The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-06 00:00:00

PRUSSIA AND DENMARK.

Mr. DISH A ELI—I wish to ask her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether they have received any information
as to the conclusion of a treaty of peace between the
King of Prussia and the King of Denmark, and, in
the event of their having received such information,
whether they will inform th• House in what
capacity the King of Prussia signed the treaty, whether
as sovereign of his own dominions, or on the part of the
Germanic Confederation, or in both those capacities?
Lord PALMERSTON—I am enabled to inform the
House that the Government have received a dispatch
from her Majesty's Minister at Berlin, enclosing a copy
of a definitive treaty of peace which was signed on the
2d instant, and concluded between thej King of Den-
mark on the one hand and the King of Prussia on the
other, acting in his own ballad and also on behalf of the
Germanic Confeleration, and that treaty was to be rati-
fied in three weeks.—(Hear, hear.)
DISTURBANCES AT DOLLY'S BRAE.
In reply to Sir W. VERNER,
Sir G. GREY said he had not received any com-
munication from the Lord-Lieutenant respecting the
prosecution of parties concerned in the late disturbances
at Dolly's Brae, and therefore he was unable to say
whether any proceedings against those parties were at
present pending.
SAVINGS' BANKS BILL. . _

Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer intended to proceed with the
Savings' Banks Bill, and if so, whether he would fix a
day fur its being brought on?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had stated last night, in reply to the Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire, that he hoped to proceed with the Bill
before the end of the session, but he was not able at
present to fix a day for the purpose.
REPEAL OF THE MALT DUTY.

Mr. CAYLEY presented a great number of petitions
'rons different parts of tho country praying for the repeal
of the malt-tax.
Mr. PORTAL presented a large number of petitions
from Hampshire to the sate* effect.
Mr. CAYLEY then rose to move for leave to bring in
a Bill to repeal the malt duties, and in doing so ho asked
the extreme indulgence of the House, because averse
as he always was to intruding himself upon its attention,
it was still more difficult for him to explain as clearly as
ho should wish the object of this motion.—(Hear, hear.)
He brought this motion forward entirely upon his own
responsibility, without any promise of support from any
quarter of the House, nor could it be considered a
party motion, for his Noble Friend at the head of the
Government and another member of the Government in
the other House had declared that they could not give
their support to a motion which threatened to rob the
revenue of so large a sum.—(Cries of ' Hear, hear.")
He was, thereeore, instigated by no other mo-
tive than a conscientious conviction that in the
present depressed state of agriculture, and under the
loy our late commercial chictigeg,e'vilttlEeZMAVY.Dtintd
imposition of the old system or a modified system of pro-
tection, nothing could conduce so much to the well-being
of the agricultural interest of this country as the
repeal of that oppressive tax which he now sought to
abolish —(Hear, hear.) Taxation was never a very
popular thing in any shape—it was a still less popular
thing when it was not only oppressive but inquisitorial
and partial, as this tax was.—(bear, hear.) What
was taxation?—(A laugh.) After all, it was
nothing but a nation having run up a long score, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer being paymaster, who
called upon us all to pay what was known by our shot.
—(A. laugh.) After half-a-the gentlemen had in-
dulged themselves at an entertainment the bill was called
for, when sometimes four or five of the half-dozen were
ready to pay it themselves, but though that might hap-
pen once or twice in a way, it would never, if the saint
plan were adopted on every occasion.—(A laugh.)
What he complained of with respect to this tax was,
that it was more oppressive upon agricultural than any
other tax that nad been imposed upon British in-
duAry.—(llear.) After a long period of protection
British industry and agriculture were deprived of
that protection under which they had thriven for so
ltohnega
constantper habit
io d oft
time.—(Hear,
meHear, hear.) It had been
state, for what purpose he could
hardly imagine, that the corn-laws were the subject
of late enactment, and that 1815 was the period at
which they were enacted ; but it was perfectly well
and it ended in
known that no less a price for 170 years prior to 1849
agriculture was given than 48s. per quarter for wheat —(lleer,
hear.) In 1670 that system began,
February last year; though it was true in 1815 a higher
range of prices had previously existed, and a
higher range of protection was established com-
thuornegh thought
was
fairly those
com-
mensurate with that higher range of prices.
ionedthuantderbewcahuieshe
entitled to justice, and after that long system of t
wileer e circumstancesm ent
tion entitled perhaps to some'hing even more thanpr o
ue cs
tice, and, if they tequired it—which they did not —to
to
some more tender consideration, if he might use that
term. During that long period of protection the landed
interest of this country was chiefly in power,and so
long as that interest prevailed their motto had
been
"Live and let live."—(Hear.) (The Hon. Member
here read an extract from Mr. Porter's "Progress of the
Nation," to show that protection was first extended to
the woollen manufacturer.) He was stating those facts
with the view of showing that it was no selfish policy,
on the part of the landed interest, which establised
the system of protection.—(Hear.) On the contrary, it
began with manufacturers. From 1770 to 1825 there
was,
a discriminating duty between Indian and English cot-
ton manufactures. English cottons were introduced
into India at a rate of 5/. per cent. duty; whilst In-
dian cottons were admitted into England, from 1770
to 1825, at an average duty of 751. per cent.
Having thus shown that there was a precedent in the
conduct of the agriculturists towards the manufacturers,
which would justify them in their present claim, what
he asked for now was for nothing but justice, and he
thought he could show that the present duties,
which he wished to remove, were unjust. He had great
authorities to quote upon this subject. The Right Hon.
Member for Ripon in 1839 had said that after the repeal
of the corn-laws the malt-tax would not survive one
year.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton had at the same time spoken of
the malt-tax and the corn-laws as indissolubly
joined together. There was also another autho-
rity which he could quote, if under the pre-
sent circumstances it would be dee erous for him to
do so; but as he could name no higher authority perhaps
the House would allow him to mention the late Sir
Robert Peel, who had expressed his wish that he should
use his malt untaxed. He would now proceed to men-
tion the absurd penalties which were imposed upon this
tax. Such was the evil effects of the present imposts,
that the preparation of malt and brewing had
become a great monopoly, small capitalists being
unable to encounter the losses to which those particular
trades were liable. There were fewer maltsters now
than there were five years ago, and it was a well-known
fact that eight out of every nine public-houses in the
metropolis belonged to brewers. The malt-tax not only
crippled the trade of those who prepared it, but deprived
the poor of obtaining a cheap supply of their
most wholesome beverage. This was notorious to all
prize cattle societies; indeed, the value of it was shown
by the willingness of farmers to pay 7s. a week for the
washings of distillers. Nor would this be considered fair
upon any other manufacturing interest. In former times,
when the duty was lower, a malt-house was attached to
every farm-house, and if this tax was repealed there
would again be a malt-house joining every farm-house.
Well, but this tax was said to be a tax on the
consumer ; so it might be, but if they taxed
every other branch of industry—the lawyer or the phy-
sician, for instance—cent. per cent., did they think the
country would stand it; or di.l the House imagine
the lawyer or the physician would do so much business
as when he was untaxed? He did not dispute that taxa-
tion was necessary, but the gravamen of his complaint
was that this tax was unequal and unjust.
The House was not aware of the extent of the exemp-
tions enjoyed by manufacturers from duties on articles
used in their manufactures. Thus, for example, in the
article of soap, they had enjoyed a total, and now en-
joyed a partial exemption. The Hon. Member here re-
ferred to the following statement as to the use of soap
(Vl' klatintifticittres;-.

Former rates on soap used in the manufacture of—
Hard. Soft.
Woollen goods 2id. per lb. ld. per lb.
Flax or cotton
Silk 3d. „ 14d. „
Linen 3d. „ 141
Amount of allowances in the year 1832, 100,294/. 7s. 3d.
From May 31, 1833, the allowance was reduced one-half,
and on the 15th of May, 1840, 5 per cent. added.
Present rates— Hard. Soft.
Woollen goods .... .....
and 5 per cent. and 5 per cent.
Flax and cotton .....
Silk
Linen
Amount of allowances in 1849, 85,2861. 17s. 7d.
Then, again, as to the duty on paper, as to which there
bad been great complaints. The Hon. Gentleman here
referrel to the following statement as to the

EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER,

Year.

Rates of Duty.

Amount of Duty
Charged.

1835. Millboard glazed paper, sheathing
paper, button board, 84:-.—lst
class, 1!. Bs. per cent. ; 2d class,
1/. Is. per cent
Pasteboard-Ist class, 1/. Bs. per
cent ; 2d class, 14s. per cent..
1836. The same rates as above to the 10th'
Oct., 1836
From 10th Oct., 1836, all kinds of j
paper, lid. per lb.
1837. All kinds of paper 11d. per lb 555,942 15 7
1838. Do. Do. 584,164 2 8
1839. Do.
1840. All kinds of paper
per• lb 610,290 18 0
and 5 per cent. from May 626,663 10 64
15, 1840 ...
1841. Do. Do.
1342. Do. Do. ...
1843. Do. Do. ... 678,888 3 54
1844. Do. Do. ... 718,392 6 4
1845. Do. Do. 815,371 8 IA4
1846. Do. Do. ...
1847. Do. Do.
1849. Do. Do. ... 867,120 11 74
There bad been a good deal said in a leading journal
which greatly influenced the councils of the country (the
Times), as to the extent to which this duty affected it;
although, according to the argument of that journal on
the malt-tax, the duty should be immaterial to it, being
" paid by the consumers," that is, the purchasers of the
paper.—(Hear.) However, a copy of the Times weighed
four ounces, and the paper tax upon it was one farthing
and a quarter. The stamp was only one penny, and
thus the total duty on such paper was not three half-
pence, that is, less than 25 per cent.; whereas the malt-
tax was 100 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) It should be re-
collected, too, that for the penny so paid on the stamp
the paper was carried free; whereas the farmer had to
pay the carriage of his malt.—(Hear, hear.) And as to
the advertisement duty, it was disposed of by a single
observation, that there was at least one paper containing
solely advertisements, which showed that they were
of themselves remunerative. Now, with reference to
what the farmers thought of this tax, he held in his
hand a letter of Mr. Ellman, of Sussex, who, after
referring to the opinions of his father, who lived to a
great age, and whose memory went back to the time
when cottagers brewed their own beer, stated, as some
prof of the very injurious effects of this tax, that the
barley grown on his farm, near Lewes, was now nearly
unsaleable, and that, in his opinion, nothing could benefit
the farmer more than the repeal of this odious impost.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member (whom, from the low
tone in which he frequently spoke, we bad the greatest
difficulty in hearing) also quoted from a pamphlet
written by a captain in the navy, who was also an ex-
cellent practical farmer, to the effect, that whereas he
could grow seven quarters of barley per acre on his land,
for which he got 91. 165., of which the Government
took 71. 4s. sd., and yet it was said that this tax was paid
by the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) But even if it was,
were not the agricultural labourers the chief consumers
of beer? And yet these were some of the parties whom
they boasted of having exempted from the payment of
the income-tax, though they threw upon them the
payment of a ten times heavier burden in this tax upon
malt.—(Hear.) But there were other ways in which
this tax operated injuriously, and among them might
be named the fact that farmers had now their labourers
much less in their houses than used formerly to be the
habit, a circumstance that was mainly to be attributed
to the excessive duties levied on malt, and the conse-
quent dearness of the beer they would have to give
them. Now, malt liquor was, and always had been,
trom the earliest period of the history of this country,
the class of drink peculiar to the nation, and such, in-
deed, was the national taste for that beverage, that it
had required all the oppression of Chancellors of the
Exchequer and Excise officers to limit its consumption.
—(Heer, heir.) But this tax, which was as much as
100 per cent. on production, was, as the subjoined
statement would show, a tax of some 500 per cent. on
the poor consumer:—
Price of Beer to the Poor, with no Tax on Malt and

£863,439 1 5

790,677 9 10

with Tax.
A bushel of good malt will produce 12Ibs. of samba
ri❑e matter, and will make 36 gallons of good whole
some beer for the cottager'a table.
With the tax off, suppose the price
of malt ... ...
Brewed at home ...

49. a bushel,
s. for llb. of hops

ss. for 36 gallons,
or a fraction over lid. per gallon.
This beer at any public brewery would be 81. per gal-
lon, or 245. for a 36-gallon barrel—saving 500 per cent.
The yeast and grains would pay for the brewing. The
cottager could also malt for himself.

In Int,iii-lililiVbrei4hrig, gMait.h N
0.1 i.t6ctUilne aro
all nved to one barrel of ale of thirty-six gallons, and re
tailed of this quality by publicans at 6d per quart.
If no Tax.
Three bushels of malt at 45....
Threw pounds of hops at 15....

... 12g.
... 3s.

Total ...
or lid. per quart for ale instead of id. or nearly (i. e.
within a farthing of 500 per, cent.)—(llear, hear.) The
following table would also show the operation of the tax
on consumption at two distant periods, for England and
Wales:—

Population. Bushels Duty Consumption
of malt per per bead.
made. bushel. bush. gal.
730 ... 5,687,993 28,410,421 Os. 6d. 5 0
845 ... 16,711,725 30,508,840 2 7 1 6 2-3
Which makes a difference in the consumption of 300
per cent. The following was an extract from the manu-
scripts at Euston, written by the Duchess of Grafton,
mother of the present Duke, who gave him (Mr. Cayley)
this extract. It was supposed to have been written in
the year 1792:—" The two great oppressions which the
poor labour under are the low price of wages and the
exorbitant tax upon malt. The duty upon malt in a
political, as well as in a private view, is a most cruel
grievance. The cottager, who could formerly brew his
andTowhni
shepartook little
can
ne
caskn f
hisof beer,
home-brewedreturned
liquorfro m
whiitsh day'shis l
family.ur
o
and his thirst great; his family at home can afford him
longerdo, but the ale-houses are open
nothing but water, and he is tempted to spend the best
part of his wages upon himself, which formerly was
tolc7k9.2":—Ezcßtruatetthfrisomistantionraelrliplt
oapfpclioeudnttoestshecommonof
Euston,
see," she added. " Let the minister tax all the luxu-
ries of life, but let him not encroach npon the subsist.
ence of the most useful part of the creation ;
but unfortunately the cry of the poor cannot
easily penetrate, and the sufferings of the country
cannot be thought of in a great city. Heaven and earth
will be moved to repeal a shop-tax, or, indeed, any tax
that principally affects the opulent London tradesman;
they are too near not to be treated with respect; but
still our people are happy, and as long as we are
governed by a parent, and not by a despot, we need not
fear the influence of incendiary writers." Ho then went
on to observe that it was impossible this tax could be
continued under their altered commercial code.—(Hear,
hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government would take it into his consideration how
severely, under the competition to which the farmers of
this country were now exposed, this excise system
pressed upon the industry of the people. The Noble
Lord might depend upon it that if he did not take steps
to remove this tax ere long it would be found to be
wholly intolerable. Our agricultural industry could
never be carried on under the pressure of this taxation.
He did not see why their home industry was to be
selected for taxation.—(Hear, hear.) A report of
the Committee of the House of Lords upon
the state of beer-houses showed how they tended to
the increase of crime.—(gear, hear.) He might observe
that amongst the petitions presented by him there
was one signed by 92 clergymen, and it was not to be
supposed that they would have consented to place their
names to it if they were not convinced that what they
asked for would tend to the spread of morality. One of
the witnesses examined before the Committee stated that
upon consultation with ten clergymen the conclusion all
skamn
ufee
an:n
aunt eotir
spirits,
oigftlneswnr,
lroametsfnde
-.
,ha,l come to as to the best means of diminishing drun-
datbt
eoee
atr repeal_de evidence(aßevenue,a ffacoesefat
rot
as
shehf
eealamai
Mr. John
malt-tax.—(Hear.) -eaftraraosexo
fwvva(c
hnoe
Member
consumption
hm. )
ac
phata
ainiooar
on
the Ministerial benches.) 'He heard some Honourable
Member say "hear, hear," but did that Hon. Member
know why the consumption of tea had increased so
much? It was not because it was to be considered as a
substitute for beer. It had increased because of the
diminution of the duty. He referred to the following
extract from Mr. Senior's pamphlet:—" We now
purchase annually in China about 30,000,0001105. of tea,
at about Is. a pound. On the tea so purchased we im-
pose, in different ways, taxes to the amount of about 200
per cent. Were we to repeal that taxation, and the price
in China were to remain unaltered, our consumption
would probably quadruple." The duty on tea was re-
duced from 43. to is., and from 730,0001b5. it had in one
year increased to 2,358,0001b5. The consumption then
in a few years rose to 17,000,0001b5. The increase arose
from the reduction of the duty on tea, and so it would be
with malt, and so it had been with coffee. In 1791 the
consumption of coffee in Great Britain was 1,247,2761b5.
It was the same or thereabouts in 1795, at which period
the duty was raised from 6d. to Is. Id. The result was,
that in 1796 the consumption fell off to 396,9531b5. There
were fluctuations in the duty up to 1804, when the duty
Was raised and the consumption decreased; so that in
1808 it did not exceed that of 1791. In 1809, however,
the excise duty was lowered from is. Id. to 3d. per lb.;
and the costoms duty from 611 to 4d. per lb. The re.
sult was—

Consumption.
1808 ... ..„ 1,069.6914
1809 9,251,837
Increase in onl year, after reduction of dutiei, 800 per
cent. It had not superseded thu taste for malt. The
reduction of the duty on spirits had increascd matt con-
f that article, lie IYA3 LOW referring par-
sumptiou

ticularly to Ireland. In 1823 there was a reduction of
the spirit duties in Ireland. What was the result? In
1822 the number of gallons was 2,328,387; in 1823, when
the duty was reduced, the number of gallons was
3,348 505; in 1824, 6,090,315 gallons; in 1825, 9,262,744
gallon,. This was an increase in four years of 400 per
cent. in consequence of the reduction of the duty.—
(llear ) At and previous to the beginning of the 18th
century every publican in Scotland (being every man who
chose to embark i❑ the trade) brewed his own ale, and
the resort to his house depended on the quality of his
liquor, which—when thunder or witchcraft did not in-
terfere—was generally excellent. Tne strong ale was re-
served for holydsys and the tables of the great; but the
two-penny (so called because it was sold at 2d. the Scotch
pint—equal to nearly two English quarts) was so
much esteemed as a national beverage that it was
inserted by name and guarded by peculiar privileges in
one of the articles of the Union. Another article, how-
ever, in the same Act secured to the Scottish brewery an
Excht.quer Court; and this, conjoined with the enor-
mously-increased malt duties, so lessened the exhilarat-
ing qualities of this ancient ale that it has now lost its
fame. I❑ its stead a kind of small drink is brewed, but
it is destitute of all the qualities which were so often ce-
lebrated in Scottish song, and is scarcely superior to the
trash termed table-beer in the workhouses of the metre-
polis. What had been the effect in Ireland, which was
now a whisky drinking country? In 1792, 5,000,000
bushels were consumes, when the duty was 7111. per
barrel; but subsequently, when the duty was 3s. 61. per
barrel, the consumption fell to 1,733,000 bushels. Sub-
sequently there was a decrease of the duty and the con-
sumption rose to 700 per cent. In England the taste
for beer continued, because the spirit duties here conti-
nued high. They were lower in Scotland than in Eng-
land; and lower in Ireland again than in Scotland. Let
them now see what had been the effect of this reduction.
Thus stood the consumption of spirits at one time in the
three countries:—

In England ... . . 4,352,000 gallons
Scotland ... 1,277,000 gallons
Ireland ... ... 1,330,000 gallons
In 1845, this was the consumption for the three milt.
tries :---

England ... ... 9,000.000 gallons
Scotland 6,441,000 gallons
Ireland ... ... 7,240 000 gallons
The increase in England was twofold, in Scotland five-
fold, in Ireland sixfold.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member
then entered into a calculation to show that upon an acre
of barley the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the publican,
and the maltster took 401., whilst out of the same acre
the landlord had 255., and the tenant-farmer might be
said not to receive anything. The sum which the malt-
ster, publican, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got
out of an acre of barley :—Suppose the acre produce on
an average five quarters of barley, and one quarter of
barley to produce one quarter of malt. One quarter
malt (good) equal to 961bs. saccharinP, which equals three
barrels of ale, or 321bs. gravity before fermentation. Al
low seven gallons waste for the fermentatian, leaves 10
gallons for sale.
1 qr... 101 gale. at 6d. per quart

.. £lO 2 0

5 qr.. 505 gals. ditto including f taxed cost £5O 10 0
hops i untaxed... 10 14 0

1 qr. of malt, present price about ... £2 14 0
8 lb. of hops, average price .. 0 8 0

5 qrs. of malt with hops
Deduct malt and hops

£3 2 0

~ £l5 10 0

... 15 10 0

£35 0 0
The spoil divided between the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and publican out of an acre of barley—besides
tithes, poor-rate, and local and general taxation. Out of
this acre of barley the landlord's share is about 255.; the
tenant's share 15s. perhaps; the sharp of the maltster,
brewer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nearly 401.
(391. 165.) The duty on British spirits was 61. per
quarter on raw grain. Now, if they repealed the duty
they could not expect less than treble the amount of the
present consumption. By trebling the consumption they
would add to the demand for malt 10,000,000 qrs. He
told those who talked to them so much of theimprove-
ment of agriculture, that in prohibiting the further
growth of barley they interfered with the laws of nature.
Their oppressive taxation interfered with the laws of na-
ture ; it prevented the people from farming their lands
to the best advantage, and in that manner which was cal-
culated to make them most productive.—(Hear.) It ap-
peared to him that of all other measures short of a re-
versal of our present commercial system, there was none
that could so materially benefit the interest of the Bri-
tish farmer as the repeal of the malt•tax. Notwith-
standing the increase of price in oats and barley which
would result from that repeal, it need not be feared that
foreign corn would come in to prevent such a rise of
price, for the English barley was so superior in weight
and saccharine matter that it would always command a
higher price than foreign barley. The Seal barley, of
which we obtained 100,000 quarters last year, sold from
214. 6d. to 235. per quarter; Danish barley from 17s. to
20s. per quarter; while English average barley sold at
235. per quarter, and the best English barley at 25e. to
275. per quarter. They had, therefore, little to fear
from the import of foreign barley. The repeal of the
corn-law had not had so great an effect as had been an-
ticipated upon the barley market, on account of the su-
perior growth of English barley; for be'ore the passing
of that measure we had imported about 1,000,000 qrs. a
year, and the present year we only imported 1,500,000 qrs.
Shined hgrlev moo inferior. from its exposure todamp and other injurious influences, and malt was
equally subject to deterioration from being shipped.
Foreign importation, then, was not to be so much feared,
while the additional demand for 8,000,000 qrs. of barley
would displace so much oats and wheat.—(dear.) The
price of all three kinds of grain in England, Ireland, and
Scotland, would be raised in a manner to neutralise the
effect of the repeal of the corn-laws. Besides, there would
be a corresponding large increase in the growth of hops;
and upon the whole, the alteration would give increased
employment to 100,000 peopie; and counting the families
of those people, it might fairly be said that 500,000
persons were interested in the repeal of the malt-tax,
while it would confer vast advantages upon the consumer.
The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) would say, perhaps, that he could not spare the
tax. But could not other articles be taxed in case of de-
ficiency? Cider, for instance, was once taxed, and might
be taxed again • so were 'linen and other yarns. But
it would not be necessary to have recourse to those.
The malt duty in the year 1849 on 44,749,000 quarters
was 5,145.0001. ; from which, deducting for cost of col-
lection, and drawback allowances, 523,0001., there was
left a net revenue of 4,612,7001. a deficiency certainly
enough to make Hon. Gentlemen somewhat nervous.
But how stood the case really ? In the Budget this
year the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that out of his
expected surplus of 1,500,0001. he proposed applying
750,0001. to the repeal of the brick duties and an alte-
ration of the stamp duties, and the other 750,000/. to
pay off a portion of the public debt. He (Mr. C.) did
not intend to interfere with the financial arrangement
of the present year, and if he should be so fortunate
as to carry his proposal he should propose that the re-
peal of the malt duties should not take effect until the sth
of April next year. Well, then, the estimated surplus for
the year might be taken at 1,000,0001., the decreased ex-
penditure at 500,000/. ; increase on hop du'y, 500,000/.;
excess on the corn duty, 300,000/. ; and abolition of
the expense of the African squadron 1,000,000/.-
811 those items would form together about 3,310,0001.,
which, contrasted -with the remitted malt duty of
4,812,700/., would leave a deficit for 1851 of 1,302,0001.;
but as he saw by an evening newspaper in the interest of
the Government that there was an increase of 300,0001.
or 400,0001. in the present quarter's revenue, as com-
pared with the corresponding quarter of last year, a
proportionate increase was expected on the whole year.
Under those circumstances, it was not likely there would
be a greater deficiency than 100,0001. or 200,0001.; and
believing, therefore, that the revenue of next year would
be amply sufficient, if proper stops were taken, for all
the purposes of the national expenditure without any
increase of taxation, he had great confidence in proposing
the repeal of that oppressive--he had almost called it
atrocious duty.—(Hear, hear.) But who (said the Hon.
Gentleman)—who objects to the repeal of this tax for fear
of a deficit? Any member of the list Government—
which repealed the corn-laws? on which repeal this
demand is irrefragably founded—the single condition of
which change in our policy was a free and unfettered
trade to all. Is a tax of 100 per cent. on one important
process of industry an unfettered trade? 100 per cent.
on the producer-500 per cent. on the consumer! Is that
just or free? The present Government—does it object—
who by its own organ, at the commencement of the ses-
sion, declared that it had lowered agricultural produce,
and thereby gained to the country 90,000,000/ ? Can
they set 5,000,000/. of revenue against a loss they have
inflicted on British agriculture of 90,000,000/.? Can they
who have unlocked our doors to the inroad of the whole
world, refuse to unloose the shackles with which our
hands are bound, that we may use them in self-defence?
I have shown how this 5,000,000/. of revenue can be dis-
pensed with; bat if part of it, or even the whole of it,
be imperatively required who can best afford to pay it—.
those who have lost the 90,000,0001. or those
who, according to you, have gained it? Who,
then, objects on the score cf deficit? The
free-trader, who promised so large an accession of
wealth to the country, that if he be right the deficiency
should be made up in one year by increase of prospe-
rity? The Financial Reformer, does he object o
ground, who is or was for a diminution of
13 , 000 n h
, this
in the :expenditure, whereas the outside deficiency
created by the repeal of the malt-tax would be only
2,000,000/. ? Can he discover so effective a means of
reduction as not giving the
money to be expended? The
Protectionist, does he object, who knows that if free
trade fail the deficiency can be easily supplied in a man-
ner unfelt by the general consumer through the system
ho prefers? The Government, no doubt, will plead
danger and inconvenience against the repeal of this tax.
So did wo against the repeal of the corn-laws. What
did you answer then to us? Justice to the consumer.
So my answer now to you is—justice to the consumer
stilland
producer both. Of that justice many doubted and
doubt—of this justice no man doubts, or
can reasonably doubt. Who taught us to be
cautious in our legislation in reference to
the land? The Right Honourable Member for Ripon,
who in the language of Mr. Burke told us, now many
years ago, that "It is a parilous thine. to try experi-
ments upon the farmer." If peril then there be in this
course, remember it is your seeking, not ours. It is a
simple corollary to your own econonomical problem.
Will you plead public faith? Is no faith then to be
kept with the land? Is there any man in this House who,
either for himself or for his constituents—whatever
branch of industry he represents—will consent that an
analogous amount of taxation shall be placed on his own
or on their produce? If not, let him, before deciding ,