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

£39 16 0

£5O 10 0

1820—.1830 the average was 26,800,000 bushels
1830-1840 p, 34,000,400 „
1840-1850 If 31 7009 000
te of
Th lion. Gentleman further said that the falling-ou,.
the consumption was caused by the importation of ire
reign grain; but the last three or four years would m ; •
found to show a steady increase. The c9intio3rtiv-
mi
was, in

into which lobby he will go, call to rien.l that Divine
which teaches us to do as we would be done by. Publie
faith! We used to be taught yesr by year, by quotations
from the speeches of the statesman, to re-
spect the opinions and reverence the name of Mr. Berke.
Our t, licher was that eminent man, but yesterday !
M. mber of this House, whose un timely loss it so mucus
deplores. What does Mr. Burke say on this subjectot
public faith? " The first creditor of the state is the
plough—this original indefeasible claim supersedes ever,'
other demand." But can public credit be really more
endangered than through a course of oppressive injustice'
by sapping the foundations of that stable and perusal??
t
interest—the land, every acre of which, according to alr•
Pitt, is mortgaged to the public creditor. It is in ewe"
mon fairness to that great interest that I ask you to re;
peal this tax. In the name of justice as well as good
faith, I implore you to disregard all the stale pretexts
inconvenience to the public service, of danger to pub'',
credit, of peril to the Ministry—those ancient bugbear'
of Ministerial resistance to every reduction of taxation
that was over yet proposed. Above all I entreat you to
rise superior to the meanness of that maxim which
e,
would teach you to do right only when it is convenient to
do it. In the name of the largest body of producers in the
kingdom, who are at the same time its largest body "t
consumers, I adjure you to redress this crying wrong-::
to be just and fear not.—(Hear, hear.) I beg leave to
bring in a Bill for the repeal of the malt tax.—(Rear')
Mr. CHRISTOPHER, said that after the able speech
which had just been delivered, and considering it de-
sirable that the debate should be brought to a On;
elusion that evening, he would support the motion very
briefly. This was the first time that he had ever ie.
tended to vote for a repeal of the malt-tax. On a for;
mer occasion he had felt it his duty, out of deference t°
the st tte of the revenue, and to the protection which the
agricultural interest then enjoyed, to oppose any IriCe"
sure for the repeal of this particular tax. When its re'
peal was moved in 1826, the protection then enjoyed ho
the agricultural interest amounted to something like 5,
per cent. The average rriee of barley at that time we
325.; it was now only 225. The agricultural distress theta
existing did not arise in consequence of universal CO
petition with foreign nations, but was mainly caused
.ey
excessive production in this country.: At present tl.
former commercial policy had been abandoned, protectiiP
was withdrawn, and the agricultural interest was the eel/
unprotected interest in the country. Under these circus? ;
stances he thought it right that the House should insist
upon the Government applying the same measure of P'
tice to the agricultural interest which they had already
Ile
applied to all the other great interests of England. 1"1,
/
could not conceive why they should subject the soil o
the country to a depression of 100 per cent.; neither
o
could he imagine how anyone who maintained free-trod
principles could object to the repeal of the malt-tax'
He called upon the Government to grant the boon ne
asked for, and he also called upon the Hon. Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to support the inntil
That Hon. Gentleman had on two occasions intineat%
his desire to have the tax repealed. At Manchester !_ f
was reported to have said:—" We sympathise with tsou
farmers. We will never tolerate one shilling by way
protection to corn, but we will co-operate with theni:e
getting rid of that obnoxious tax, the malt duty- in
owe the farmers something, and we will repay theirt, ,
kind."—(Hear, hear.) When the same Hon. Gent
man joined the Financial Reform Association, he wrote
a letter to its chairman (Mr. Robertson Gladstoeet),
at Liverpool, couched in these terms: "
with regard to the excise, it may be laid down as
rule, that whenever yon touch the excise duty at,li
it should be totally abolished, because the great objet' „
tion to such tax is the interference of the exeisera;
bie
with the process of production, which applies We
whether the duty be great or small. This should
borne in mind if you deal with the malt tax, and yon
of
must deal with it if you would enlist the sympathiest r
county constituencies on your side. To a man the Ow,
mers„ are in favour of a repeal of the malt-tax. 14%0
upon these grounds, he was entitled to ask for the
of the Honourable Member for the West Ridink_A
(Hear, hear.) With regard to malt being consider%
useful for the food of cattle, he (Mr. Christopher) Oft,
rather surprised to find that some officers of the revectil'i,
had thought fit to make inquiry into the subject. B.
how was that inquiry conducted ? Had any influent' s°
agriculturists been consulted ? No such thing. A the
was sent down to one or two chemists, and,„
Board of Excise, upon that inquiry, were perfeehri.
satisfied that malt was of no me whatever to the fe,d
bP
mers of England. Many eminent men, however,
o,
written upon the subject, and their opinions were e
titled to five hundred times the weight attached to tb°so
given by the chemists.—(Hear.) If it were said that the
malt tax was paid by the consumer, he would, upon tgos
very principle, demand the vote of the Free-traders. P. it
he denied that it was entirely borne by the consunier,4
was mainly borne by the producer; and in the language
of that eminent man, Sir R. Peel, whose loss they 1'15,1,
all so much deploring—" it was a heavy duty on 1410.,
cultural produce, and must operate disadvantageouslibeo
the cultivation of' the soil." It amounted to 20s. Bd, if gdo
barley was 41s. 9d., and it now amounted to 203.1,°e,
when barley was only 225. If the price continued to de
cline, and there was not the slightest prospect of a higher
price being obtained, the probability was that the %if
would approach to something like 100 per cent. 1.6
only argument against the repeal of the tax Wis.
that the revenue of the country would not bear rd
but the Hon. Mover had stated his willingness to alto
time for the repeal to come into operation. Finding of
there was no disposition to afford the suffering portl,lt
the community any relief, he (Mr. Christopher) 0
himself justified in demanding the repeal of this odious
tax, and leaving it to the Right Hon. Gentleman, t
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to supply the deficieaca
ereato. He believed, with f-'°.
,IG. Bentiuck, that if they adopted more of the fleancl,
1
:f
policy of Mr. Pitt, and less of the financial policy
"
modern economists, a sufficient revenue would be re,:,
lised. He could not believe that the credit of the ecu,
try would be affected by the repeal of the tax, or that
substitute could not be found, seeing that no fewer their.
30,000,0001. of taxes had been repealed since the 11,
He held with Fox, that " excise duties were intoleraws
except on grounds of public necessity," and that it W°
a,
better to levy taxes on a foreigner than upon the Brit,l-0
producer or consumer. Believing that the agrieultuf",,,
ought to be placed on an equal footing with the Laeft,--0
facturers, he had much pleasure in seconding the nantwel
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER though,
he should best consult the wishes of the House if lie
frained from following his Hon. Friend (Mr. CaYie'
through all the topics embraced by his able and inter&
iug speech; otherwise it would be quite impossible thud
the debate should close that night. His Hon. Fries
drew such a picture of the blessings which would 110fi
from the repeal of the duty to every class of the conieTo
nity that he felt really sorry to destroy the El Dora,
which he had placed before their eyes. They bad fre
ready had convincing proofs of the consequences of !,.
reduction of the duty on malt and barley. With roe.;
ence to the speech of the Hon. Member who bad just be
down, he might observe that in his short statement,",
had made two mistakes. He stated that the manula,";
turers were protected whilst there was no protection I°_,
agricultural produce. His Hon. Friend might have rf,
membered a paper, printed this year on the motion of to.:
Hon. Member for Montrose, showing the amount of del
levied on imported agricultural and manufactured
duce, from which it appeared that the amount of duty
levied on foreign agricultural produce exceeded Wed
rai•ed on foreign manufactures. A gain, his Hon. Frie°. $
enlarged on the hardship inflicted on the agriculturist
by not allowing him to grow beetroot for the ro6°l.
facture of sugar; but if the agriculturists did not ee,l;
vats beetroot for that purpose it was their own
and not that of the law. His Hon. Friend had taken;
great deal of' unnecessary trouble to prove by histce*Zo
that protection was maintained in this country, not "„f
much for the benefit of the agriculturists as for that
the manufacturers, and he thought it necessary to r'";
dicate the agricultural body from the charge of bei°o
actuated by interested motives. Now, he hadinever
puted to them selfish motives in maintaining protection'
He differed from them, but had always believed alf°ll,
to be actuated by a desire to pursue that policy wh';s
might most conduce to the benefit of the country I'
large; but the opinion of political economists then was
in favour of protection. He might be allowed pethar
for one moment, to refer to the subject of the duties
on wool, in which he had taken much interest feole
his connexion with the West Riding of Yert;
shire. In 1842, he had moved for a reduct";
of the duty on wool, and in 1844 it was ultimatei:ls
repealed, and no one would deny that no such great
benefit had ever been conferred on the British product:
—(Hear, hear.) He would now confine himself to O
question of the repeal of the malt tax. It would well
,
become
would r Hon. Members weigh well the consequence;
hichresult fromto the course they advocate"'
This could not be regarded as a party motion; and 1oolt•
ing at the opposite benches, he felt assured that the
leaders of that party would be amongst the last to adece
cate such a repeal. L"rd Stanley, within the last PO
or three m
inonths, had declared most emphatically, all
whether the Government or in opposition, he won :A
resist the repeal of a tax for which no substitute our,
be found, and the benefit of which repeal he thought
very equivocal. Neither could he persuade himself that
the Hon. 11Iember for Bucks would lend it his supper"
What would become of the objections which had bel
urged against a Chancellor of the Exchequer who shoal
leave himself without a surplus? Nothing could be nit.eres
impolitic than to announce prospective reductions. WI
would become of those gentlemen who had barley to se
this year if promises of reduction were made for the next' Host. Members talked of the bugbear of national faith?
and the bugbear of national establishments. That was
a very convenient term to use, but he very much doubted
whether the reflecting portion of the community wouldi
regard them as mere bugbears. As far as he himsela
was concerned he should be very happy to be replace,e
by his Hon. Friend who, he hoped, when he should
down to propose the repeal of the malt-tax, Weald'
be prepared with a substitute, for the suggestion which
he had made would not produce ontefifth of the neceo'
Eery amount. Able and ingenious as he was, his 110,x,1i
Friend would no doubt be able to devise some mode,"
maintaining the public faith. The Hon. Member le,
:
Lincolnshire would no doubt recommend a return t°,;
system of import duties; but whether he could persuau-
the House to adopt his views was another matter. 1,11
H :
Hon. Gentleman said that there was a falling off in the
consumption of malt, owing to the duty. If, however, the
returns of periods of ten years antecedently to the Pr%
sent year were examined, it would be found that swab
was not the case. By the evidence taken before the
Lords' Committee on the sale of beer—a mass of most
useful information—these facts appeared:—The eel;
sumption of malt was, in the three periods of Ma year-
preceding, as follows:

-1847,,, 31,200,000 bushels.
1848... 30,200,000 ~
1849 ... 33,160,000 ~
This increase, toe, was in the face of a steady and g..hrae-
dual increase in the importation of foreign grain. 1
answer
for • was, therefore obvious, that the importation of
ump-
egn corn did not influence injuriously the cons _
tioa
f the
de malt. The Hon. Gentleman had attributed
creased consumption of beer to the malt duty, as well
es the increased consumption of other liquids. This,
however, of the Exchequer's)
was in his (the Chancellor
°Pillion produced by other causes—among them the
great change that had taken place in the habits of the
People of this country. Every Hon. Gentleman was
;74.re of the great diminution that took place in his own
crlll4llY n the consumption of malt liquors, and of the in-
ease i
in
the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa. The
of the
proposition held good as regarded the great. bulk
"I, the working classes of the country; and in his opi.
rten the change was a salutary one. Referring to the
tlYea furnished in the report of the Lords' Committee,
he lan
I—"nu, taking the consumption of 1839, and conapara-
; it with that of last year—a period of ten years
allirg-off of about 1,000,000 bushels of malt annually.
The consumption was in
1839... 39 930,000 bushels.
1849.„,
„.. 38,935,000 ~
„It the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa in that
l'eried had increased enormously, viz.—
Tea from ... 35 000,000 to 50,000,0001b5.
Coffee ... 26,000,000 34 000,000
'pi Cocoa ... 1,600,000 3,200,000
'ae consumption of spirits had also thefallen off in about
same proportion within these last 10 years—n.athnel,
eabeet 1
0.00,000 gallons annually. So likewise wit the
'oreption of wined, which was in
1839 7,000,000 gallons.
1819
„.„ 6,240,000 91
ofe
result of this comparison was, that the consumption
1p * all intoxicating liquors had fallen off within the last
/care, while the consumption of all liquors which
here not intoxicating had considerably increased. This
b:lo)ked upon as anything but an unsatisfactory result,
eecallse, in his opinion it contributed to the advantage
1:11.9 Working classer.
41 decrease was not owing to the height It was a convincing proof that
ea the of the duty,
re--especially upon malt liquors—in compari-
-B°4 With the cost of the article, for the duty on malt
aPproached in nothing to that levied upon tea or
,‘,/Pert coffee, the articles that most entered into
"rc,nePetition with it for consumption. The Honourable
trtlernan argued that if the duty was taken off maltr
tasted elelsumption of beer would be increased to an
.uh
eX. tent, and he referred., in proof of his proposition,
articles
increased consumption ot tea, coffee, and other
elaon which a similar reduction had taken place.
(tthfle "e Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not deny that
th-Pduction in the case of these articles had increased
til:Lr consurnption,• but he insisted also that it was owing
peoeilise, as he said before, to the changed habits of
aomee* A- much better criterion, however, of the pro-
h,7"en as to the increase in the consumption of beer,he
rei°agh a reduction in the duty on malt, existed in t
tetterns of 30 to 35years since, when the war duty upon
,; was reduced as well as the beer duty. It Has
82ated before the Lords' Committee that, taking the war
trettalt duty
ea and the beer duty together at that period, the
tor 4 —.Quoted to about 755. 2d. per quarter upon maltedr
then for the
„, w stronger beer, and about 60s. per quarter fo
Itlearntee..aker. The existing' duty. on malt was 20s. 81 per
of 1. But though a reduction of duty to the extent
aecie4anrY 60s, per quarter in the one of these instances,.
then per quarter in the other, had taken place since
that were the fact, what effect could the further reduc-
giaeof 20s. 8d•. proposed by the Hon. Gentleman be sup-
of bed t°, have in the way of increasing the consumption
bee "err The evidence of Mr. Barclay, the eminent
tinier, taken byithe Lords' Committee, was, however,:con-
efts,tre on this point. He admitted that the total repeal
aam'me malt tax would make a slight increase in the con-
eetetti°n, but instead of benefiting the consumer to the
said "b of 500 per.cent., as the Hon. Gentleman stated, he
he that the utmost reduction in the price of beer would
or one h 3 par quart, which it was at present, to 3d.,
date- "elf Penny. But the experiment of taking off the
the; malt and putting it on again had been tried, and
per-he were the results:—ln 1816 the duty was 4e. 6d.
Yeer;usael, and the average annual consumption in three
red— was 25,000,000 bushels. In 1817 the duty was
22 aced to 2s. 6d. per bushel, and the average fell to
the'l:),?„,'°o of bushels consumption • while in 1819, when
sea,l,l was again raised to 3s. 7d. per bushel, the con-
thatPtion rose to 25,000,000 of bushels. This showed
det,g, a diminished consumption followed a reduced
The at least, in the instance quoted.—(Hear.)
that . 40nourable Gentleman seemed to think
Dred,i,t was monstrous the duty should be paid by the
lieta"eerl but the Committee of the other House of Par-
Preeent, aPPointed to inquire into the burdens on real
4"ertY, had come to the conclusion that the duty fell
f•-atgeneral tax on the consumers of the article. If the
1,70..,ers and labourers were benefited, the consumers
tietZatr.l therefore be equally benefited by other reduc-_
Z,, but then came the question whether this should
itlae article. On that head Lord Stanley said that he
amill,ttt believe the reduction on this particular tax
dee,: ,e the best mode of applying relief. The en-
erree or Alr. Barclay was to the effect, that no great
eoesutwould be produced in the way of benefit to the
great by the total repeal of the malt duty, while a
(ientien,l°B bald accrue to the revenue. The Hon.
Rardee—tt° the opinion of Mr. Elman as re-
ditty. ,t"e benefit derivable from a reduction of the malt
the
B._,Out that gentleman had, at a mee:ing Sussex on
the efele°Jeet of agricultural distress, moved a resolution to
Per t, that, if foreien barley was allowed to enter at Is.
othelrwiltter, the benefit which the British farmer would
Weabi se receive from the repeal of the malt-tax
11,,, go entirely to the foreign grower. The Hon.
eou-ersoeer for
r North Lincolnshire, however, stated in the
diked t°' the debate that that the malt-tax shoud be re-
ttad tha°t ls., as a protection against the foreign g
He
rower,
(the ce a duty should be placed on foreign barley.
great Lusliceller of the Exchequer) had shown that no
setneeuenelit could arise to the producer or to the con-
great be tae repeal of the malt-t ix. If, however, no
at enrfit arose from it, and if its trivant.egea would
• least be
tisk so Only partial and equivocal, was It right to
Menlarge a revenue as 5,000,0001. per annum, and
to ta Withit, whatever the Hon. Gentleman might say
blisbmeontrary, the public faith, and the national este-
so ea eats? The lion. Gentleman knew that it was not
%ea!): to impose
a new tax, or even to retain the old
~ouldaerlv- then, would he provide for results which
eieendanger the credit of the country and the effi-
teo,'?,of its institutions ? By taking off the tax they
vitnuti: ieneur great risk without any corresponding ad-
ieu'
.1.? • The benefit would be but slight and partial,
eafeluunder these circumstances he thought he might
sistiaie?,all upon the House to concur with him in re-
laidi the motion of the lion. Member for the North
krtig. prr
effect' —s'UNIOND said when they remembered the
the_ 0 the first enactment of the excise-laws, and that
prod aced a convulsion scarcely less violent than that
that thed by
the ship money—when they remembered
kr. teed
were constantly and repeatedly denounced by
tontine and Mr. Grey in that House during the whole
the 'atlee of their operation—he was surprised that
Right 80
have heard so great a panegyric from the
to °II- Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
merit Javour. Accoiding to him they contained every
sere u". a fiscal regulation--facility of collection, pres-
treabira nobody, an immense mass of money,'with little
bleased—in short, there was not a single advantage these
so excise-laws did not possess.—(A laugh.) He felt
eatittntaseh_ethe impropriety of interferine' with the arrange-
tiaee the Government that he sh'ould not venture to
the the part he was about to do without, at
cllorBsnie offering a pledge to the Chan-
any of the Exchequer to give him his support for
Bother tax ho pleased to lay on.—(Laughter.)
to bOuld like to see him muster courage enough
----Ma? hear x on the Manchester manufacturers
Gelle
the roan was obliged to pay attention to the shakes of
tbeaueead he saw there, but be could afford to despise
the of the agricultural body—(Hear, hear)—to whom
astpestion was a matter of quite as much importance
ut onepeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) The
letti!i was, he believed, the real test of the honesty
atea which the repeal of the corn-laws was carried.
t_s it truly on account of the labouring classes?—
to that' hear.) Was it indeed in order to give cheap food
tontn people, or was it solely to get rid of so much cot-
trenufactures?—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") The
eesent question would bring them to the test. It had
wean thrown out too much as if the question was some whY or another connected with the landed interest.
en they spoke of the manufacturing interest, there
Iv._ as the merchant who supplied the raw material, the
taanufacturer who converted it, and the operative whom
4'e employed. The interests of these three parties were
not, however, altogether identical. It was the interest of
the merchant to sell his cotton dear; it was the inte-
rest of the manufacturer to buy it cheap; and it
Was the interest of the operative to. get his wages as high
as he could, and all these three interests were wholly
different. So it was with land.—(Hear, hear.) If the
Government refused that boon because they conceived
that it would be a boon to the landed interest, they
Would be exceedingly mistaken. Therefore, it was, that certitia persons, finding no good in it to the landed inte-
rest, saw no
good in a repeal of the tax. He did not ad-
of ate it ea
any such ground—he would say th t it was
of essential importance to all the labouring classes, and
on their account alone he advocated it. Under the pre.
se their
the only good they could conferena on.e
;It: people was to cheapen their food, so as to bl
'alra to live as well upon ss. a week as they formerly
d, or
ben °Pon 10s. In no other way could they do
an the the farmer. No diminution of that tax wouldgoo do
off g°°d nor no good would there be in taking the tax
-- beer
th For the benefit of both farmer and labourer,
tb:y should be encouraged to take the labourers into
tm it hones and feed them there. In that case the most
aogrttant article of consumption would be good whole-
leightTr- He doubted if the 'louse knewwhat it was. The
-ion• Gentleman said there was a great alteration
to
betaste, and instanced the case of his own servants; but
„orlight they were wise not to take beer. In the re-
t-be''°
accthe evidence given before the House of Lords,
tb'veunt the owners of beer-houses gave of beer was,
ja gbetta Y did not mix it up as it was done by the trade
tra,h.
tThehresbaeideritfro,m the beer-shops was inferior
was generally a muddy, inferior,
and deleterious 9 article, and could not afford any nourish-
ment to too
working man. Another witness said the
Owners
brewers, who
of beer-shops were in the hands of particular
other said the
supplied them with the worst article; au-
beer was very bad but very intoxicating.
krennett.aer......aehete beer sold in beer-houses was very indiffe-
eme
much
her said, the beer sold in beer-houses
That witness than that sold in public-houses.
l
said, if the publicpublican.--(A. laugh.) Another
and, cheese, the
eclould buy beer as they bought bread
That w ee
quality. Y would have it of a much better
std of the interme& what he wanted—he wished to get
etters a reasoadling I the excise. Were not these
ti r, or the dislike of the servants of the
" veatlelzan *
beer? Could they !Nader

when they heard a brewer's account of the way in which
beer was made? Why, one of the witreises said that
it was not beer the people were drinking at all; and that
was fully evident from the fallowing list of ingredients:
It contained copperas and allum, capsicum, Spanish liquo-
rice, coculous indicus, commonly called occulus, India
berries, salt of tartar, ginger lime, linseed, and cinnamon.
I—(Great laughter.) A friend of his took much trouble
and vt e t to considerable expense in obtainining the
proper tests fur vegetable solutions. He procured some
beer, and evaporated it to a residuum, but not wishing
to taste it, he gave it to a cat—how the cat liked it he
(Mr. Drummond) could not tell, but in a few minutes
it was dead.—(Great laughter.) He kn w a town, not
far from the place where he stood (he did not mean his
own town), in which several persons obtained grains
from the brewers to feed their pigs ; all the pigs died,
and that was all he would say. How could it.be surprising,
under these circumstances, if people altered their
taste for beer ? If they chose to buy the blacking that
was sold for beer, they must take the consequences ; and
unless they gave the labourer a facility for making his
own beer he did nothing. He had at home an Eng.-
liah edition of the " Georgics," in which he found the
following paems;e :
" Be. r veniente die, beer decidente canebo"-
-(Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. BASS said the Hon. Gentleman appeared to be
acquainted with a great, many things that no brewer in
the trade was conversant a ith. If he stood there
merely as the organ of the public brewers, he would feel
it his duty to support the tax upon malt—nay, if there
was a question whether it should be removed or doubled,
he was oersuadt d that their interest would be to invite
the House to double it. He should be the last man to
impair the credit or tamper with the resources of the
country, and although he had always been the advocate
of proper reductions, he did not wish them to be carried
to such an extent as to endanger the defences of the
country. There were many grounds on which he
thought the tax on malt ought to be abolished, for al-
though he was a free-trader he sympathised strongly
with the condition of the agricultural classes, and he
was compelled to state that he believed them to
be at the present moment in a state of con-
siderable difficulty and depression, and that it
was the duty of the House to alleviate these
difficulties and endeavour to restore that class to
a state of prosperity. It was his opinion that if they
took off the malt-tax there would be certain and endur-
ing advantage to the agricultural interest. He had seen
calculations which went to show that the absolute duty
upon malt to be paid by the farmers of this country
amounted to something like 6 per cent. on the rental.
The abolition t f the tax would therefore be a relief to
that class if it went no further. But he maintained tbat
there must be a great increase in the consumption of
barley if this tax were abolished. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued in
reference to cases iu which there had been only a dimi-
nution of the duty. He granted, then, that in many
of the cases in which there had been such diminution of
duty, that act had net been followed by such an increase
in the consumption as they might have anticipated. If,
however, they tried the experiment of total abolition, he
was persuaded that it would be followed by an enormous
increase in the consumption of barley. The result of
this increase in the consumption would be an increase
in the price of barley, which was not confined to one
description of land, but might be produced upon any
land in the c eintry if properly cultivated. That in-
crease in the price, he thought, would amount to about
4s. a quarter. He was also of opinion that the least re-
duction that would take place in the price of beer to the
consumer would be about 25 or 30 per cent. The capi-
tals employed in the brewing trade were greater than in
any other business in the world. The returns of one of
the brewers in this town were a great deal larger than
the returns of sale of any manufacturer of any other
description of produce in the world. If this tax were
abolished, a competition would be created of a totally
different kind than what now existed, and he was sure
that reductions would take place to the amount of 33 or
35 per cent. He believed that it was the duty of this
House to give the labourers of this country a greater
access to their favourite beverage than they had hereto-
fore enjoyed. If the consumption of beer were not
impeded by these enormous duties, he did not
think that the people would have such re-
course to that 'slip-lop beverage of tea—(Laughter)
—that could do them no good.—(Hear, hear.)
There was an article, fur instance, in respect to which
the duty had been wholly abolished—namely, salt. The
annual consumption of it previously had been 2,000,000
of bushels; but the very next year the consumption in-
creased to 7,500,000, and the latest returns showed that
the increase had arrived at 13,500 bushels.—(Hear,
hear.) Similar results might be anticipated from the
abolition of this tax, and he considered it was the duty
of the House to make the trial. Should, however,
the House not be willing to abolish it altogether, he did
not think that they could find any excuse for refusing
t) reduce it by one-half. Looking at the great reduc-
tion that had taken place recently in the price of barley,
he was persuaded that the great brewers of this
country would feel it to be their duty to concur in
such reduction, though they might not consent to
its entire abolition. He had some reason to think
that such was the feeling of the trade, although he did
not mean to represent himself as their organ.—(Hear.)
And upon some future occasion, if this proposition be
not agreed to, he would take an opportunity of bringing
forward a distinct proposition that the amount of the
duty up m malt be reduced by one-half. We have been
taught by the experience of that great statesman whose
recent loss we all of us so much deplore, that the reduc-
tion of duty was not necessarily a loss of revenue.—
(Hear, hear.) In many instances, instead of such re-
ductions entailing a loss upon the revenue, they actually
resulted in an increase. For example, the duty on
brandy was reduced from 225. Bd., some three years ago,
to 15s. In the following year there was sery little dif-
ference in the revenue, and in the last year the revenue
derived from brandy at the reduced duty was greater by
20 per cent. than ve received from it when it was 225.
BJ. He hoped that the House would excuse him for oc-
cupying so much of their time.
Mr. M. GIBSON said there was much force in many
of the observations of•his Hon. Friend as to the mis
chievous effects produced by an excise duty like the
malt-tax upon the manufacture of malt, and also as to its
effects upon society generally in giving this dangerous
monopoly to large capitalists. But the question for our
consideration at this moment was, whether we could
conscientiously bring ourselves to the opinion that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the House had de-
cided upon the expenditure of the country, could afford
to remit an amount of revenue something like
5,000,000/. a year? His Hon. Friend the Member for
the West Riding of Yorkshire bad never proposed,
irrespective of the reduction of the expenditure, and
irrespective of other considerations, that there should be
an unconditional repeal c f the malt-tax. No; but he pro-
posed to pave the way for the repeal of the malt-tax, as
well as other taxes that pressed upon the industry of the
country, by the only practical mode it could be effected,
namely, by a large reduction of the expenditure.—(dear,
hear.) But as the House had determined to maintain
these large war establishments, he found be would be
in a great difficulty if he supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. lie
wanted to reduce the expenditure of the country so as to
relieve the agricultural and manufacturing interests of
many of those excise duties that now pressed upon
them. He had presented himself recently there as a tax
repealer, though on a more moderate scale than the lion.
Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire proposed.
He thought it would be much better to repeal the taxes
upon knowledge than the taxes upon beer. The fi st be
thought much more important, as affecting the welfare of
the country. Under these circumstances ho felt it was
his duty to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. SPOONER said the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, the duty
on malt having been lowered in 1815, in 1816, and 1817,
instead of an increase there was a decrease of the con-

sumption. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman recollec
that in 1816 the harvest was an exceedingly wet one, and
the barley consequently good for nothing; and that in
1817 there was a failing crop, and that the price greatly
increased?—(Hear, hear.) He would not confine him-
self, however, to those two years, but would take the
average of ten years. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman
recollect the bad harvest of 1821, the distress of 1822,
and the panic cf 1825, which threw the whole commer-
cial world into confusion? Taking the average of the
whole period, he maintained that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's argument could not be sustained. If the re-
mission of duties did not increase consumption, what be-
came of the argument in favour of free trade—that such
was the tendency of every reduction?—(Hear, hear.)
The present system compelled the labouring man to go
to the beer-shop instead of drinking his own ale at home.
He did not understand why they should take off the tax
on food coming from other countries, and put heavy
taxes on their own produce. He was quite astonished
at the speech which was made by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposition
to this motion; but the fact was, there were so few
Members in the House he thought he was at liberty to
say anything. He deprecated the notion of the Govern-
ment coming to their conclusions on the evidence of
theorists,n
instead of obtaining the opinions of practical
me
• Instead of the result of the experiments of the
professional men being the true one as to the advantage
of grains over every other kind of food in feeding cows, it
was well known to any persons who were, as he was, ac-
customed to visit the milk houses in the metropolis, that
where their fuod was composed two parts of grains, and
the other of any other kind of food, they gave the best milk,
and also got at;
to Smith and
if it was necessary to send them
good
meat
as any
for slaughter they were found to
be as
any other.—(Hear, hear.) It was
discovered also, in
opposition to the evidence of those
theorists, that very beer could be made of dried
barley, with a small mixture of malt. And at one time
till the beer in Edinburgh was of raw grain: the
Excise, however, put a stop to it;, so _
using his own raw
that the Government
ronmd
were actually preventing al man
eased,
a
produce in any way he p
compelling
produce malt and get beer therefrom him to
Should
of
getting the duty from him.—(Hear, hear.
, othe
not be asked to allow every man to use his own
o they
commo-
dity as ho pleased?—(llear, hear.) Th re was no
class of productiun taxed iu the sine way, and he thought
that a great case of injusice and 'Hardship had been
made out. 'I his he thought was proved to be a most
unjust and oppressive tax, and one that should speedily
be repealed, and he would therefore give his cordial sup-
port to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
the North Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. HEYWORTII considered that all such taxes
should be removed, and the expenditure of the country
maintained by a direct taxation on every individual,
from the highest to the lowest. As, however, no substi-
tute was proposed for the abolition of this tax, he could
not (as we understood) support the motion.
Mr. PACKE, in dissenting from the motion, said that
he bad ever opposed the repeal of the malt-tax, particu-
larly on the ground that it should be considered as a
mere portion of the revenue. He also had another rea-
son for opposing it, namely, Oat present 4 WAS ina*

possible for foreigners to introduce malt into this coun-
try, and that he was of opinion that if this tax were
once repealed the restriction on them could no longer be
kept up, and that then they would be enabled to com-
pete with success against the home-producer.—(Hear,
hear.) He should like, therefore, to have a pledge from
those Honourable Gentlemen who supported this motion,
to the effect that foreign malt should not be introduced
into this country free of duty. He was one of those
who would vote for the motion if he thought that such
a measure was likely to benefit the farmers; but, as ho
was of opinion that if they once rerealed the malt tax
they could not allow malt to be an exception to all other
importr, and that foreign malt would then come in duty
free, and undersell the home produce, be could not
give his support to the motion. If he thought that the
repeal of the malt tax would serve the farmers he would
rote for it, but as he thought it would have the re-
verse effect he would give it his decided opposition.
Mr. L. HODGES opporei the motion on the grounds
that he did not see how the deficiency in the Exchequer
was to be supplied otherwise than by an enormous in-
crease i❑ the property tax. He hoped yet to see an
abatement of the duty on malt and hops, but be would
oppose the motion because he thought that a total repeal
of the malt tax would press heavily on the farmer, par-
ticularly on the poor ones, by compelling the Govern-
ment t, adopt an increased taxation on property.
Mr. K. SEYMER said the regulations of the Excise
were very vexatious. It was anomalous to maintai❑ the
principle of free trade and retain these excise duties.
He thought the pressure of free trade bore so heavily on
the agricultural classes, as to impose upon them the ne-
cessity of giving them all the relief they could. The
late small mrjority of twenty was in fact a proof that it
was the opinion of the House that some relief should be
given to agriculture. Ho considered protection some.
thing more than a landlord's question. Under a system
of free import, they could only have the continental
prices of corn. It was said it was of no consequence to
the farmer whether the price of wheat was sixty or
thirty shillings a quarter, provided he produced double
the quantity. This was a fallacy, for he contended
that the farmer could never double his produce
without proportionally increasing his expenses. He
did not think that the labourers or farmers could
ever return to the old practice of brewing their own
beer, but the repeal of the duty- would make beer cheap,
and he was satisfied that beer could not be too cheap for
the people of this country, for it was a beverage abso-
lutely necessary to enable them to execute the heavy
work they had to do. It was not only necessary for
working men, but for women also, who worked hard. In
fact, ladies in their own class drank beer at their meals.
—(Laughter.) They were often ordered by their physi-
cians to do so. But whether they were or not, he knew
they drank it. It was therefore incorrect to say that the
taste for drinking beer had decreased. He would sup-
port any tax that did not press unfairly upon the agri-
cultural interest, and he could not say more. The Mem-
ber for Montrose in 1834 said that if the agricultural
classes obtained the repeal of the malt-tax they would
be content to yield the principle of free trade. Well,
he would now take the converse of that statement.—

(Hear, hear.) If the farmers from the present pres-
sure could not go to the grocer, that might not be a
reason for protection, but certainly it was one why they
should be relieved from an unfair tax. He called upon
them all, in the name of free trade, to vote for the
motion.
Mr. WILSON said, the meaning which he attached
to the phrase "free trade," was this, that duties on im-
ports should be imposed, not for the purpose of protec-
tion, but of revenue, and that their produce should go
into the Exchequer instead of into the pockets of a class.
A question had been raised as to whether the malt duty
was a tax on the producer or the consumer. Operating
as it necessarily must as a restriction on the consumption
of the article, like all similar duties, it was undoubtedly
a tax upon the producer. At the same time be must ask
what were the peculiar circumstances connected with
the malt-tax which should induce the House at this time
to repeal it, and thereby sacrifice 5,000,000/. of revenue?
The tax on malt did not operate as prejudicially as many
other taxes on articles of consumption, and its repeal
would afford but little relief to the agricultural interest,
because the anticipated increased consumption of the article
must be supplied by importations from abroad. It was said,
however, that our farmers would be able to grow more
barley in place of wheat, which could be supplied by
importation. Bat it bad been stated in the course
of the discussion that eve imported large quantities
of barley as well as wheat ; the amount of barley
imported last year being not less than a million
quarters.—(" It will not malt.") Well, a large por-
tion of the barley grown in this country would not malt.
Tt e Hon. Mover compared the tax on malt with that
which formerly existed on raw cotton, but the Hon.
Gentleman should bear in mind that the tax on cotton
was applicable to the export trade. The Hon. Mover re-
ferred also to the drawback of half the duty on soap
which was allowed to cotton and other manufacturers;
but, when beer was exported, the exporters obtained a
drawback equal to the amount of the duty on the malt
employed in the manufacture of the article. Hon. Gen-
tlemen
opposite said that a new policy had been intro-
duced—that the corn-laws had been repealed, and that,
therefore, they were justified in asking for the repeal of
the malt-tax.—(Hear, hear.) Admit the principle and
it would be impossible to stop there. What was the story
brought by every %Vest India mail? Why, this:—" By
your free-trade measures you have deprived us of protec-
tion, and therefore we have a right to be placed on an
equal footing with the home farmers, and our produce
should be admitted duty free."—(Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.) Hon. Members cheered, but did they not see if
they acted on that principle it must had to the repeal of
the Customs duties altogethe r?—(Cheers repeated.) He
could not understand those cheere, because Honourable
Members who supported the motion bad pointed to the
Customs as the source from which the deficiency of re-
venue that the repeal of the malt-tax must occasion might
be supplied. The Honourable Member for Warwick-
shire, in particular, suggested a duty on corn. What
as that but a proposal to untax beer in order to
tax bread.—(" Oh, oh I") if every article the pro-
d uce of British industry was to be imported duty
free, am House must be prepared to repeal at one fell
swoop about 32,000,000 E of annual taxation.—(" Oh!"
and laughter.) Tho tax on malt was not so onerous as
the taxes on some other articles of consumption. The
tax on malt was 57 per cent.—(".A hundred per cent.")
It was 100 per cent. on the raw barley, but only 57 per
cent. on malt.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He would
deal with the malt tax as the tsx on other articles, and
estimate its amount when the article reached the con-
sumer. The tax on malt was 57 per cent.; that on
English spirits 333 per cent.; on tea, 200; and on to-
bacco, 1,200 per cent. Under these circumstances there
was no ground for urging that the tax on malt was ex-
cessively heavy. Viewed in any light the malt tax
was undoubtedly a consumer's tax, and it must be ad-
mitted that the House was never better employed than
in reducing the burdens which pressed upon consumers
It must be admitted, too, that in the course cf the last
eight or ten years Parliament had travelled very far in
that direction. Mr. Tierney's authority had been ap-
pealed to, in order to show that an Opposition was en-
titled to vote for the repeal of any tax, without regard to
consequences; but he dissented from that doctrine, and
thought that no Member was justified in voting f,l* such
a reduction of taxation as would impair the revenue,
and endanger public credit.—(Cries of " Divide.")
He had not yet heard how the expenditure was to be re-
duced by 5,000,000/., or how the deficiency was to be
supplied, and until he saw how that was to be done, he
WAS entitled to say that a vote of that House to throw
away 5,000,0001. of revenue would be tantamount to a
breach of faith with the public creditor.—(" Oh, oh!"
and " Divider) He repeated it; and he knew no class
in this country who were so deeply interested in the
maintenance of the public credit as the working popula-
tion of this country; for the first intimation that this
vote had been agreed to would paralyze private credit,
and create such distrust in the manufacturing districts as
must end in throwing a large number of the working
population out of employment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI should have been content to give a
silent vote upon this subject had not a reference made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer permitted him to hope that the House would
excuse him for stating the reason of the vote he was
about to give. He could not consider the proposi-
tion before them to repeal the malt-tax without
taking into consideration the state and condition of
the agricultural classes of this country, inasmuch
as barley was one of the principal articles
of the produce of those classes.—(Hear, hear.)
Great and grievous as was the depression of the agri-
cultural classes, it was not, upon his side of the House,
unr xpected.—(Hear, hear.) Under the circumstances he
thought he had a right to expect from the Government
(and he was surprised that so few members of the Go-
went had spoken), before they negatived the proposition
of the Hon. Member for the North Riding, some clear
and succinct view of what they thought would be the
future condition of the agricultural classes.—(Hear,
hear.) They (the Protectionists) knew that it was one
of great distress—they had predicted that distress, and
they were prepared, if they had an opportunity, to at-
tempt to remedy it. Those on the other side of the House
had denied that this distress would occur, and yet so great
session
had been the severity that they had been obliged to ac-
knowledge it, and almost from the first drayoifstihne
g
t h t
it
they had, with the view of cheering and solacing the agri-
cultural classes been predicting and promising
was transient, and would soon pass away. Now he
wished the House to observe the conduct of those who
particularly represented the agricultural classes in that
House. Very early in the session he himself had had
the honour of proposing a measure of a remedial cha-
racter to the consideration of the House. There were
many gentlemen present who might have conscientiously
believed that had that measure been carried it would not
have produced the good effects which he anticipated;
but all would acknowledge that a very great party in
that House were not of that opinion, and that, though
that proposition was net carried, it was:negatived, in one
of the fullest Houses of the session, only by a bare.ma-
jurity.—(Hear, hear.) What was the character of that
measure. Was it of an extravagant kind? Was it of a
very unreasonable and intemperate nature? On the con-
trary, all acknowledged its moderation, and es en the Mi-
nisters who opposed it adduced as one of the arguments
against it that it was really of too insignificant a charac-
ter to effect any good object. That measure was op-
posedilr instance,
chey, the Government, and negatived by the House.
Aapggricitnuic_,latault a subsequent period, another Hon. Member—
faegmenatrind ahoner tphreepoethsietriensidtee orfemthedeyallthe House—broughtaileged
distress and suffering of the agricultural classes. In one
their attention had been called to an essentially
ral e measureassest o
Treducehey rejectedt e p e cuilti.a r
Ibnu rtdheenns
eoxn the
in-
stance they were asked to agree to a motion, the virtual
character and acknowledged tendency of which was to im-
pose a moderate duatyroen foreign agricultural produce. They
Hrejectedouse it by majority; but all that time the
theacknowledged, nevertheless, the distress and
Well, the distress still al
de-
pression ofagricultural classes.—(Hear, hear.)
and the lielsi9ll drawing $o existing, increasing in severity,
It close, azzoher proposi-

tion was made again by a Whig Member, the tendency
of which was again to relieve the suffering of those
classes. He could not consider that question upon its
mere abstract merits or demerits. He must look at it
with reference to the class on whose fortunes it was par-

titularly calculated to bear an influence.—(Elear, hear.)
After the speech which they had just heard from the
Hon.plember for Westbury, he must take a general viow
of the mode in which the taxation of this country was
produced, and he would do it in one sentence. It was pro-
duced, generally speaking, by three modes—firstly, by
duties on imports; secondly, by a system of inland taxa-
tion; and, thirdly, by a system of local contribution.
Now, there was not a single article of our imports which
could come into competition with our home agricultural
productions which was not at this moment, generally
speaking, admittrd free.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to the second source of revenue—the inland taxation—a
great portion, he might say the greater portion, was di-
rectly contributed by the land or its productions.—
(Hear, hear.) And with regard to the third branch of
the revenue—the local taxation—the whole c f it was
raised from the land and its adjuncts. Now, he asked the
House could that system go on much longer?—(Cheers.)
He said that that was a state of things that could no
longer be endured, and he must consider the propaition
now before the Helm with reference to recent legislation,
and the suffering conditicn of the agricultural classes.
It brought them to this point, that the House and the
country must decide the triuciples upon which the re-
venue c,f the country must in future be n ainly raised.
That was the point which the people of the United
Kingdom must ultimately, must even speedily decide
upon. Acknowle,lging the burden of public taxes, they
must decide whether those taxes were most grievous
when they were raised externally or int, rnally.—(Elear.)
It was a controversy, he would not say whether the fo-
reigner paid any portion of a Customs duty,—he hardly
thought that there was any gentleman who would
maintain that thesis; but it was a controversy to what
degree the foreigner might contribute to a Customs
duty. However, no one would maintain that a fo-
reigner paid an Excise duty, or that he contributed any
portion to that duty. He maintained, therefore, that in
considering the financial condition of this country they
should adopt it as a principle that all alleviation of tax-
ation should arise from the reduction of Excise, and not

Customs—(Hear)—and he must repeat th he could not
understand the chain of reasoning rf the Hon. Member
for Westbury, by which he seemed to infer that gentle-
men upon his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House were
attempting to substantiate a proposition quite the re-
verse of that.—(fiew.) The Hon. Member drew an
illustration, pursuing the same fallacious argument, from
the condition of our colonies. If there were one propo-
sition which was more generally admitted than another
it was the necessity of consolidating our colonial empire.
Now, he did not understand by what means they could
consolidate it unless they reduced to a fact the phrase
of the political economists, that the colonies of England
ought to be upon the same feting as the counties of
England.—(Hear.) But it was always said that it was
impossible to put the colonies upon the same footing
with the counties, because they did not bear the same
Excise duties. Now, if upon a late occasion the House
had directed their attention to the Excise, and
not to the Customs, they would have destroyed
that great barrier to colonial consolidation ; and,

while they relieved the distress of the people, they
would have increased the imperial strength of this
still great empire.—(Cheers.) He warned the House
against the dangerous fallacy of taking the state of the
revenue as the index of the national prosperity. He
never would admit that the state of the revenue was an
infallible or the only test. or even the principal test of
the prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But he
would say to the Government, that if they were pre-
pared to come forward and do justice to the land of the
United Kingdom, then the land could take into conside-
ration what degree of sacrifice it could make for the
common good.—(Hear, hear.) But when the Govern-
ment pursued a course which grievously injured that great
interest, with whose welfare the interests of millions
were bound up, and when the Government declared they
would offer no relief to that interest, then they forced
the Opposition to support measures of relief that, if the
Government had exhibited a different disposition, they
might not have supported.—(Cheers.) If Ministers had
said that the Government would take the present state of
the agricultural interest into its consideration, that ap-
peal, upon an occasion like the present, would have been
listened to with respect and attention. But Parliament had
now been sitting for six months ; during that time the
distress had been aggravated, but had the Government
taken one step to alleviate it ? Why, if they were a
Ministry of the Manchester school they might say,
" What you consider depression we consider prosperity;
and we regard low prices as a source cf general content."
But the Opposition faced a Ministry who, when the agri-
cultural interests complained of suffering, rose to acknow-
ledge it, but who said that higher prices were coming.—
(Hear, hear.) Now that Hon. Members around him
were going back to their counties, he wanted to know
what they were authorised to say to their constitu-
ents.—(Cheers.) He wanted to be enabled to tell them
at what point, in the opinion of the Government, cheap-
ness would become a curse.—(Cheers.) Because, if he
were able to tell that her Majesty's Ministers, while
consistently acknowledging that cheapness was the only
object that the Government ought to attempt to realise,
were prepared to recognise increased evidences of na-
tional prosperity in wheat at 20s. a quarter, then their
constituencies would be able to comprehend their posi-
tion and their chance of relict from the existing Go-
vernment.—(Cheers.) But if they found themselves in
this awkward position, that they had to meet their
suffering constituents, and to tell them that, while the
Government deplored their distress, they were sanguine
it would soon pass away, and that they would
receive remunera'ing prices; that meanwhile they
were to continue to bear the whole local
taxation of the country, with slight exceptions; that
they were to endure unrestricted competition with the
foreign producer;—then he could understand them to
say thet such a Government, sympathising with their
suffering and promising them relief, but not attempting
by their policy to accomplish that relief, was a Govern-
ment entitled to their indignant opposition.—(Cheers.)
But if, on the other hand, they were to be told that
affairs were administered by a sincere free-trade Go-
vernment, who held free trade to be the greatet.t blessing
to this country—that land was to continue to bear its
disproportionate share c f local burdens and inland taxa-
tion, and the farmers were still to meet unrestricted corn-
petition with the foreigner—if they were to be told that
there was to be no steps taken to remedy their suffer-
ings, and that the Government could hold out no hope
of relief from more remunerative prices, then he could
understand their constituents to say, " We observe
you are in opposition to a free-trade Government act-
ing on distinct principles and aiming at distinct re-
sults; such men we fear, but wo respect. In them we
know what we have to deal with—we have to encounter
in such an Administration a real and avowed
foe. The course of such a Government will neces-
sarily' be the course of men of spirit and honour.
From principle and conviction they will feel
bound to take every possible means to aggravate
our sufferings 'and to prevent a recurrence of circum-
stances likely to prove remedial to us; and unless the
Government were removed, of which we are not very
sanguine, we see nothing before us but a career of des-
pair."ththe,,cyonsusptiptuaernteedie,
sentimentsH e
was e entertained
nvnced that
b yi f
success,
Suoh was the language that would express the
sw(ifthlianugcl
the motion of the Hon. Member fur the North Riding of
Yorkshire the effect would be to bring the House to its
senses. If the motion were carriei, it would not be pos-
sible any longer for a Ministry to exist which would not
definitely announce that it was not its object not only to
perpetuate the present sufferings of the agricultural
classes, but to increase them. The • question would then
be intelligible to them; they would thus terminate for ever
a series of experiments; they would make the House, and
the Government which that House supported and created,
acknowledge their purpose, and strip away the veil
which had too long clouded their features. With theie
feelings, then, he should support the :notion, and he should
do so sustained by the sentiments of all the eminent men
who pronounced any opinion upon the corn-laws, for
they held that the abolition of the one necessarily see
quired the repeal of the other. To confirm this, he
could quote many authorities, and ho could show from
the language which they held that the country had often
been told that they must submit to the malt-tax in order
to avert an income-tax; but now they were burdened
with both. The House should consider all this, that
the agricultural interest was in a state of unprecedented
depression; that the condition of the agriculturists was
without hope; and they should consider the enormous
injustice of continuing this impost.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in one part of.the speech
of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire he told the
House that the question then before them was.. not a
party question, and that he had that night not dis-
cussed it as a party man, though the cheers with
which that remark was received might naturally have
led to an opposite conclusion. Still he accepted the sen-
timents of the Hon. Gentleman as they were stated, and
he derived great consolation from that declaration;
but there were some of the statements of the Hon.
member the influence and tendency of which were not
quite free from danger. 1 he Hon. Member placed the
land apart from and in opposition to all the other inte-
rests of the country.—(No, no, Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman certainly told the House that if the land re-
ceived just and fair consideration the owners and occu-
piers of the soil would then consider what sacrifices they
would make for the good of the community at large. In
that statement there was at least some a.mbiguity. Sup-
pose they were to repeal the sum, nearly amounting to
5,000,0001., which constituted the malt-tax; suppose they
were to repeal the rest of the :excise, to the extent of
10,000,000/., and that public credit was shaken to its
base, what consolation would any
_Government have in
being able to say that they had followed the advice of
Hon. Members on the other side of the House? He
saw, however, with great satisfaction, that the leader
of a great party in another pl ce gave an opinion op-
posed to the present motion, and said that if be were a
Member of the House of Commons he should not vote
nroduced a revenue of
for a repeal of a tax uhie
h
4,500,000/. That was the opinion L ord S tan ey—
rty. He said—
the opinion of the leader of a great pa_ n
r of the Home of
" confeis that if I were a Igemb..
Commons, I should be rather inclined to coincide with
ded-think no officer in
the latter than the former,
oppo-
sition would vote for the rernis-A-n ot a daty involving
4,500,000/. without being provided with some means by
which the deficiency might be made good."
(Pleat-.) For his own part, it was satisfactory to him to
find that the lion. Gentleman did not represent the sen-
timents of Lord.Stauley. At that late hour he should
not enter in.to the. particulars which the Hon. Member
for the North Riding of Yorkshire had given them.
There were so many particulars in his speech that there
would not be time to enter into them, but he might ob-
serve that for not less than three-quarters of a century,
namely, from the year 1775 to the present time, the
principle of the malt-tax had been recognized by Mem-
bers of that House, giad by political economists. No less a
Pail tbas 44§m Smith bad Paid OA 265, or 27i, per

quarter might be collected from malt more easily and
without so much burdening tt e community as it might
be from other articles. The Hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire bad told the House that the present policy
of the Government had proved destructive to the agri-
cultural interest, and they had also been told that the
unexampled distress of that part of the community had
token the Government by surprise. He must say that
they had not experienced any surprise whatever—he
never supposed that, in the great transition which the
country bad undergone, suffering could have been alto-
gether avoided. The Hon. Member oppositeasked, with
great appearance of triumph, whether this was a benefit
or an evil; on these points, however, he had given opi-
nions frequently upon former occasions when other op-
portunities of discussing them had been afforded; but,
considering all the circumstances of the country,
whether living under prce.ection or free-trade, he could
under no circumstances resist the conclusion that whe-
ther prices were high or low, whether they tank or
rose, the Government should never seek by the intro-
duction of an Act of Parliament to produce artificial
prices. That was a plain proposition. Whether Hon.
Gentlemen considered that prices were at present not re-
munerative to the producers of the country, or whether
they considered them generally beneficial to the country;
whether they considered them one thing or another, the
principle of legislation on the subject was a principle per-
fectly clear, and by which the Government meant to
abide.—(Cheers.) Whether prices remained at their
present level, or whether they sank below it, they would
not attempt to raise the price of the food of the people
of England.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh!") And that
was his answer to the question of the Hon. Gentleman.
He would leave prices to he regulated by the supply
of this country and of the world, and he would not inter-
fere with prices, whatever they might happen to be.—
(Eleir.) But how was the prosperity of the agricultural
interest consistent with the prosperity of all the great
interests which together formed the well-being ot this
country? It appeared to him that they were perfectly
consistent with each other. The ordinary taxes of the
country were taxes imposed for the benefit of the state.
But there were other taxes of very great amount, some
part of which went into the Exchequer, but the greater
part of which went into the pockets of particular classes
and interests, and which were a very great burden on
the people, without yielding any benefit whatever to
the Exchequer, or assisting to pay either the debt or
the establishments of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Some
of these taxes were no longer maintained, and their di-
munition tended to increase the prosperity of the people
and enabled them to bear the taxes which were abso-
lutely necessary. He would instance the case of sugar.
The diminution of the revenue from sugar was not very
considerable. But if they compared the price of the
200,000 tons of sugar consumed in 1845 with the price
of the same quantity consumed in the present year,
they would find that the diminution of the price to the
consumer in the present year was no less than
5,000,000/. But the loss to the revenue was not
5,000,0001, but much less. It was obvious then, that
when such a great diminution of taxation took place,
and when the people were enabled to consume articles
of necessity at a much less price than before, they had
the greater means cf consuming exciseable articles, and
the greater ability to contribute to the revenue of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) This result was seen that very
day in the returns of the revenue, in which they
found, that notwithstanding the diminution of taxation
that had taken place in exciseable articles, the Excise
revenue had not only increased, but the general state of
the revenue was also increasing and advancing.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers) Another proof of the ad-
vantage of the plan which the Government had been
pursuing was the return of the exports which had lately
been laid on the table. He found that while the value
ot the exports for the month of June, 1849, amounted to
4,355,7831, the exports fur the corresponding month in
1850 amounted to 5,959,9491., being an increase of no
less than 1,604,1601. on a single montb.—(Hear.) If,
again, he took the first five months of 1849, and com-
pared them with the first five months of 1850, he
found that in 1849 the value of the exports was
21,191,9731., while the value of these of 1850 was
26,027,9481., being an increase of nearly 5,000,0001. If,
again, they compared those with the exports of the same
period of 1848, they would find that the increase was
about 8,000,0001.—(Hear, hear.) What did this imply?
It implied that great numbers of people were employed
at good wages, that they were able to consume the corn
of the agriculturists and the sugar of the colonists, and
all the various articles which contributed to the Excise
and the other branches of the revenue of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) It was in vain to tell him that in a
country where manufactures were advancing at such a
pace the agricultural interest would be left behind, and
must long remain in a state of suffering.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) represented the
landed interest as if for a long series of years they had '
been falling into a state of depression, from which they
could never recover. He maintained that the reverse
was the case—(Cheers)—that in consequence of the in-
crease in the manufactures and commerce of the country,
both the owners and the occupiers of the land had been
enabled to exchange their products at a much greater
value than they formerly did.—(Cheers, and cries of
" Oh!") He regretted he had not the tables there to
prove it; but would Hon. Gentlemen who cried " Oh !"
bo good enough to look at the rent of land and the re-
turns of the income-tax for the last year, and compare
them with the returns for the years 1775 and 1790, and
then tell him that the rent of the land and the returns
received from land had not greatly increased in the
course of that time?—(Loud cheers.) And what had
been the main cause of that increase? The main cause
had been the increase of our manufactures, and the pro-
digous exertions of those who were engaged in the
trade and commerce of the country. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had asked him for the decision of the Govern-
ment upon this question. Ho begged to tell the
Hon. Gentleman that what the Government main-
tained was this, that whatever immediate loss or im-
mediate difficulties might be caused to the agricultural
interest by the great transition which was taking place
in our social laws, that loss and those difficulties would
be more than obviated by the general increase in the
prosperity of the country, and that to enable the people
to obtain their food at the cheapest rate at which it
could bo procured,'and to exchange the products of their
industry with foreign nations, would afford the best
foundation for the increased prosperity of the land.—
(Cheers.) He' believed that it would be an entirely
false and injurious policy if, like the Hon. Gentleman,
they at easpled to found that prosperity upon the princi-
ple of separating the prosperity of the land from the
welfare of the other interests of the country. He be-
lieved that the welfare of all the great interests of the
country were inseparably bound up with each other, and
that the welfare of all these great interests was that
which the Government bad consulted.—(Hear, hear.)
With these principles therefore he asked the House
not to consent to the motion of the Hon.
Member for the North Riding. The Honourable
Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had
said that they overtaxed land, and that Customs'
duties wero almost entirely rejected by them. The fact
was, however, that the Customs' duties amounte I to
nearer 23,000,0001. than 22,000,0001., which, according
to his view, was charged upon the consumer, but which,
according to the Hon. Gentleman's theory, was charged
upon the foreigner. What would he have more ?
(Hear, hear.) Even if they took the income-tax and
the local taxation of the country, of which so great a
portion was charged upon the commercial and manu-
facturing interests of the country, they would find that
there was nothing like the sum raised from those sources
that was raised from Customs' duties.—(Hear, hear.)
He did hope, then, that the House would, as they had
hitherto done, maintain that system of commercial
policy they had of late years adopted—that they would
not endanger the national credit by taking away at once
nearly 5,000,000/. of taxes; that they would not reject
the wise advice of Lord Stanley, who had declared that
if he were a Member of that House he would vote with
the Government on this occasion; but that they would
save the credit of the country and persevere in that
system which he considered wise for all the interests of
the country.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CAYLEY replied. The Hon. Gentleman con-
tended that no valid argument had been offered against
the repeal of the tax, which was only an act of justice
both to the producer and the consumer.—(Hear.)
The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion 123
Against it
Majority —124
The motion was consequently lost.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. CHAPLIN moved that the proviso to the 19th
clause be omitted.
After a conversation, in which Mr. Page Wood, Mr.
Stephenson, and Mr. Newdegate took part,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL consented, on the part
of the Government, to the withdrawal of the proviso.
Mr. TURNER and Mr. HENLEY supported the proviso.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the retention of the proviso l5
Against it
Majority —62

The Bill was Passed with verbal amendments.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the House
adjourned at Half past Two.

MARYLEBONE SAVI
WELBECK-STREET.—EstabI
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FRO
PERIODS, DURING THY LAST

On JULY 5,1844...1

Open Deposit
Accounts.

„ „ '1845 ...I

.£14,638
1f,,724
16,729
17,939
18.564
19,848
20,866
D. FINNEY, Se

:NGS' BANK,
ished July 5, 1830.
OGRESS, AT SPECIFIXII
SEVEN YEARS.

Suing invested with Na-
tional llebtCommissioners

£340,509
356,265
346,977
319,340
284,757
301,663
315,638

1846 ..
n 77 •

„ „

PP„1848 ...

f, 19 1849 •••
_ _

PP VP 1850..

:cretary and Actuary.

Dispatches were sent off last evening from the Co-
lonial-office, for the governors of the North American

colonie,.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Cured by Holloway's Oint-
ment and Pills Wounds in a Leg after more than Three Years'
suffering.—The wife of Mr. James Springle, schoolmaster, of
the town of St. Patrick, Grenada, had been suffering from an
ulcerated leg for more than three years, which was so bad that
it baffled the skill of the professional practitioners in the island,
who could not possibly heal it. After every other remedy had
failed, Holloway's Ointment and Pills were resorted to, and by
their powerful efficacy the wounds were soon healed, and a per-
fectly sound cure effected. These medicines excel all others
in the cure of scrofula or king's evil, glandular, and other. un-
natural swellings.—Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor
Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London.
Lately, as a railway train was approaching Cork,
a man was observed with his neck lying over one of the rails.
On the instant the driver sounded the whistle, the man
awoke, quickly drew back his head, and the train passed
within a hand's breadth of his face. A moment ilufaced for
the Whcie treiliigtiO4*