmer now
stands. Last year I had the honour to call the atten-
tion of this House to the state of agricultural distress
under which the country laboured ;_ and although the majority
was considerable, yet, with regard to the statements made on
behalf of the English farmers then and now, there is no shade
of difference. The distress which then existed still continues,
and is on the increase ; and though I do not wish to enter
at large into the subject of agricultural distress, still I cannot
help saying that the English farmer cannot be in a worse po-
sition than he is at the present moment—( Hear, and cheers.)
That alone should be an inducement to Hon. Members to give
this question their serious consideration. I am unwilling
longer to detain the House—l thank it for the patience with
which it has listened to me. I have made my motion as
simple as possible, and I now leave the question to a
jury of English country gentlemen, who are called upon
to take into consideration, not only whether dis-
tress exists, but whether it should be relieved
and whether the repeal of the Malt Duties is the best mode of
affording them that relief.—( Hear.) I have put my motion
in a simple form, and hope that no person shall be taken
unawares; and after what I have heard in other quarters, and the
speeches which have been made in various parts of the country,
(Loud cheering)—l cannot think it'possible that country gen-
tlemen owing their seats entirely (loud and continued cheer-
ing) to the agricultural interest, can now in the hour of need
desert those in the first instance they supported, and by
whom they have been so efficiently supported. I call upon
you therefore as country gentlemen of England, to support
the resolution which I now beg to submit to the House
I now move this resolution—" that the present duty on malt
shall altogether cease and terminate from this time."
Mr. HANDLEY said he was well aware how difficult it
was, in times of political excitement like these, to steer
clear of party spirit, but his object at the present moment was
not to achieve any triumph of party, but what after mature deli-
beration he conceived to be one of the greatest benefits to the
country at large. The Noble Lord had described in able language
the distressed state of the agricultural interest ; for himself he
regretted that he could not find words sufficiently ex-
pressive of the distressed condition of agriculturists.
He could not, however, persuade himself that his
Majesty's Ministers who had the benefit of the
advice and counsel of many country gentlemen from Essex,
Kent, and other counties, would turn a deaf car to this mea-
sure. He thought they ought to have a care how they insulted the
farmerste s
bpeye mch from the Ts h
ak i iig that n a o
er Y ofrelief only that was promised
.
—2( Hear.) The agriculturists
were loud in their complaints on Pv Z'rY side. When com-
merce flagged, tile tradesman and : merchant in h
up his credit and his establishment, by
mea! of bills—
his wealthier
(Htiar, hear)---and could get assistance from din com-
eant could keep
n'S:,ghbours, but not so with the farmer ; he suffers. '-is ca-
parative silence, sinking by degrees, and trenching on ca-
pital from year to year, until he lost all his property and ere',
friend to boot, and ended his days amongst the paupers of
the parish. He had no hesitation in pronouncing that
this was the fate of thousands. In 1821, when wheat was
545. per quarter, a Committee of that House pro-
nounced that the farmer was unable to pay the
expenses of growing corn out of the profits. In 1823 a Corn-
mittwe again sat, when Corn was 535. Id. per quarter and

that Committee reported that the state of the farmer was
still worse--that his capital was diminishing very rapidly.
At the present period, two-thirds of the former harvest had
been abstracted for immediate consumption, yet the price
was not more than 435. 4d. per quarter.—( Hear, hear.)
—ln . the county from which he came, wheat had
been sold at a much lower price ; he himself had sold it at 375.
per quarter very lately. He would ask whether the farmer
could live upon such a price, even if he were rent-free ?
He would ask, whether the natural consequence would not be
that one-third of the wheat lands would be thrown out of
cultivation. Hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords opposite might
express great fears for the progress of Reform, and cry loudly
for the preservation of the institutions of the country ; but he
would contend that such a state of things as be had represented
was the only revolution that was to be feared—( Cheers)—it
would most certainly be most subversive of property, and
prove dangerous to the institutions of the country. He
had not the slightest doubt but that the reduction
of the Malt Duties would benefit, most materially,
not only the agricultural interests, but those of the
country at large.—( Hear, hear.) The Malt Tax was
the most partial and impolitic of all imposts. It was
partial, because it pressed upon only one class of the com-
munity, the agriculturists, and only one sort of land. It was
demoralizing in its effects, because it deprived the labourer
of a wholesome beverage, and drove him to the ale-house.
The Noble Lord alluded to a most important fact,—
that during the last forty years there had been no
increase of consumption in malt, while in sugar there
had been an increase of 30 per cent., and in tea
of 40 per cent., while the increase in coffee actually
amounted to two hundred per cent.—( Hear, hear:) The re-
sult which followed the reduction of the duty on beer was an
increase of 16 millions of quarters of Malt in the year, com-
pared with the year before. Gentlemen were perfectly aware
that they were now in a season when there had been
a great deficiency in the crops of spring, and that which
was selling at 325. not long before, was at present only
26i. Now could they fancy the time when it would be
nothing to have an increase of 51. upon a quarter of
barley—that would make 1/. an acre upon the ground
under barley, and at least 5/. upon the whole farm.
But he held that a great advantage would be conferred on the
farmer, not so much from the increase of the demand that
would take place for inferior Malt, but from the increase of the
price that Malt of a better description would experience.
The difference between that description of malt and that which
is fit for grinding is 6s. a quarter. He saw no reason why
brewers should not brew from inferior barley; and to shew the
evils that the continuance of the heavy duties on malt produced,
it was only necessary to state the fact that only one-fifth
the proper quantity of malt was used by them. Another evi-
dence of the injury that the continuance of these duties occa-
sioned would be afforded by a reference to the prices of spirits.
The price of spirits distilled from malt as compared with that
from grain is from 2s. to 2s. 4d. a gallon. The Noble Lord
alluded to what he ( Mr. H.) would now beg to call the at-
tention of the House—namely, as to the injurious effects
caused by these heavy duties, in compelling farmers to use in-
ferior grain for feeding their cattle. This was capable of proof,
as by analogy of reasoning he was prepared to show. There
was nothing, it was well known, better suited for the
feeding of cattle than malt dust. Bullocks fed on malt dust
sold for seven shillings a head more than bullocks fed
on distillers' wash, and the agricultural associations with
which he was acquainted in the country parts, debar-
red their members from feeding their cattle on wash.
Not only would these local advantages be produced, but the
introduction of foreign grain would be, in a great measure,
prohibited. He knew a delicate sense characterised the palates
of the Metropolitan gentry. He would call on them to support
this motion, inasmuch as they would secure to themselves great
benefit from the improvement that would take place both in the
beef and mutton they would consume, for, probably, they were
not aware that beef grazed on that article (wash) was far inferior to
that fed on malt dust. Another benefit would be derived
from the abolition of this tax—he meant the expenses farmers
were liable to for the support and maintenance of their ser-
vants.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Servants in his
( Mr. H.'s) county had always been permitted to live in their
masters' houses, and he trusted in God they would never be de-
prived of that privilege. Their servants were accustomed to be
supplied with beer—they must have, and will not do without it.
It eauied the greatest expense to furnish them with beer ; but
beer they ought to have, and would have. If the occupier of
about 500 or 600 acres of land derived only a benefit of 201.
or 30/., still that was a shilling per acre, and would be an
equivalent to the land tax, and he begged to ask what other
tax would afford an equal sum ? There was another grievance
it was most desirable to check, he meant the existence of beer
houses to their present extent.--( Hear. He was satisfied that he
was borne out when he said that a great proportion of the
crime, discontent, and misery which of late years had gained
ground amongst the rural population, was attributable to these
beer-shops-4 Hear, hear.) He knew better how to contend
against the evil than by wielding a weapon that would strike
at the root of the evil. He recollected that the Hon. Member
for Oldham quoted the opinion of a gentleman of the name
of Simeon, who had taken great pains to ascertain the
best mode of checking the evil. He had held communications
' with fifteen clergymen, fourteen of whom stated it as their
opinion that the best and surest means of obviating the
evil, would be the repeal of the Malt Tax.—( Loud
cheers.) If they enabled the labourer to brew his own beer,
he would not frequent the beer shop. He knew it was said
that this was an Utopian scheme, that it was chimerical, and
that the labourers could not brew their own beer at home.
Why surely what one man could do, another, with equal
means, might effect. And he could state that his labourers
did brew at home, and those who had but the common
weekly wages were too happy to receive a portion of malt
in part payment. He would call attention to another
fact. At present the expense of brewing was so great, that
the labourers were obliged to adulterate their own beer. He
knew instances in which they had purchased sugar, which
they were obliged to use as a substitute in the place
of that which Providence had given them, and which
they had earned with the sweat of their brow. But adultera-
tion did not serve. A man of a steady character and habits,
who could with ease drink two or three pints, when going out
to the fields, if he got the same quantity at these houses, came
home frantic or infuriated. Last summer, a waterman, on the
Thames told him ( Mr. H.) that he dare not drink the beer
that was sold at those beer shops, for it would render him
unable to do his duty. It was well known that when the
large brewers charged 465. per barrel it could afford to be
retailed at 365. if the Malt Tax were abolished. It was also
a most impolitic tax, for in addition to the cost of the barley
and to the amount of the duty, there was a difference of
twelve shillings to fourteen shillings per quarter, which went
into the pockets of the maltster. This, however, was natural,
for no man would go into that trade unless with a prospect of
large profits, on account of the vexatious restrictions which he
was subject to from the Excise regulations. This added
greatly to the burthen of the Malt Tax, and was a
strong argument for the repeal of that duty. The obnoxious
nature of the tax was so generally admitted, that he need not
advert to it. He begged to disclaim the doctrine of Mr.
Tierney, which had been alluded to by the Noble Marquis, that
of voting for the repeal of a tax without being prepared to
consent to a substitute. His vote had been worded for the
motion of the Hon. Member for Worcester, for the sub-
stitution of a Property Tax in lieu of those taxes which op-
pressed the lower classes, and weighed upon industry ; and by
that vote he was now ready to abide. He knew this course was
somewhat unpopular in that House ; but he would ask what
difficulty could arise from adopting such a measure ?
Were the finances of the country in so deplorable a
condition, and were its resources so circumscribed that means
could not be found to provide for such a deficiency ?
That could not be the opinion of the gentlemen at the Stock
Exchange, or the Funds would not be at the present
price--( Hear.) But, continued the Hon. Gentleman, lam
relieved from entering into the budget, because the Right
Hon. Baronet has at his right hand the Right Hon. the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade— ( Hear, hear, hear, and
loud laughter) —who I find, in 1833, in discussing this
question made this observation—" He believed no reduction
of taxation was more likely to give relief than the reduction of
the duty on malt.—( Cheers.) If the duty could not be spared,
it could be easily transferred to some other article. "—( Cheers. )
Now, Sir, I do not anticipate the speech of the Right Hon.
Gentleman in support of the motion of my Noble Friend—
(Laughter)—because no doubt that speech will support
those who had the good fortune to obtain the services
of the most efficient President of the Board of Trade ; but still
I hope the farmers will not have lost their advocate and con-
sistent friend.—.( Cheers and laughter.) That Right Hon.
Gentleman alluded to duties on beer, spirits, and foreign wines,
for I must do him the justice to recollect that there was
at that time 12,0001. to remove, for which he did not
think it, of course, necessary to provide. But I con-
ceive that any deficiency which might occur in the
revenue might be easily supplied by letting the Crown lauds
by public auction, and not letting them out on job-leases.
There is another tax which found its way into this House, but
which was repealed by the Right Honourable Baronet's pre-
decessor—the tax on transfer—and for the life of me I cannot
understand what is the argument against the imposition of
that tax. I know it will be said it is a breach of public
faith. Good God ! Sir, was not the property tax a breach of
public faith ?—( Hear, hear.) I can only say, looking as I
do on taxation as an insurance paid by property for its pro.
tection, I ask if there is any description of property it is more
desirable to insure than property in the Funds? I beg not to be
misunderstood, and I trust I shall not lend myself to anything
that can be stamped dishonest or a breach of faith. I recol-
lect the burst of honest indignation which assailed the Hon.
Member for Dublin when he talked of the cant of national
faith. If he meant that national faith was of no value—
undoubtedly that language was highly reprehensible; but I
ask the House, what is the value of national faith, if you have
not national means to meet it? I know that Mr. Pitt declared
every acre of land in England was mortaged to the public creditor.
I will not deny that position ; but I ask, in what condition
will the public creditor be, if he should go through the
somewhat difficult process of taking possession of unculti-
vated and useless land ? Sir, it amounts to this
either you must place us in a position to pay
the interest of that mortgage, or like the mortgages in private
life, that interest must be reduced. Now Sir, before I sit
down, I cannot help adverting to what has fallen from a Noble
Friend of mine, who stated that he was under an apprehension
that Gentlemen, who had pledged themselves elsewhere—
( Hear, hear, hear)—for the repeal of the Malt Tax,
would be found voting against the motion of the Noble Lord
~-night. I can only say of those Honourable Gentlemen,
La of whom I now see around me, who on the
many 'en Lord Althorp used the somewhat stale trick of
occasion %v.: -si gnation, a threat which we all know is
threatening al, •
4 into effect—(Loud laughter)—at all
not very often carrie,
ension, at this moment, of such
events, we have no appre.-
- )—for, however easy it may
an event..(Continued laughtt.,

be for gentlemen to change their opinions, it is not
so easy for them to change their places—( Loud laugh-
ter)—but if those gentlemen who voted against that
repeal under an idea that Earl Grey would resign, should
vote with the Ministry to-night, he weuld ask whether
factious motives might not be imputed to them ?—( Hear.)
He would now ask, had not his Noble Friend been alarmed
without just cause ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it possible that
those who a few short weeks ago on the hustings claimed the
support of their constituencies because they arrogated to them-
selves the title of the farmer's friends ?—was it possible that
that there were gentlemen in that House—( Loud cries cf
" Hear, hear")—who would be found to add to the despair
of the already broken-hearted farmer, by deserting his cause
when the day of profession had gone by ?—( Hear, hear. )
They were now about to submit a test by which to try the
sincerity of these Honourable Gentlemen ; and by the division
of that night the country would learn who were, and who were
not, the farmer's friends.—( Hear, hear.) He was sorry for
having so long trespassed upon the House ; he felt gratified
for the indulgence that had been extended to him, and most
cordially seconded the motion of his Noble Friend._( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Mr. Speaker, the course
which I mean to pursue makes me particularly anxious to rise
at an early period of the discussion—at a period when
I am not likely to be tempted, by any reference to
political matters or causes of party asperity, to be
diverted from my attempt of calling the attention of the House
to the question before it, by any matter mixed up with politi-
cal considerations, or necessarily mixed up with party feelings.
I am anxious dispassionately to review these facts and ar-
guments, on which I think the judgment of the House
ought to be formed, and which if excluded from consideration
is likely to do most serious prejudice to the best interests
of the State—( Hear.) The matter which is to be discussed
to-night involves too complicated interests to permit of
a reference to any other than those sound arguments—
that minute weighing, and deliberation upon facts, on which the
verdict of that jury to which my Noble Friend referred, ought
to be founded.—,(Hear, hear.,) It is because I hope that
this House, is in that position that it considers itself
a Jury, and that it is not prepared to decide
upon partial evidence and previous prepossessions and preju-
dices, and upon a selection of the interests of any particular
class. It is because I consider it a jury prepared to decide
upon a comprehensive view of the merits of the whole question,
that I ask of it, that Jury, to weigh well the evidence
laid before it, and hear the arguments before it shall decide
I am called on to consider this question—whether I will consent
to a resolution which pledges me irrevocably and finally to the
total repeal of the Malt Tax ? and that call is made at a
period when the House of Commons has had no opportunity
of hearing the financial statement—when they know not what is
the amount of the disposable revenue—when they have
had no opportunity of knowing the demands for the public
service of the country—before there has been an opportu-
nity of considering any other mode of taxation ; and I
am called on to be a party to an irrevocable resolution before
the state of its effects on the Constitution shall have been
ascertained. And this is to be done before there has been
laid on the table of the House any authentic account
of what are our resources. No one can well determine
the inconvenience to which such a course would subject the
Government. It will be my duty to make this statement as
soon as possible after the close of other Ministerial arrange-
ments, and I then shall have an opportunity of stating
to the House what is the amount of the disposable revenue,
and what surplus the House will then have in possession,
which they can apply either to a remission of taxation,
if they consider that too much, or in any other mode
they should think most eligible.—( Hear, hear.) But
my Noble Friend calls on the House to refuse every
other consideration, by stating to the House that the Malt Tax
precedes every ether, and is entitled to the first consideration.
I think it becomes me, forced as I am into a discussion
which ought to be postponed—( Hear, hear, and cheers)
—with respect to the Malt Tax, it becomes my duty
to caution the House against this course in its present stage,
and to do the best I can to caution them against what I
call this unjustifiable mode of proceeding. I cannot
possibly at this moment state exactly what arc the financial
statements of this year, but I can state what was
said by the Noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Noble Lord, in his Budget of last year, made a calcula-
tion of what would be the available surplus revenue of the year
beginning from April 1, 1835, to the ending of April, 1836.
He made a calculation for two years. It is sufficient for my
purpose to state, that though I think, in some respects, the
calculation of the Noble Lord was partially erroneous,
yet, upon the whole, the result was not far from the truth.
—( Hear.) He estimated the demand for the services of
the present year would be probably identical with. the
past year.—( Hear.) I have the satisfaction of stating
to the House that I think there will be a considerable reduc-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) At least there will be a reduction
of 470,0001.—( Hear.) Although that reduction will
not tend to the increase of the available surplus of the
revenue, there are other miscalculations, for which the Noble
Lord is in no way chargeable, that will cause a further reduc-
tion, and yet I think that, on the sth April, I may calculate the
amount of the revenue will exceed the expenditure about
222,000/. I do not think we can calculate for the ensuing
year.—( Hear, hear.) But after my reduction of half a mil-
lion a year, and the payment of 70,0001. to the West
India slave proprietors,—with these financial prospects
and the anticipation of a certain reduction of 25Q,0001., the
Noble Lord asks this House to pledge itself to repeal the whole
of the Malt Tax. What is the total amount of the Malt Tax ?
I believe the Malt Tax last year—the gross amount of that
tax was about 5,150,0001. Perhaps it will be more satisfac-
tory that I should state to the House what has been the
amount of the payment into the Exchequer—on account of
the Malt Tax—for the last four years past, as that will
be the best indication of its value. In the year ending the sth
of January, 1831, the net payment on account of the Malt
Duty was 4,200,000/. ; in the year ending the sth of
January, 1832, the amount paid into the Exchequer was
4,676,000/. ; in 1833, the amount was 4,732,000/., and in
1834, the net payment into the Exchequer was 4,812,000/.
Now, with a surplus only of 250,0001., I am asked to under-
take to part with an increasing revenue. I am to pledge
myself to the House to part with a revenue which
will cause a deficit to the amount of 4,520,000/.
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord tells us that by re-
pealing the whole Malt tax we shall be able to get rid of a
large expense on account of its collection. Of course,
in determining the policy of taxes, the charge for
collecting them is a most material consideration,
and I have therefore taken pains to ascertain the expense of the
Malt Tax, and I apprehend there are few taxes the collection
of which is accompanied with less charge than that tax. I have
attempted to ascertain what extent of establishment you
might dispense with, supposing you determined to part with
whole tax. But it is not difficult to determine what you
would get rid of by repealing the tax. Sir, after the most
careful review of the matter, I can state with confidence
to the House that the charge for collecting the revenue
of 5,100,000/. is certainly not more than 150,000/.—that is the
whole sum you would save by the repeal of the whole duty. Ano-
ther material consideration was that there was no tax producing
so much as 5,000,000/.—no combination of taxes collected,
at so cheap a rate as the Malt tax.—( Loud cheers.) I
am not now saying that there might not be some
means found to relieve the farmer that there
might not be further facilities given the farmer, free
from excise restrictions. It is not necessary for me
to go into that subject at present ; but the Noble
Lord calls upon the House to pledge itself to
the repeal of the, whole duty without any information upon the
subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord and the Hon. Gen-
tleman complain that no remission has recently taken place with
reference to the duty on malt. Do they recollect that in the
year 1830, it was relieved from a heavy burden by the reduc-
tion of the duty on beer, to the extent of at least five shil-
lings a barrel.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But then it is said
that the prices of the present year were not those of last year.
What was the present price of barley ? There is this singu-
lar circumstance that whereas the price of barley is higher
now, with reference to wheat, the Hon. Gent. assumes that
it would afford the greatest relief to the agricultural interests
to remove the tax from an article which bears the highest price
of all agricultural produce. The price of wheat is low, whilst
the price of barley is extremely high. How the Hon. Gentle-
man can come at the conclusion that by removing the tax from
barley—
Mr. HANDLEY rose to explain, but was called to order.
Sir R. PEEL proceeded. Must we not also bear in mind
the rate of duty? It seems that for the last four years
there has been a progressive and considerable increase.
Supposing the rate of duty were diminished, and the number
of quarters of barley were increased so as not to diminish the
revenue, this would be a powerful argument in the Hon. Gen-
tleman's favour, because it might be said that the reduction
of the duty caused an increase in the quantity—if I show
the Hon. Gentleman, that although the price of barley was
increased, and the rate of duty was the same, the quantity of
barley brought to charge would be increased, and the amount
of the revenue would be diminished. As I stated before, the
net revenue in 1831 was 4,200,000/., in 1832, 4,670,000/., in
1833, 4,770,000/., and in 1834, 4,812,0001.—( Hear,
hear.) If this duty is so very oppressive, how did
it happen that there was a progressive increase of receipts and
quantity brought to charge? How can they reconcile this
progressive increase in price and in quantity ? There are three
points I wish to draw attention to—the increased price of barley
—the increased quantity brought to charge—and the increased
amount of the duty received. I know the answer that
will be made to this. It will be said " true, the price
has increased, but that is owing to defective harvests."--
The effect that it would produce would be, according to that
argument, to diminish the quantity brought to charge.—
( Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) True, it was
said you have had a progressive increase in the consumption
of barley for the four years preceding October, but that was
owing, it was also said, to the good harvests we experienced.
But if I show that, since October, the quantity of barley brought
to charge has increased, what will become of my Noble
Friend's argument? I called this morning on the Excise,
fearing that I might be exposed to fallacy, and knowing it
would be alleged that the difference would be attributed
to the harvest of last year, and, therefore, must account for
the difference of price. I found, there that the number
of bushels brought to charge from the 10th October, 1833, to
the 19th February, 1834, when brought into comparison
with the number brought into charge from the 10th Oc-
tober, 1834, to the 19th February, 1835, gives an increase
of 846,000 bushels.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") I do not
wish to refer to any subject calculated to produce discussion or
excitement, but I shall resign that advantage, if the House will
give me its attention while I give them a statement of a few facts
and a review of the arguments that have been advanced. It
has been said that our surplus revenue will not exceed 260,0001.,
yet that it is fitting that we should pledge ourselves to a re-
moval of the Malt Tax. Several advantages have been

promised us to result from this ; but to bring past experientwo_
to bear upon present affairs, let us try to ascertain if these pr
phecies will be realised. The Noble Lord has said that'
the continuance of this tax has caused the
in in the consumption of Malt, and referring to Asa
early period of our history, he has attributed to
00te_.
tax the removal of the national beverage from the P. ,r_
If I compare the present consumption of beer with that of the
last century, I must allow that there has been a very conga!,
rable diminution • but the question is whether this is to be
.Te
tributed to the effect of the duty ? Does it arise from !a_
effect of the duty, or from the competition of otbt,
articles ?—( Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman had just . c. 7
that while the consumption of Beer has so considerably 6,.
creased, that of tea, coffee, spirits, &c., has greatly increasoeini.
Now, I rely upon this very same fact to draw an entirely i
Cat
trary conclusion from it—( Hear arid laughter.) For I say7o
it is because the consumption of all those and other mucharticles
has so greatly increased that that of Beer has so ,ta
diminished.—( Hear, hear.) It is because people noW 11,1 „„
so much tea, coffee, spirits, &c., that they no longer drinico7.
much beer. It is not on account of the malt duty, but beat ;
the national taste has changed. The year 1722, was that to,
which the consumption of beer was greatest in
the population. In that year it was 6,100,000 barrels,
re!
about one barrel to each person in the empire. During the three
years ending in 1833, the consumption of beer was 8,200,
barrels. But I maintain, and shall prove, that this is toe:
tributed to the increased consumption of other articles. r.
1722, the consumption of tea was only 370,000 pounds,v;
about one ounce to each person ; while in 1833, 't
31,829,000 pounds, or about pounds to each person. _
( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") This is one great cals!
which has superseded the use of beer. A similar inereas?
proportion
0.
has taken place in the consumption of spirits; and althoel
many Hon. Gentlemen may deprecate that increase, Ylct
the duty on spirits were increased, it would only have the•
of injuring the revenue, and of encouraging the illicit distihrli
eer
In 1760, the consumption of coffee was 262,000 lbs., or. t tos
quarters of an ounce to each person ; and in 1833, It
ctio
20,691,000 lbs., or 1/ lb. to each person. Now, Wl_4
any Hon. Member expect that such an increase should trof
place in the consumption of all those articles, and in tbetwf
beer also ? It is impossible to have both, and so far as /flora
is concerned, it certainly is better that tea and coffee shook
be consumed than beer. Some Hon. Members seem to
that the diminution in the consumption of beer arises frllo,
greater duty being levied upon it than upon other artiluty
Compare the rate per cent. between the articles. The Geo,
on malt is 2s. 7d.. that is, about 57 per cent. The Hon' the
tleman says injustice is done to the Malt Tax in encouraging _lt.
consumption of other articles by the rate of duty upon rat
The rate on coffee is 63 per cent ; on port and sherry, ,11$
which the Hon Gent. hopes to draw a large revenue, it is
per cent. On rum 407 per cent—( Hear.) On English sPi,
7s. 6d. per gallon, or 332 per cent ; on brandy 627 per een
and on geneva 930 per cent.—( Hear.) Now, thereforei„
ask, has the Honourable Gentleman a right to say_ that the
consumption arises from the rate of duty ? MY N°oo
Friend and the Honourable Gentleman say that there a
immense profits made'by the maltsters ; the duty is onlY
quarter, and the total amount is only 5 millions, wh_tl'e•hie
millions is made by the maltsters. What ? it cue
that in this country there should be upon allY,
such enormous and extravagant profits ?—( Hear, ne"itey
that when the whole amount of duty is but 5,000,00 a, ,bey
can exceed 60,000,000 in a certain trade which is open to
one ? Why, there are 14,000 maltsters, and there are Peril
culiar reasons why there should be competition, because a
portion of capital is derived from the public, that 26,e,
is government money, and therefore the public
mo
I shall now refer the House to some of the calculations to
have been made with respect to the difference between sr,
price of barley and malt. Tho Hon. Member for Oldham (ie)
Cobbett) made a calculation of this sort last yeart,llo9o,
appeared to make a considerable impression upon the is,
The statement of the Hon. Member was, that the 10468‘,
barley was 255. per quarter, and the rate of duty 2°°' be,
therefore the price of a quarter of malt ought to 844
independently of the charge for making it 455.
the quarter; but, said the Hon. Member, the quarter of
qf
costs in the market 665., and, therefore, there is a eheretho'
19s. Bd., which goes as a clear profit into the pocket 01.04
maltster. I always think it best to have the latest inforo3:l
and sent this day to Mark-lane for the purpose of ascertar .
the price of barley and wheat, because hearing of those,. to
vagant gains of the maltster, I wished to know what Oat, teil
difference between the price of barley and which collot7oo
the enormous gains of the maltster. I found that them,l4,l
of malting barley (this day) was from 365. to 405. T; tl`,
believe, is a good price for this article—(loud cries 0 Jr
hear ")—which has not diminished in consumption, but that.ii,
sillmand for it this year has been more than any other. This
of all others of agricultural produce, bears the highest Pfirtot
comparison with the other description of grain. Add to
of duty, 20s. Bd., to the present price in the market, and `4`e,etbsl
of malt ought to be 60s. Bd. ; and I have aseertailnesH!
the price of the best malt this day, in Mark-lane, 1915, $lO
leaving a difference of ss. 4d. between the price of malt
the price of barley, with the duty added thereto.—(l.l°l"f the
of " Hear, hear.") Now, after deducting the expense_fhl
process of malting, I do not think that ss. 4d. per 1:111P t, ; se;)
an extravagant profit for the maltster.—( Hear, bear, "
tlof
My Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman refer to baa:otitit
advantage, that if the farmer, being enabled to Inn oist'
from an inferior kind of barley—not for the purpose °'
ing beer, but for the purpose of feeding his cattle 0:001,
I have the satisfaction of referring to an order of the '0
bearing date in 1827, which I now am anxious to make Pofol
as I think it will go some way at least to prove the view%sgsq
Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman. It is not nee beg.
that barley should undergo the process of malting, as I Oros°
that the steeping of barley is sufficient to develope aera
saccarine qualities which constitute its nutrition in the 'et el
of cattle. I cannot comprehend the statement f`nitit
Noble Friend that by the mere process of 5,t;,0 soi
two bushels could be made to equal three.—(More.) eec
prepared to enter into the argument just at present, b11.,41
tainly must again say, that I cannot see how two bllstuf
malt could be made equal to three bushels of barletl3; to
cannot conceive that there can be as much nutrialor.)
two bushels,,of malt as in three bushels of barley. --4
The order to which I have referred, was made in referenh bad
the practice of steeping barley as food for cattle, wltleor'
caused the greatest falling off in the revenue.---‘OOP
hear.) The excise are directed to endeavour t0.„,e1l sj„
tain the parties who carry on this practice, as "ars"'
the manner of disposing this corn so steeped, that ri° rto be
was to be interfered with ; but particular attention Wsare
paid to any kilns where the corn was so dried. 11,1'„e'll
desire on the part of the Excise to give every oPP°""11101"'
the part of the farmer of making malt, as far as it Wistscole•
sistent with the due limits of his purpose for feeding 01 „obi°
From that order it would be seen that henceforth 00
notice could be given, that no objection would be 11111bstil
the part of the excise to the steeping of barley and reg-ostn°'
the vegetation of it, for the express purpose of feedingGeotkr
The next argument of my Noble Friend and the Flee'tho
man was, that if you repeal the duty on Mgt 701 lAt
man will be his own brewer. Now, I think the Pre°l,o4o".
is very difficult---exceedingly difficult. What inuti, 0,15
to the poor man would there then be to brew "metre
beer more than he has not at the present n'''t
Why can't he now buy his own Malt, and with tblinursri,
brew his own beer ?—( Hear.) I know the Wan" felt
Gentleman will say that the price of Malt is %bac
'
and the profit of the maltsters so great' At to by,e
is impossible for the poor man to buy with any 10°"-ivill;)
self. But, Sir, if you remove the Malt Duty,
move it from the great maltsters.—( Hear, kee;',oetio,,
The great maltster will be able to enter into a ficille 1.0
with the private malster, exceeding the advantage "-nor °
at present ; and is it possible to contend that the pith
will be able, with every facility, to compete , sPif
great molter, with extensive capital, with grieaess? ''l,o
and who has devoted the whole of his life to the bost.P
athe to
he cannot, he will have no temptation to brew, t"is b 1
not
at present.—( Hear, hear.) If this ternEt, 0.
et„i°,
operate after the removal of the Malt e.v";teci',be
did it not operate when the beer duty was repe if
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman salho4 e'"otee-
Malt Tax is repealed the beer shops will eisP"oes
guished. I certainly heard at one time the tura!ji.
panegyrics bestowed upon those places, but now 'tar" y
that if beer is drunk at the beer shops, all its sair-thst bw-the
ties perish. I certainly never heard it contested rtbotti,s,
shops did not greatly increase the consumption of be on
whole of the Hon. Gentleman's arguments was founav-riog ',Poo
that beer was of no value unless drunk by the' 'able" t '
at his own house. But, Sir, I would say, dont ;des !ie.
5,000,0001. of the revenue under the erroneous ; ho
you will increase brewing in every poor e° shilY°„el
I apprehend at this moment, if the labouring lilhe it
beer at the house and takes it home with bilroble
the
have it at a reduced rate. There is a cons ht at the
ference in the price of a pot of beer bollgioo bY ote
public house and taken home, and the pot of beer taci yet yore
man who sits by the fire and takes it there ; 8.1,1 by Otos
withstanding that there is something in taking 'l' rice heel
and in company that makes him rather pay that.'et t
take it home, and, after the malt tax is repealed, °I, De/ 011
to induce any person to say that would not contint7t putitio,
therefore, take care that we do not lose the Octal;
the ground that we shall be able to revert to otherhad
The Hon. Member who had seconded the
fined himself to that view, and having done late .;0'
friction, I lot
Member for Lincoln.—( Loud cheers. ) That TopestAl
beg him to recollect what has occurred to the I, of.
ber brought forward a most popular motion for qle,e be
the Malt Tax, but because he proposed a
br
lost his seat at the last election. --1( Great nhoraillfe
would, therefore,beg the Member to take . ).••••'
Hon. _otos
the fate of the late Sir W. Ingilby—(Great tie"( tli°
apprehend that will be the fate of every men :t; hen °oeat,
substitleletrog.)
substitutes, when he came to propose a new tax erg,
five millions.--( Great cheering.) In my opinion Il'agriclmopoo
that a great advantage will be derived bY, thet based„,(o,
interests from the repeal of the Malt tax is n° enerais/ad.
good grounds.—( Cheers. ) Is the advantage to be
or not ? Which description of agriculture is ni°t the Ore
Is the light land suffering or the clay land ? n°
which grows the wheat the land that suffers-- „g ol
vllll b- IteP
and the only advantage the Hon. Gentleman erica 00
repeal of the Malt Tax will be to force thee biernisa for
clay land.—( Cheers.) The operation of th , hiterftir.)
this tax will not be beneficial to the agrieultural
.1 aters• -61
the only persons benefited will be the tua-t t
by experience, if the motion of my Noble Fri.e,"h they
Sir, I cannot help thinkin the agricultural interris cal; ot
that they will be subject to considerable loss, we_'‘`i knorl_AP
It theclublie 700'
now think of.—(Great cheering.)
oa" tat°
t-
there is always a floating capital of .P
to the amount of 3,090,000/.
which induces many small capitalists to a

trade t7:icus'"+""eiesseessasass.
h prevents a
that those who monopoly. I will venture to assert themselves in a situation to resort to so discreditable a course.
now clamour for the repeal of the duty are Would they for the sake of relieving agriculture, agree to so
not the
ke., small maltsters, but the great monopolists.—( Hear, disgraceful a course, if they found it impossible to ovie a
3oal 1,, 3Do away with the Malt Tax, and then that proper substitute ? I would call the attention of the Housef.tho
is
neer ,000,0001. is at once taken out of the trade. There what we have been enabled to effect, by preserving good t.
for doubt capital would distribute itself equally ; but with the public creditor. We have been able since 1822 to remit
Press
considerable time,—for some years,—it would the burdens of the country to the amount of 13,250,0001. This
or
all
Trniost heavily upon those who were the enemies has been entirely effected by keeping sacred and inviolate the
Z,_.11. r .onopoly. Now, Sir, what would be the effect of the public faith. And if we continue to pursue the same policy,
tie:peal of the duty on Malt. The law would then be we may expect to be equally fortunate for the future.—
alone, erY 'llan will be able to make his own malt ; and the ( Hear, hear.) You have had the experience of the good
st
muchtlrable Gentleman argues upon this that there will be effects of honesty, of the advantages of the superior honour
sis_n greater consumption. I have a very strong impres- of England, and if you follow that course you will not only
„crune 4- ?other result. If you permit every man to make his maintain the public faith, but you will be enabled by degrees
tillatio 4 t'
the result will be an enormous increase to illicit dis- to diminish the public burdens. But if you adopt another
measily "- The process of making 3lalt was a tedious one, and course, you will lose those advantages, and that which fair
ade, overlooked, but spirits, the malt being ready, are easily play never fails to give to those who adhere to it. The history
the
Process
the Excise have not the same chance of checking of this Malt Tax will itself illustrate the effects of the
ss, as they would then not be able to interfere in policy which I have deprecated. It had, since 1816, under-
constant
rtin-
eof th; malt. Again, if you are to have a gone several alterations, which it was afterwards found neces-
overloic uspection into the making- of malt, what a constant sary to retract; and I need not especially remind the House
every °f 'rig of, and interfering with the domestic affairs of of the last famous decision which had taken place respecting
he a ,arnilY 1 The Hon. Member will find that there will this tax, and which it was found necessary to re-
mast
folio
result—a reduction in the duty on spirits, tract on the following Monday.--( Hear, hear.) It is
consaaretiOw, and lam afrdid that there will be no increased better, surely, to avoid a repetition of this conduct..
to-Taiuspotion of the beverage so much talked of. There ought It was for the purpose of preventing the House from seing
ii,seer.__
(Toe insuperahle objection to the tax, which brought again placed in that predicament that he now appealed to them.
',folone7,
cO/. before. you repeal it for the benefit of one interest They were told there was no hope of effectually resisting
ar
as ( beers, ) This is a resolution of the very worst kind, this attempt on the Malt Tax—that so. man, Honourable.d
isrly, f respects trade generally, and the grain trade particu- Members were pledged to its repeal, that it would be carried ;
He 40eor 5..,,,L
--se a motion must put a stop to all markets. but I cannot believe that any Hon. Members could have
the, iis tiot tell what he proposes, but if he can persuade pledged themselves to such a course, without. previously
io Lis-Juse to pledge itself to the principle he lays down taking into consideration all the circumstances affecting the_case.
the, resolution, he will bring in a bill to arrange I feel so confident that with a surplus of 520,000. this House
details.essrsis What would be the first consequence of the would never consent to the precipitant resolutionfto care a
.ir,l7 of this resolution? It will depress the price of deficit of 4,600,0001, in the hope hereafter 9 supplying
kat _ s
Thisee 7 tour or five shillings the quarter. If the House pro- the deficit from other sources, that I would neverlisten. to. !hose
the to take off one half of the duty in October next, and who told me I must despair, and that I must do the injustice to
Of trOat*!ler half in October, 1896, what would be the state the House of Commons, to believe they would come to a vote so
Will trader
that time ? The brewers and maltsters rash, and so detrimental. to
.public
.credit, and. . every interest
When
the their their operations until after the year 1826, connected with it. Sir, I still retain that opinion.—( Hear.)
41,04 7 will be subject to no duty.—( Hear, hear.) What I believe that the representatives of the . landed interest,
"'annerendiene will not this be to a trade circumstanced in this forseeing the pressure upon other sources of industry, forese9-
seppos g the intermediate time.--( Hear, hear.) But ing the consequences of the property tax,. would . retain
them to g the House is disposed to overlook all this—supposing the power of judging for ti-emselves, for thei constituents,
under be determined to support a resolution brought forward and their country, whether it would be the wiser course to
to ' uch circumstances, supposing the House is determined retain the Malt Tax as it stands, or to force us into the con-
-841)1)°rt h'
are the tis resolution by their vote, what course sequences that may arise from a substitution. Sir, that I believe
take
one p prepared to pursue ?—( Hear, hear.) We must to be the duty of the House, and I trust that the result of this
ether articles
of four courses—we must increase the duties on night's division will not show that my confidence in its judg-
to 4 p
taates.r°PertY Tax—we must trust to a reduction of the esti- But, Sir, whatever may be the determination of the House,
I sot --(Loud cheers from Mr. Hume and his party.) of one fact I am perfectly sure, that with my views as
altesosB,t4l.tiag the case perfectly correct. lam placing every to the consequences of this tax in the present state of the
foot eel"
0 before the House. We must pursue one of those public revenue, I have no alternative but to submit those
Malt Tai After having declared that the amount of the views to the consideration of the House, and if the House
*it., a " is 4,600,0001., I will refer to one of the courses choose to overrule them, to leave them subject to the
qeatie reduction of the Estimates. lam sure that any consequences of the responsibility which the
.House will thus
been sorlas",, after the progressive reduction that has incur. The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst
Year of "-le, and the further reduction in the . present very loud cheering..
andthe 'OOOl —after the efforts of the last Government At the conclusion of Sir Robert Peel's speech several Hon.
existin exertions of Lord Althorp—must allow that out of the Members rose at the same time, but Mr. Cobbett having been
Would estimates it is impossible to make any reduction that called for, he (Mr. C.) proceeded to address some observations
Possible available in the slightest degree. If it were to the House, not a syllable of which, we regret to state, owing
Nie_ to make any reduction in the estimates, we ought to to the low tone, proceeding, as we believe, from hoarseness,
is 4 ''' Without reference to any other cause, because it in which the Hon. Gentleman spoke, reached the gallery.
4 kb"
114011 to support extravagant estimates that they are Lord NOR RE YS, although he had supported the motion for
kly Gentle "4"t for the malt tax.--( Hear, hear.) But the repeal of the Malt Tax when it was last before the House,
the lastmo_
s.O who has watched the course of reduction for could not conscientiously support it now. What were the cir-
L4li' lasit,c,'ew Years, looking at the present experiment that cumstances in which the question at present stood ? There was
14 -,i"g in the West Indies, and the numerous other de- a new Government just come into office—(Great cheering
:ker'the ttiP°ll us, must see that there can be no reduction and laughter)—he would repeat there was a new Government
NrezthsavY Estimates, nor can any one hope we can make a just come into office—( Cheers)—with every disposition to be
sa,""tliUg reduction,' consistent with the public honour and friendly to the agricultural interest—( Great cbeering)—and
'vita -`' which would afford a reasonable resource for the Malt the Noble Marquis came down to the Houses_
and aked not
think
ttnere
may be about ten Hon. Members in the House who for a partial but total repeal of the Malt Tax.
(Great
Sild tit whatever may have been the reduction hitherto, it cheering.) Now the question with him was, would
"it ''' Progressive, and that they will find resources by the substituted tax be less burthensome than the Malt
rethit f ,°llO colony after another. 1 have
.already stated Tax to the landed interest ?—( Cries of ', Hear.") He
set teel3o there will be a reduction in the estimates for the regretted that the motion should be brought forward at the
144 Vp.,.Year of half a million below what they were present moment, for if ever there was a time when there
, bar', but this would not supply the deficiency. should be union among the friends of the Government,
a7r'Lls is,,,,new refer to the other alternative I mentioned, it was the present. If the motion had been postponed
, ofrisealing the duty upon other articles, such as spirits, for a few weeks, time would have been given to the Govern-
"al see, and others. ' Will any gentleman say, that this ment, to have matured their plans.--( Cheers and laughter.)
til;Lssa, Ztill a large. and permanent increase of revenue ? Be- He thought. every allowance ought. to made for the diffi-
he 13 this relieve the agricultural interests ?—( Cheers.) cult circumstances under which the Government were
pro
to raise the duty on spirits, how can it be ex- placed.—(Great laughter.) If they were to be thwarted
the at at such
a tax will benefit the agricultural interest ? in every measure they und9rtook,. it would be impossibleL ford
n: spirtsdass made of? If a shilling a gallon be added to them to conduct the public affairs much longer—( ou
oieoto.; .°ll spirits, what will be its effect on malt ? cheers)--and he viewed the dissolution of the present
iitathtleielo,eb't
imust increase the duty on malt.. As I under-.. Cabinet as the most fatal blow that could be struck
Leassteeny
°u of barley will make two gallons of spirits— at the landed. interest.—(Loud cheers and laughter.)
eisieuput the duty on spirits, it must of course produce He had no hesitation in saying that he should best consult the
'% Pending
Wh Youro increase of the duty on malt. In Ire- landed interest giving his vote by in favour of the cour.se.in-
h_tt werduced the duty on spirits last year, and what tended to be pursued by his Majesty's Government, believing
ilscsillati he the consequences of that reduction ? This that no tax could be proposed in its stead, less burthensome,
-ssios„°-, this constant recurrence to temporary re- and that if Ministers should resign on account of the vote the
k,_e'eleis mischievous and detrimental to the parties House might give, their places would. be filled by those who
iit'Ps ke Y affect.._( Hear, hear, hear.) Such a system had always done every thing in their power to
.subvert the
a etas+. 4 capital employed in these transactions landed interest, and advocated. those measures which were
'44s:int eulbarrassment,_ and, if continued, will have calculated to injure their country.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Nisei -'eY to pre
olio, 1.0 b„.., vent men from. investing the capital they Mr. BENNETT said it appeared to him that the Right
fro 'altaos "eieSs, in which their prosperity depends on such Hon. Baronet had made a most affecting appeal to the Irish
th'e as. b. Conduct. In Ireland spirits was last year reduced and Scottish Members. He told them that they were.
is 141,148 belsto 2.3. 4d. a. gallon, and what is the advantage not so highly taxed as the English, and that if they carried
di, . ed.
_Li gained by it ? In England, the duty on spirits that motion, greater burdens must be borne by their constitu-
ti,l"aposti: gallon ;in Ireland, the duty is but 2s. 4(1.--a 'ants. He knew them better—they were not, on so important and
ez to it,ll so great as to hold out the strongest tempta- occasion, to be frightened by such a threat.. He h
sa'4l he "uggling in this country.—( Hear.) Nothing also made a most affecting appeal to the English landholders,
4-ass so
asvrtion. unwise as to do anything to increase this dia_ but he would not catch their support by such means, because
Aid a 1 have made enquiries as to the consequences ever since the passing of that Bill, which went bwould
he name of
eoTa iair`e'r the reduction of the duty in spirits that took of the Right Hon. Bart--( Cheers)—they net feard
fij*t sedand, and I find that, in the four months wheel the a Property Tax, for the greater part of the property had passe
of aloe% need to 2s. 6d. a gallon, corresponding with the into the hands of the mortgagees—in the hands of those who
01104 is that the duty was 3s. 6d. a gallon, one million had authority now to do almost what they liked with the property,
14,1 e t tiotexs were brought to charge.—( Hear.) So it will the landlord was now a mere assignee for his cre.ditors, and
distill 'how' and--the revenue will not be increasesd, and as I cared nothing for a property tax. The only equitable mode
11 • •a, th
itili Woo _. e agricultural interest will be injured. Illicit of taxation was to proportion it to the property of the country,
NOketrhe ttse(iwill be carried on, and instead of grain, molasses which was protected,. and not. to the industry of. the people.
of maceel the process. Such is the progstessive improve- That was a question which would force itself upon
at'"ea hie anical knowledge, that the facility for illicit dis- the attention of the House, as it had already done upon that
ststseate.ben increased, and in most of Vale large towns it is of the country.--( Cheers.) The Hon. Baronet
.had said thattbe
4C a thot-rried on to a very great extesit. I have demon- the duty on malt being repealed, the duty on
.spiri.ts
.mus. e.
tee' islllti %ll° benefit will be derived fram the removal of this increased ls. which would give rise to great illicit distillation ,
Yost us! it at the agricultural interest will not be benefit- but he had kept out of view that such reduction would. so much
iposed,ad then Snail we then resort to a property tax ? facilitate the making of spirits, that it would reduce
tQe lie reduce surplus revenue of 1,500,000/., and you pro- the cost much more than the one shilling.---( Cheers.)
'ere -ease the Malt Tax duty only one half, to which The tax upon labourers was 2d. a day—that amounted to Is.
Ilotkie, ondagreed. Now, you have only 250,0001. surplus a week. Hon. Gentlemen might think that a trifle ; but he
Pesese'eli waLY°ll propose to repeal the whole of that duty. could assure• them that it was, in fact, 18. per cent. upon
liooue asti`u, 1,600,000/. there was such a deficiency in the the poor man's wages.—( Hear.) The Right Honourable
„NI a Pas e,iPa„te,d by the reduction of half the duty, that the Baronet had talked much of the) high price of barley at the
Idtz4l „-"e wit- 'ma resolution, that the repeal of the Malt tax present moment—but the fact was, that the crop this
oPfrePerty."'ict,ax can only be. supplied by
,a tax on perso- year had not been half of what the former had been.
elea, the m ''''Y prophecy is that when you have got What does this prove? That a man may get a greater
*lll,, %eh alt 'Fax you will proceed to tax little arti- quantity of alcohol at a cheaper rate in spirits than
koaa-e'ert to 48,, . tobacco, wine, &c.—( Hear.) Then you he can in beer. This he wished to reverse. Beer-
topt7totsuinis resolution, and I congratulate you upon the shops, indeed, had lately increased the consumption
NI thtilkyou Stituting a Property Tax in lieu of the Malt Tax, of beer, but that was no advantage, because the poor man, in-
ks), at yolt tibia come, as you would raise such a storm about stead of laying out his wages in procuring necessaries for his
in-
of the me oecnild not lay a tax upon other articles ;or you family, was tempted to spend them in excessive drinking at those
tea
co Nal that which is really' valuable—the land shops. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of
a Y untr
dolt'
Q-peas ;Y---(Hear, hear.) I think you will bit- making malt, and the unprofitableness of the business, which
s:t:40114; When you find yourselves compelled to sit he readily
laadbomoirteterd;roulßdut
makeif thei Manit
malt
tx
inwasrivarete-
tioe 4tatstil li; `ti
al yh
tewithr ) a propertyAn
on tax
vi,
hupon e
par
eagraduatedent the heavyscrtle.
mm
aolvte_ d theh'ouses. Of all the taxes that olhad plagued the
stNestt,°t) as co?",trY, I think' will bitterly regret it if you country, this was the worst. . It was not for him to point out
074 q,, is t,,,.--,;. impartial jury ought to do, for your the ways and means by which this tax was to be removed,
'stios o "',llot forget your own comprehensive view of though that he considered was easy. Some comparison had
a' the the thfsk'-sk Hear.) My Noble Friend made a calcula- been made as to the effects of this duty upon the farmer, and
to 4it 4,dvantages to be derived from the Repeal the landholder ; but the cases were widely different. How-
,?.4l;er, 4made- 4bax, and a more extravagant .calculation ever, one thing was quite true, that whatever was injurious
tot ‘telit h'l any man. My Noble Friend says it will go to the farmer would inevitably injure the landholder.—( Hear.)
b._ ,tat in f
am hear en/ a arm of 250 acres there will be a saving Lord DARLINGTON next rose, and commenced by say-
I,llall Zalesi 8 • per annum.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I ing, that having had the honour to present a petition from
tNsti:rre, `,1,) per
an account of the condition of a the county he represented against this tax, a petition worthy of
* " a 'll a farm of 300 acres, that so much should be attention, both on account of the number and respectability of
t4titilB dO S t° allow
of such a saving, why I should think the signatures, he felt it his duty to support the motion
the t) re than treble. On a farm of 700 or 800 acres, of the Noble Lord. After the able speech of the Right Hon..
?vialt 10,4 oi ari 500 or 600 gallons of beer is consumed. Bart., he felt that any arguments which might drop from him
iteiript •ernatives are the hope of reduced estimates, would come with rather a bad grace, but he felt also that he
)
Ikullre, ary,l(°, raise a revenue upon other articles of ex- had a public duty to perform.—( Great cheering;
1 tis•-(1-a4 uklrdly, a property tax. To this we must come Aware that amongst some of his friends lie might be charged
he ,on, ‘it,ar.)
On this subject, when it was last discussed, with faction on the one hand, and a design to embarrass
*41141104nd Lear„...,
is ,gs , the is. eu Member for Ireland—(Laughter)—I Ministers on the other, he begged to say he never had given
itht teat card "00. and Learned Member for Dublin, stated a factious vote, and never would ; and in proof of that
NindiP'itsi'le (and and fairness, that' if a Property Tax was assertion, he might refer to his conduct on the late two factious
sesid 9lat it is I have no doubt), it ought to be ap- votes in that House.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," from the
%(114t 1114 t Ir tli
L :TOY to all his Majesty's subjects—( Hear) Opposition.) He would ask any gentleman to find out
tl'sitia7 to I" should bear its share in it.—( Hear, hear.) a single factious vote which he had ever given.—( Har. )
Sts' tioil Will b tell the gentlemen of Ireland that their He was not inclined to do any thing that would tend( toeem-
ttlt Ir, s----(0 much worse than the proprietors of the barrass the Government, such confidence was he disposed to
stq'sl4-ha' in herLes..l,3f." Hear, hear.") The amount of the place in the abilities of the Right Hon. Gentleman, ( Sir R.
ilslttty 1-11..09 Ind
.3Z
,is 242,000/., and the relief the people Peel) and is honest and zealous intentions.h He had made that
hit tho -‘pti to c alr would be to that extent, and I need avowal. to. his constituents on the usti9gs, and. he had no he-
"' t" illstitu .onvinee Hon. Members from that country sitation in repeating the same sentiment in that Huse
H
'til'il ti`tY to the non of a property tax, as a countervail- —but he had a duty to perform, and that duty he was
tilt Avomthe ishii?"„sof the revenue occasioned by the re- determined not to shrink from the discharge of.—( Hear. )
)4,1 ice of that-' lax, would be a great hardship to It was not the agricultural interest only that suffered—it was,
och at y eoontr
Y But Sir you may depend upon no doubt, inured ; but mechanics, artizans, and labour-
t,„tesstirhe rpearnot sip.ply the' deficiency Of 5,000,000/., ers, also. were. injured by me
—(Hear hear. ) _ This was not
NIII ate a"' th of
this tax will occasion, without such a new opinion of his. He voted for the repeal of. the Malt
Nit4th• aq .e springs of productive industry as the Tax last year, when the motion was introduced
Nis
cenilrtesist, or Without imposing a property by Sir William Ingliby, in a spirit of buffoonery and mockery
ti, 4t difteucY' Ireland, and Scotland.—( Hear, hear. )
thetatha he (Lord D.) strongly deprecated. He was aware that
011 l'at, °li scent will be to apply this tax to Scotland and ppeal of the Right Hon. Baronet would have great weight
ro of (haunt a the great disproportion between with the House ; especially if, in the event of this motion
say
„„Pared --Y from
PsoNt the vvith the Malt Tax in these countries succeeding, the public revenue would suffer to the amount
Ple .e atte England.--( Hear.) I will venture of four and a half millions, as he ( Sir R. Peel) had stated it
e'b4ttl,4l)t &will obey"'Pt to levy such a tax (although lam sure would. Even were that to be the consequence, he (Lord D.)
Zs, as - etlact the law if it be once enacted) but the would maintain that it was no argument for the continuance
s'i s is
a ,lave for this purpose, will be attended of an impolitic and unjust tax. If the present Govern-
Itto44llort
rt, diffi
k 401,, a eft''-e as the attempt' to impose ment repealed this tax, it would become the most popu-
Yapst alter, lees general consumptien.—( Hear.) lar Government that ever existed, for no tax was
4t4'-' do alive that has,
abnedenasivagugghes)ted is to make a in reality more oppressive to the people. He could not sug-
11,104„,...niloot.thhiin ~......
6 (Hear, to do nothing gest any means to supply the deficiency that the abolition of
111/4, 41(4 will cnog--(Great laughter.) I am afraid that this tax would necessarily.. create ; and were he able to do so,
Xs, bass, emirs:lle to the trial will, on the whole, after the warning which the Right Honourable Baronet
I. 4th to any odther.-7( Hear' , hear, hear.) gave him, he would assuredly refrain from the attempt.
k,l,4NOtl°l%ltthe patro°pnertthe
,Ts,econ . reading of the Increase of He wealdsepeat,. that no interest suffered so much from the
.4 ri d', that Y 1 ax Bill, many Honourable Mem- continuance of this tax, as the agricultural interest. It was
L htt the se
than °I the e whole' they think it better to they that demanded the removal of this tax, and none, he
Nt ea. , sees," to !mpose a property tax, and vote contended, were more deserving of relief than they were. But
f itoqpitielnallreadng( Hear, hear, and laughter. )* they alone would not be benefited by its. repeal. There was not a
‘4, 11. ; °l,r.
,1.1 e s,ggcsePsit): st 1:
that
air appears . already to be laying householder, journeyman, ~44,\
Hon.
emight be a small. loan.— country,interestedappirneirtiaticree,moovraFor e
t labourer,i
ins rlehae-
the e,ar):,talY clid not the
tax could be taken off, calculated to
kyi ,5.1.(10,_ lad that the Crown. Member. propose a large sons he maintained
who
was notthat
no
\iiiitet:e,,,e , 'II should . lands might be sold, and give more general relief than that of the Malt Tax.
_,' don' kr not make jobbing leases.--( Hear.) He was fully convinced, notwithstanding the arguments of the
h) 'lots o low that the Crown has shown itself on Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir. R. Peel, if the Malt Tax
I iht il Particularly indulgent landlord.—( Hear, and were removed, private brewingswould )bet increased. It was said
eittaestly°W,° revert seriously to this last propo- that it was scarcely possible for private persons to brew beer, at
"°l3O that Hon. Members will not place least for labourers. He knew the contrary, and he knew also that

'~.
,`

~
,~„~