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

PRUSSIA AND DENMARK.

Mr. DISRAELI—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 informatiqn,
whether they will inform the 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 Mijesty's Minister at Berlin, enclosing a copy
of a definitive treaty of peace which was signed on the
2d instant, and concluded between the King of Den-
mark on the one hand and the King of Prussia on the
other, acting in his own behaif and also on behalf of the
Germanic Confederation, and that treaty was to be rati-
fied in three weeks.—(Hear, hear.)
DI3TURBANCES 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 woull 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
,iotnahe malt-tax.differentparts of the country praying for the repeal
of
Mr. PORTAL presented a large number of petitions
from Hampshire to the same effect.
Mr. CAYLEY then rose to move for leave to bring in
a Bill to repeal the malt duties, and in doing so he 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
he 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
cleaner 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, bear.")
He was, therefore, instigated by no other mo-
tive than a conscientious conviction that in the
present depressed state of agriculture, and under the
nos el circumstances in which agriculture was now placed
by our late commercial changes, in the absence of a re-
imposition of the old system or a modified system of pro-
tection, nothing could conduce so mach to the well-being
of the agricultural interest of this country as the
repeal of that oppressive tax which he now sought to
thing in
or ,
any h e a
shape—itr . )
awastsillnelteesrs a
very
popular popular
thing when it was not only oppressive but inq iisitorial
aanbdolish—
partial,th as this tax was.—(Hear, 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-dozen gentlemen bad in-
dulged themselves at an entertainmeLt the bill was called
for, when sometimes four or five of the half-dozen were
rpeeand
oyeteo paye
or tiwt
itcheeimo sae I
way,ves, but
itwthough
never,that if mightthe
e same
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-
du-try.—(Hear.) After a long period of protection
British industry and agriculture were deprived of
that protection under which they had thriven for so
whathe a
werer:purpose)
hltohanergdeloyna imagine, that the corn-laws It
the
h eh
he
be
en
the
could
subject
stpaenrtiohdaboift ttoicaset.a—te,lifeerar'
of late enactment, and that 1815 was the period at
which they were enacted ; but it was perf, ctly well
known that no less a price for 170 years prior to 1849
was given than 48s. per quarter for wheat.—(Hear,
hear.) In 1670 that system began, and it ended in
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-
mensurate with that higher range of prices.
He mentioned that because he thought those
were circumstances under which agriculture was fairly
entitled to justice, and after that long system of protec-
tion entitled perhaps to some'hing even more than jus-
tice, and, if they required it—which they did not—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."—(Elear.) (The Hon. Member
here read an extract from Mr. Porter's " Progress of the
Nation," to show that protection watt 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 established
the system of protection.—(Hear.) Oa 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 decorous for him to
do so; but as he could name no higher authority perhaps
the House would allow him to mention the late Sir
use his malt untaxed. He would now proceed to men-
Robert Peel, who had expressed his wish that he should

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 maltaters 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 did 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
fa Dl*lll(4o4res;-
-

Former rates on soap used in the manufacture of—
Hard. Soft.
Woollen goods 2id. per lb. ld. per lb.
Flax or cotton lll ~
Silk
Linen 3d. „ 1:41. „
Amount of allowances in the year 1832, 100,2911. 7s. 3d.
From May 31, 1833, the allowance was reduced one-ball,
awl on the 15th of May, 1840, 5 per cent. added.
Present rates— Hard. Soft.
Woollen goods .. ld. per lb. id. per lb.
and 5 per cent. and 5 per cent.
Flax and cotton ......
Silk
d. ft
Linen ..
Amount of allowances in 1849, 85,2861. 17s. 7d.
Then, again, as to the duty on paper, as to which there
had been great complaints. The Hon. Gentleman here
referred to the following statement as to the

EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER.

Yeir.

Rates of Duty.

Amount of Duty
Charged.

1835. Millboard glazed paper, sheathing
paper, button board, &'.—lst
class, 1/. Bs. per cent. ; 2d class,
1/. ls. per cent
Pasteboard—lst class, 11. 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 lid. per lb 555
.942 15 7
1838. Do. ...
1883409.. All kind Dos
oof pap rDI oil
.I;er 610,290 18 0
and 5 per cent. from May 626,663 10 69
15, 1840 ...
1841. Do. Do. ...
1842. Do. Do. ...
1843. Do. ... 678,888 3 54
1844. Do. Do. ...
1845. Do. Do. ... 815,371 8 lz
1846. Do. Do.
1847. Do. Do.
1848. Do. Do. ...
1849. Do. Do. ..•
There had 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 had 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. 168., of which the Government
took 71. 4s. Bd., and yet it was said that this tax was paid
by the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) But even if it was,
were not the azricultural 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.
leed, 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.
—(Elear, bear.) 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
with Tax.
A bushel of good malt will produce 12lbs. of saccha•
rine matter, and will make 36 gallons of good whole.
some beer for the cottager's table.
With the tax off, suppose the price
of malt ... . -
Brewed at home

£368,439 1 5

790,677 9 10

4s. a bushel,
1 s. for 11b. 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.
Price of Ale, without and with Malt-tax.
In most public breweries, 321bs. of saccharine are
all >wed to one barrel of ale of thirty-six gallons, and re
;ailed of this quality by publicans at 6i per quart.
If no Tax.
Three bushels of malt at 45....
Thre) pounds of hops at Is..

... 12s.
... 33.

Total... 156,
or IV. per quart for ale instead of 61. or nearly (1. e.
within a farthing of 500 per cent.)—(Hear, 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 head.
made. bushel. bush. gal.
1730 ... 5,687,993 28,410,421 W. 6d. 5 0
1845 ... 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 *ages 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
own little cask of beer, returned from kis day's labour
and partook of his home-brewed liquor With his family.
This he can no longer do, but the de-hotises are open
and his thirst great; his family at home can afford him
nothing but water, and he is tempted to spend the best
part of his wages upon himself, which formerly was
applied to the common stock." Extract from manuscript
of Countess of Euston, 1792:—" But this is not all I
see," she added. " Let the minister tax all the luxu-
ries of life, but let him not encroach upon the subsist-
ence of the most useful part of the creation ;
but unfortunately the cry of the poor cannot
easily penetrate, stid.Athe 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 afncts 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." He 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.—(Bear, 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
had come to as to the best means of diminishing drun-
kenness was the repeal of the malt-tax.—(Hear.) He
next referred to the evidence of Mr. John Wood, chair-
man of Inland Revenue, as to the increase of consumption
of spirits, tea, and coffee, as compared with the con-
sunntion of beer._(" Hear, hear," from a Member 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 30,000,0001b5. of tea,
at about ls. 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 4s. 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.
; so that in
1808 it
the did
customs n t
exceed
re
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 196 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
duty thatfro 6 i
of .t 0 1791.
4d. Inp
elrBlou9.
h o w
Thee yL
and
the excise duty was lowered from Is. Id. to 3d. per lb
suit was—

Consumption.
1808 ... ..• 1,069,6911 b.
1809 ..• ..• 9,251,837
Increase in one year, after reduction of duties, 800 par
cent. It had not superseded the taste for malt. The
reduction of the duty on spirits had increased the con-
sumption of that article, He was now referring Par'

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 gsllons; 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.—
(Hear.) At and previous to the beginning of the 18th
century every publican in Scotland (being every man who
chose to embark in the trade) brewed his own ale, and
the resort to his house dep.:nded on the quality of his
liquor, which—when thunder or witchcraft did not in-
terfere—wss generally excellent. Toe strong ale was re-
served for holydays 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
Exch.' 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. In its stead a kind of anal 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 metro-
polis. What had been the effect in Ireland, which was
now a whisky-drinking county? In 1792, 5,000,000
bushels were consumed, when the duty was lid. per
barrel; but subsequently, when the duty was 3e. 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 coun,
tries :

England ... 9,000.000 gallons
Scotland ... ... ... 6,441,000 gallons
Irelaqd ..• 7,240,000 gallons
The incresse in England was twofold, in Scotland fis a-
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 cut 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 qu4rter of
barley to produce one quarter of malt. One planer
malt (good) equal to 961bs. saccharin•, which equals three
barrels of ale, or 321bs. gravity before fermentation. Al
low seven gallons waste for the fermentation, leaves 10
gallons for sale.
1 qr.... 101 gals. at 6d. per quart

.. £lO 2 0

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

£39 16 0

£5O 10 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
5

....£l5 10 0

... 15 10 0

£35 0 0
The spoil divided between, the Chance'ler 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 share of the maltster,
brewer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nearly 401.
(391 165.) The duty on British spirits was 6/. 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 the improve-
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 resell 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
21.. 6d. to 235. per quarter; Danish barley from 17s. to
203. per quarter; while English average barley sold at
235, per quarter, and the best English barley at 255. 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 before 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.
Shipped barley was generally inferior, from its exposure
to damp 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.—(Hear.) 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 people; 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 5,145.000/. ; from which, deducting for cost of col-
lection, and drawback allowances, 523,000/., 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
750,00C1. to the repeal of the brick duties and an alte-
ration of the stamp duties, and the other 750,0001 to
pay off a portion of the public debt. He (Mr. C.) did
notintend 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 en hop dtey, 500,0001.;
excess on the corn duty, 300,000/. ; and abolition of
the expense of the African squadron 1,000,000/.
all those items would firm together about 3,310,0001,
which, contrasted with the remitted malt duty of
4,612,700/., 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 300,000/.
or 400,000/. in the present quarter's revenue, as com-
pared with the corresponding quarter of last etear, 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 200,0004; and
believing, therefore, that the revenue of next year would
be amply sufficient, if proper steps 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 last Government—
which repea'ed 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 90,000,0001.? Can
they set 5,000,0001. of revenue against a loss they have
inflicted on British agriculture of 90,000,0001? 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 5,000,0001. of revenue can be dis-
pensed with; but 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 90,000,000/. or those
who, according to you, have gained it? Who,
then, objects on the score of 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 on this
ground, who is or was for a diminution of 13,000,0001.
in the :expenditure, whereas the outside deficiency
created by the repeal of the malt-tax would be only
2,000,000/. ? Can be 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 we 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
and producer both. Of that justice many doubted and
still 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 perilous thine to try experi-
ments upon the farmer." If peril then there he in this
course, remember it is your seeking, not ours. It is a
simple corollary to your own econonoi:nical 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

into which lobby he will go, call to mind that DloPytt:
which teaches us to do as we would be d see hY. otiool
faith! We used to be taught, year by 3 ea', by (11) to I'
from the sp-eches of th-.t illus.ri)us statesfasil'egla
specs the opinions_ and reverence she name of Alr.vdo;
Oar teacher was that eminent man but r ster ettO
M. mles.r of Vas House, whose un timely loss it s°bec
deplores. What does Mr. Burke say on this 65 1, IV
public faith? " The first credi-or of the state
eyed
plough—this original indefeasible claim superieu„°
other demand." Bet can public credit be resi`X„stic‘
endangered than through a course of oppressive iklcoi
ti
by sapping the foundaons of that stable and Perco
, toP
interest—the land, every aCr e of which, accordosto cod'
Pitt, is mortgaged to the public credit ae It isniu to
mon fairness to that great interest that I ask
peal this tax. In the name of justice as we teeth'
faith, I implore you to disregard all the stale re „00
inconvenience to the public service, of danger tc'uffrbest
credit, of peril to the Ministry—those ancientb, `"pti•A
of Ministerial resistance to every reduction of °lot'
that was over yet proposed. Above all I entrest 00
rise superior to the meanness of that Enslittlotti'
would teach you to do right only when it is cony'
de it. In the name of the largest body of produeerb
kingdom, who aro at the some time its largstw:es'/
consumers, I aljere you to redress this crying yoe'l:
to be just and tear not.—(Hear, hear.) 1 beg ;pr.)
brine in a Bill for the repeal of the malt tax•speec
Mr." CHRISTOPHER said that after the ab;le itar
which had just been delivered, and consideriegs cot'
sirable that the debate should be brought 10nottl
!vet itr elusion that evening, he would support the mot
briefly. This was the first time that he had`' 1 for'
tended to vote for a repeal of the malt-tax• .ntegcs,;
met occasion he had felt it his duty, out of de'el;ieb
the state of the revenue, and to the protection VI
agricultural interest then enjoyed, to oppose 'Witte'
sure for the repeal of this particular tax. Wht!,riseelb,l,
peal was moved in 1826, the protection then ey.llite7
the agricultural interest amounted to something.o,oo/
per cent. The average t rise of barley at that tio; lb
ti
325.; it was now onl 223. The agricultural distresi car
ixisting did not arise'io consequence of universosedbi
retition with foreign nations, but was mainly 01110
excessive production in this country.: At pre°oteetii:
former commercial policy had been abandoned, Pe,cosq
was withdrawn, and the agricultural interest wss' volt:
unprotected interest in the country. Under thel psi"
stances he thought it right that the House she° ofjof;
upon the Government applying the same measnr,e iferi
tice to the agricultural interest which they bad 6d. Ile
applied to all the other great interests of Eng° soil
could not conceive why they should subject thereillije!
the country to a depression of' 100 err cent.; cAtr
could he imagine how anyone who maintained freflets;
principles could object to the repeal of the °,,"-0 oat
He called upon the Government to grant the b..)-erf°,,'
asked for, and he also called upon the Hon. gewoolil
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to support the
toe
That Hon. Gentleman had on two occasions tetefli:
his desire to have the tax repealed. At Malle'.;itb
was reported to have said:—" We sympathise" 01°I,
farmers. We will never tolerate one shilling wibeto,l6
protection to corn, but we will co-operate with, va
getting rid of that obnoxious tax, the malt dt"hybcel,'"
owe the farmers something, and we will repay leero„'
kind."—(Hear, hear.) When the same non., wro;
man joined the Financial Reform Association, "eastotei
a letter to its chairman (Mr. Robertson Gli„ so;
at Liverpool, couched in these terms: -la efi
with regard to the excise, it may be laid cic bt .
rule, that whenever yea touch the excise &tit ebje",,
it should be totally abolished, because the grea,:iseo,ri
tion to such tax is the interference of the elvport
with the process of production, which applies veld
whether the duty be great or small. This-abed,t- fm
borne in mind if you deal with the malt te%, 'Wei"
must deal with it if you would enlist the symPstlic fOr
County constituencies on your side. To a cast" Sod'
mers,, are in favour of a repeal of the malt%talbe
upon these grounds, he was entitled to ask
of the Honourable Member for the West Ibl ader'.,
(Hear, hear.) With regard to malt being °en
us( ful for the food of cattle, he (Mr. ChristoPeroo c,
rather surprised to find that some officers of the o°:j
had thought fit to make inquiry into the subJectiaelidie
how was that inquiry conducted ? Had any i° A cr,
agriculturists been consulted ? No such Wog-
tb
was sent down to one or two chemists, ti"esl'i
Board of Excise, upon that inquiry, were thef fin
satisfied that malt was of no use whatever to wa, b°
mars of England. Many eminent men, howele-re
written upon the subject, and their opinions ,Ic;„110,.r,
titled to five hundred times the weight attachea Pi
given by the chemists.—(Hear.) If it were said they
malt tax was paid by the consumer, he would, uP 13/1;
very principle, demand the vote of the Free-trstler;erl';
he denied that it was entirely borne by the co°satingea;
, was mainly borne by the producer; and in the srer-
of that eminent man, Sir R. Peel, whose loss tbdo
all so much deploring—" it was a heavy duty %Xi!
cultural produce, and must operate disadvantage°A. 0,10;
the cultivation of the soil." It amounted to 205.8)05,
barley was 41s. 9d., and it now amounted 1° 5 tid't
when barley was only 225. If the price continne bigb ed
cline, and there was not the slightest prospect or °e osts;
price being obtained, the probability was that h Tli'
would approach to something like 100 per cee"t As',
only argument against the repeal of the "iv-earl
that the revenue of the country would not
but the Hon. Mover had stated his willingness
‘',"tig Ord
time for the repeal to come into operation. Fin"-,.00,
there was no disposition to afford the suffering f'°-
er)
elf
the community any relief, he (Mr. Christen!' „also
himself justified in demanding the repeal of this '0 the
tax, and leaving it to the Right Hon. Gentle ;or/
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to supply the deft Lord
which its repeal might create. Ho believed, wieinaticii/i
G. Bontinck, that if they adopted more of the "'lie
policy of Mr. Pitt, and less of the financial "P°he tea
modern economists, a sufficient revenue wouki,,,- olio'
lised. He could not believe that the credit of t"" sot:
try would be affected by the repeal of the tab, err thy
substitute could not be found, seeing that no felle, Al,
,
30,000,000/. of taxes had been repealed since °Rob',
He held with Fox, that " excise duties were int° al/111",
except on grounds of public necessity," and tbaSoeiti',"
better to levy taxes on a foreigner than upon tb°
producer or consumer. Believing that the agrie°',3" esir
ought to be placed on an equal footing with th Betio
fecturers, he had much pleasure in seconding theyttettge,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEIi
he should best consult the wishes_ of the House ""clalyoJvl,
frained from following his Hon. Friend (Mr; estr°, through all the topics embraced by his able spaie.-1 ki
iuhg speech; otherwise it would be quite imposso-ecleS,
t e debate should close that night. His Hon. ld 00'
drew such a picture of the blessings which w°11,0301;
from the repeal of the duty to every class of the eiiorsir
nity that he felt really sorry to destroy the a I':
which he had placed before their e•is. TheY t",e
ready bad convincing proofs of the c3onsequencey cry;
reduction of the duty on malt and barley. Vq`iart°:
once to the speeJh of the Hon. Member who lieu.' :It Ye,
down, he might observe that in his short statetten-aft,ft
had made two mistakes. He stated that the 0
turers were protected whilst there was no prote°,l-1016,
agricultural produce. His Hon. Friend might "snit!):
membered a paper, printed this year on the motiollf"asti
Hon. Member for Montrose, showing the amount 0,1 pr();
levied on imported agricultural and manufacturer" clel/t
duce, from which it appeared that the amount tbol
levied on foreign agricultural produce exceederarlegl
rai ed on foreign manufactures. Again, his flon."110'
enlarg,,d on the hardship inflicted on the agrietl,est!'
by not allowing him to grow beetroot for the "'dill:
facture of sugar; but if the agriculturists did not -feel':
vete beetroot for that purpose it was their owneeS;
and not that of the law. His Hon. Friend had I,6ictori,,
great deal of unnecessary trouble to prove by
that protection was maintained in this country' Ph-oty
muchth for the benefit of the agriculturists as for
manufacturers, and he thought it necessary :lois%
dice mete the agricultural body from the charge 0
actuated by interested motives. Now, he had.vel,l,-1.
etioti
puted to them selfish motives in maintaining protest,
to be
differed from them, but had always belieVed hie°
mibhetactuated by a desire to pursue that policy Wt. s$
most conduce to the benefit of the countrefio
laurggaev; but the opieion of political economists thetlhofs
it our of protection. He might be allowed Per;atte6
for one moment, to refer to the subjecht of etrbest"Eteir,
on wool, in which he had taken'
hish connexion with the West much interest
ofe if'oo
s shire. In 1842, he had moved fornga reuo:lelf,
of the duty on wool, and in 1844 it was ultitt-tteto
repealed, and no one would deny that no such
lee
benefit had ever been conferred on the British Prr,„" tb,°,
—(Hear, hear.) He would now confine himselrfteeP
question
come.pofnthe repeal of the malt tax. It woul"ngce!
rMembers to weigh well the consecntieag
regarded This could not beesarletg
which would.
ing at the opposite benches be the course they advrraor
leaders of that--
case such a party would bebanemp aefreutlgyt
sults stohstuieor
leads
ta nttboaat a:e;o:
Lord Stanley, within the lastoote
or three mornetPhesa,l'had declared most emphatically', 51d
whether in the Government or in opposition, be W-00
breestisotunthde, repeal of a tax for which no bstitute ci,g9lo
and the benefit of which repeal be tk°lol
very equivocal. Neither could he persuade himself! et'
the
tflton. Member. for Bucks would lend it his Wire,. 00
urgedvv What would become of the objections which bad PIO
leave
against a Chancellor of the Exchequer who Ob°oo
himselfwould
ct without a sprplus? Nothing could beeepbet
become
to announce prospective reductions. "011
of those gentlemen who had barleyo "t 1
this year if promises of reduction were made for tbetirertl-if
Hoe. Members talked of the bugbear of national °we°
and the bugbear of national establishments. That ' a
rwehgeatrhderthtehme reflecting
a very convenient term to use, but he very much don old
arton of the community..ffseq
as mere bugbears. As far as be no'scel
hwyashciaonucerned he should be very happy to be rell'-ole
Friend who, he hoped, when be o°,o
comedona.to propose the repeal of the malt-tax, wi,'"ielt
be prepared with a substitute, for the suggestion vi"„es'
ho tea's made would not produce.. one fifth of the. noon
sat,' amount. Able and ingenious as he was, his do 0'
Friend would no doubt be able to devise some mods for
ineoitmaintainingl the public faith. The Hon. Member
L lade
system e
Lincolnshire would no doubt recommend a return "tle
Ryam of import duties; but whether he could perstklas
the eHouse to adopt his views was another matter. the
Lion. Gentleman said that there was a falling off in the
returns
of malt, owing to the duty. If, however' re'
of periods of ten years antecedently to the ,
sent year were examined, it would be found that "tbe
wasrdnot the case. By the evidence taken before
00
Lo _s' Committee on the sale of beer—a mass of °i
auseful information—these facts appeared:—The °orb
u
mption of malt was, in the three periods of ten Y—
preceding, as follows:-
1820-1830 the average was 26,800,000 bushel°
1830-1840 34,000,400
1840_1850 19 31,700,000 19 Of
Ths Hon. Gentleman further said that the falling-'''f
fo-
the consumption was caused by the importation ?t be
reign grain; but the last three or four years wow' .013
found to show a steady increase. The ovniUtar
was, in

1847... ... 31,200,000 bushels.
1848... ... 30,200,000 „
1849... ... 33,160,000
This increase, 0,, was in the face of a steady and gra-
dual increase in the importation of foreign grain. The
answer was, therefore obvious, that the importation of
foreign corn did not influence injuriously th 4 consump-
tion of malt. The Hon. Gentleman had attributed the
decreased consumption of beer to the malt duty, as well
as the increased consumption of other liquids. This,
however, was in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's)
opinion 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
aware of the great diminution that toLk place in his own
family in the consumption of malt liquors, and of the in-
crease in the consumption of tea, toff e, and cocoa. The
810ae proposition held good as regarded the great bulk
of the working classes of the country; aid in his opi-
nion the change was a salutary one, lißferring to the
tables furnished in the report of the Lords' Committee,
he found, taking the consumption of 1839, and cAnpar-
„int'', it with that of last year—a period of ten years—a
"nit g-off of about 1.000,000 bushels of malt annually.
The consumption was in
1839... ... 39 930,000 bushels.
1849... 38,935,000 „
Bat the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa in that
period had increased enormously, viz.—
Tea from ... 35 000,000 to 50,000 0001bs.
Coffee ... 26,000,000 34,000,000
Cocoa ... 1,600 000 3,200,000
The consumption of spirits had also fallen off in about
the same proportion within these last 10 years—namely,
about 1,000,000 gallons annually. So likewis3 with the
consumption of %hies, which was in

1839 ... ... 7,000,000 gallons.
1849 ... 6,240,000 o
The result of this comparison was, that the consumption
of all intoxicating liquors had fallen off within the last
10 years, while the consumption of all liquors which
This
he not intoxicating had considerably increased.
he loiked upon as anything but an unsatisfactory result,
because in his opinion, it contributed to the advantage
of the working classes. It was a convincing proof that
this decrease was not owing to the height of the duty
on them—especially upon malt liquors—in compari-
son with the cost of the article, for the duty on malt
approached in nothing to that levied upon tea or
Upon coffee, the articles that most entered into
competition with it for consumption. The Honourable
Gentleman argued that if the duty was taken off malt
the consumption of beer would be increased to an unli-
mited extent, and he referred, in proof of his proposition,
to the increased consumption of tea, coffee, and other
articles upon which a similar reduction had taken place.
Ile (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not deny that
the reduction in the case of these articles had increased
their consumption; but he insisted also that it was owing
likewise, as he said before, to the changed habits of the
ere°Ple• A much better criterion, however, of the pro-
vosition as to the increase in the consumption of beer,
through a reduction in the duty on malt, existed in the
returns of 30 to 35 years since, when the war duty upon
Malt was reduced as well as the beer duty. It as
stated before the Lords' Committee that, taking the war
tax
duty and the beer duty together at that period, the
'Mc amounted to about 755. 2d. per quarter upon malted
corn for the stronger beer, and about 60s. per quarter for
the weaker. The existing duty on malt was 20s. BJ. per
o(Planer. But though a reduction of duty to the extent
f nearly 60s, per quarter in the one of these instances,
ItLid 40s, per quarter in the other, had taken place since
!rot the consumption of beer had not increased. If
rat were the fact, what effect could the further reiuc-
sloe of 20s. Bd. proposed by the Hon. Gentleman be sup-
Posed to have in the way of increasing the consumption
of beer? The evidence of Mr. Barclay, the eminent
"rewer, taken by;the Lords' Committee, was, howeverecon-
elusive on this point. He admitted that the total repeal
of the malt tax would make a slight increase in the con-
antription but instead of benefiting the consumer to the
a2ttent of 500 percent., as the Hon. Gentleman stated, he
klaid that the utmost reduction in the price of beer would
"a from
•p r quart, which it was at present, to 3d.,
er,°ll° halfpenny. But a e experiment of taking off the
th
ey on malt and putting it on again had been tried, and
°se were the results:—ln 1816 the duty was 4s. 6d.
r
Pe bushel, and the average annual consumption in three
Years was 25,000,000 bushels. In 1817 the duty was
reduced to 2.2. 6d. per bushel, and the average fell to
22,000,000 of bushels consumption • while in 1819, when
e duty was again raised to 3s. Id. per bushel, the con-
sumption rose to 25,000,000 of bushels. This showed
Tthat a diminished consumption followed a reduced
he --at least, in the instance quoted.—(Hear.)
teatHonourable Gentleman seemed to think
eat it was monstrous the duty should be paid by the
roducer; but the Committee of the other House of Par-
bimaillqut, appointed t. inquire into the burdens on real
Property, had come to the conclusion that the duty fell
f, general tax on the consumers of the article. If the
~"rnaers and labourers were benefited, the consumers
ruld therefore be equally benefited by other reduc-
Ctl4 but then came the question whether this should
di he article. On that head Lord Stanley said that he
W't liot believe the reduction on this particular tax
de old be the best mode of applying relief. The evi-
eee of Mr. Barclay was to the effect, that no great
eoent would be produced in the way of benefit to the
eenanmer by the total repeal of the malt duty, while a
loll; would accrue to the revenue. The Hon.
rntleman had quoted the opinion of Mr. Elman as re-
ded the benefit derivable from a reduction of the malt
t; but that gentleman had, at a mewing in Sussex on
ti'll; 'subject of agricultural distress, moved a resolution to
per elleet, that, it foreign barley was allowed to enter at I s.
othequerer, the benefit which the British farmer would
eso„l,wise receive from the repeal of the malt-tax
go entirely to the foreign grower. The Hon.
umber for North Lincolnshire, however, stated in the
duce aie Of the debate that that the malt-tax sboud be re-
andt lc, as a protection against the foreign grower,
(I,that a duty should be placed on foreign barley. He
Chanceller of the Exchequer) hat shown that no
au: benefit could arise to the producer or to the con-
greater from ti .e repeal of the malt-tax. If, however, no
.se befit
arose from it, and if its aiventsges would
*4l least only panial equ:vocal, was it right to
alors2e,el,4rge a revenue ands ,000,0001. per annum, and
to th' "i•h it, whatever the Hon. Gentleman might say
blothe contrary, the public faith, and the national (sta-
ll, e meets? The Hun. Gentleman knew that it was not
0ne:1.837,4) impose a new tax, or even to retain the old
seou-i'd"ow. then, would he provide fur results which
cieoe endanger the credit of the country and the effi-
wo_ ,T.f its institutions ? By taking off the tax they
Violet': incur
Theegat risk without any corresponding ad-
ieu' ge- benefit would be but slight and partial,
el
under these circumstances he thought he might
seating call upon the House to concur with him in re-
leid. g the motion of the Hon. Member for the North
Riding.
fir, Dive
effect f MMOND said when they remembered the
te_ the first enactment of the excise-laws, and that
pureoYdzroluced a convulsion scarcely less violent than that
that thed by
the ship money—when they remembered
FueY were constantly and repeatedly denounced by
x and Mr. Grey in that House during the whole
contmeao
they
she of of their operation—he was surprised that
henould have heard so great a panegyric from the
theirjegtlloc- Gentleman the Chancellor of tbe Exchequer
merit favour, According to him they contained every
of e •
bare a fiscal regulation—facility of collection, pres-
treethirm nobody, an immense mass of moneyewith little
blessed--in short, there was not a single advantage these
ae
it excise-laws did not possess.—(A. laugh.), He felt
rZttinntsch the impropriety of interfering with the arrange-
tido the Government that he
should
not venture to
the th part h 3 was about to do without, at
cello same e
time, offering a pledge to the Char,-
_n
other of the Exchequer to give him his support for
oher tax he pleased to lay or.—(Laughter.)
she like to see him muster courage enough
to
e_(ra a tax on the Manchester manufacturers
Gentle
the h r, hear, and laughter.) Oh, no, the Right Hon.
he man was obliged to pay attention to the shakes of
those
ad he saw there, but he could afford to despise
of the agricultural body—(Hear, hear)—to whom
the question was a matter of quite as much importance
411
estio he n
repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) The
qu
With Was was, he believed, the real test of the honesty
u
whtich the repeal of the corn-laws was carried.
ale it rel on account of the labouring classes?—
t::, hear.y ) Was it indeed in order to give cheap food
to people, or was it solely to get rid
of so much cot-
ton manufactures?—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") The
resent question would bring them to the test. It had
been thrown out too much as if the question was some
way or another connected with the landed interest.
When they spoke of the
manufacturing interest, there
was the merchant who satnhde raw material, the
manufacturer who convertePdPitt
thesteheoperative whom
he employed. The interests of
not, however, altogether identical. it three parties were
..sawr.tt the interest of
the merchant to sell his cotton it was theanindtei-
rest of tie manufacturer to buy s't
eras the interest of the operative to. get his wagpes; whollyh
as he could, and all these three interests were
different. So it was with land.—(Hear, hear.) If th,
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
certain persens, finding no good in it to the landed inte-
rest, saw no good in a repeal of the tax. He did not ad-
vocate it on any such ground—he would say that it was
of essential importance to all the labouring classes, and
uu their account alone he advocated it. Under the pre.
slut circumstances the only good they could confer on
„ people was to cheapen their food, so as to enable
Lair to live as well upon ss. a week as they formerly
ben upon 10s. In no other way could they do good, or
anfit the farmer. No diminution of that tax would do
Weld; nor no good would there be in taking the tax
tlae beer For the benefit of both farmer and labourer,
4e. Y lhould be encouraged to take the labourers into
housesi.,..._o, and feed them there. In that case the most
. ant article of consumntion would be good whole-
epme
beer. He doubted if the House knewwhat it was. The
gut Hon
Gentleman said there was a great alteration
in taste, !and instanced the case of his own servants; but
Pert of they were wise not to take beer. In the re-
Pert of he
-
the e evidence given before the House of Lords,
tha-taFeount.the owners of beer-houses gave of beer was,
is theY did2aot mix it up as it was done by the trade
general.
trash. Another
beer from the beer-shops was inferior
and deleterious
r said it was generally a muddy, inferior,
meat to the s article, and could not afford any nourish-
brewes worleing
of beer-man. Another witness said the
re, who shops were in the hands of particular
said the
other tepplied them with the worst article; an-
A.nother-ethe -
ear was very bad but very intoxicating.
berer sold in beer-houses was very indiffe.
_as macirtn said, the beer sold in beer-houses
That witnessworse than that sold in public-houses.
said, if eq._
the Nor a publican.—(A. laugh.) Another
and cheese Public could buy beer as they bought bread
the
quality. Tja eY would have it of a much better
at was
f the intern:le
rid •
ddlYilist he eanted—be wished to get
litnitawers a reason foing °f
the excise. Were not these
14,442.
~e r the dislike of the servants of the
°UN :Ilan
to beer? Cald they nicader

when they heard a brewer's account of the way in which
beer was made? Why, one of the wituesses said that
it was not beer the people were drinking at all; and that
was fully evident from tt e following list of ingredients:
It contained copperas and allum, c.ipsicum, Spanish liquo-
rice, coculous indicus, commonly called occulus, India
berries, salt of tartar, ginger lime, linseed, and cinnamon.
—(Great laughter.) A friend of his took much trouble
and we t to consideruble expense in obtainining the
proper tests for vegetable solutions. He procured some
beer, arid evaporated it to a residuum, but not wishing
to taste it, Le 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 stoc,d (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 hsd at home an Eng..
lish edition or the " Georgics," in which he found the
following passage :
" Be ,r veniente die, beer dccidente canebo"—

—(Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. BASS said the Hon. Grntl. man appeared to be
acquaint, d with a great many things that no hie xer in
the ti ale was conversant w ith. If he stood there
merely as tt.e organ of the public brewers, he would feel
it his duty :o support the tax upon malt—nay, if there
was a question whether it should be removed or doubled,
he was persuad' d tbat their interest would be to invite
the Howe to double it. Ho sh,)uld 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 extant as to endanger the detentes 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 f the tax would therefore be a relief to
that class if it went no further. But he maintained that
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 cat.es i❑ 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 nct 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 ,untry if prop rly 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. Ile 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, for instance, in respect to which
the duty had been wholly abclished—namely, salt. The
annual consumption of it previously had been 2,000,000
of bushels; but tf e 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 r 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 eansent 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 °cession, if this proposition be
not agreed to, he would take an opportunity of bringing
forward a distinct proposition that the amount of the
duty upon 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 instaeces, instead of such re-
ductions entailing a loss upon the revenue, they actually
resulted in an increase. Fee example, the duty on
brandy was reduced from 225. 83., some three years ago,
to 15s. In the following year there was I ery little dif-
ference in the revenue, and in the last year the reveLue
derived from brandy at the reduced duty was greater by
20 per c, n'. than a e received from it when it was 225.
84. He hoped that the House would excuse him for oc-
cupying so moth of their time.
Mr. M. GIBSON said there was much force in many
of the observations of his Hon. Friend as to the mis
chirvous 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 momet,t 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
5 000,0001. a year? His lion. Friend the Member for
the West Riding of Yorkshire had never proposed,
irrespective of the reduction of the expenditure, and
irrespective of other considerations, that there should be
an unconditional repeal cf 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.—(liear,
hear.) But as the House had determined to maintain
these large war establishments, he found he would be
in a great difficulty if he supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. He
wanted to reduce the expenditure of the country so as to
relieve the agricultural and manufacturing interests of
many of the se 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 at he
thought much more important, as affecting the welfare of
the country. Under these circumstances he 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 recollect
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 of 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-
cei,sion 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.
lie did not understand why they should take off the tax
on food coming from other countries, and put heavy
texes 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 ho thought he was at liberty to
say anything. Ho deprecated the notion of the GoVern-
ment coming to their conclusions on the evidence of
men
theorists, instead of obtaining the opinions of practical
r fe. s s
iloensat el amdeonf
beingthe h
t resulten
t vofe
onethe a
experiments
to thed g
a advantage
t at h ee
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 foodwas composed two parts of grains, and
the other of any other kind of food, they gave the best milk,
toand also got Smithfield-13:atAX:
t if it was necessary to send them
be as good meat as t for slaughter they were found to
!aoodsition to the evidence of those
theorists, that very
discovered also, in opposition any other.—(Hear, hear.) It was
beer could be made of dried
barley, wilh a small mixture
of raw grain: the
all the beer in Edinburghwot(ts;nsmsaadlte.
froomthant
.the Government
And at one limo
Excise, however, put a stop to
rhee mg him to
were actually preventing a ai,n
) aoounru se of
produce in any way he pleased, and compelling hisli own raw
produce. malt and get beer therefrom for
getting the duty from him.—(Hear, hear.
not be asked to allow every man to use his own they
commo-
dity as he pleased?—(Hear, hear.) Th, re was noote
class of production taxed in the same way, and he thought
that a great case of injusice and hardship had been
made out. 'lhis he thought was proved to be a most
unjust and oppressive tax, and one that should speedily
be repealed, and he would tLerefore give his cordial sup-
port to the motion of his Hen. Friend the Member for
the North Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. HEY‘VORTH 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 fur the abolition of this tax, ho could
not (as we understood) support the motion.
Mr. PACKS, 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
mere portion of the revenue. He also had another rea-
son for opposing it, timely, that at present jt, yip 411.

possible for foreigners to introduce malt into this coun-
try, and that he was of opinion that if this tax were
once rcpt aled the restriction on them could no longer be
kept up, and that then they would be enabled to com-
pete with euccess 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 he
was of opinion that if they once repealed the malt tax
they could not allow malt to be an exception to all other
itrapooF, and that f_rreign malt would then come in duty
free, and undersell the home produce, he could not
give his support to the motion. If he thought tbat the
repeal of the malt tax would serve the farmers he would
vote for it, but as he thought it would have the re-
verse effect he would give it his decided opposition.
Mr. L. HODGES opposei the motion on the grounds
that he did not see how the deficiency in the Exchequer
wag to be supplied otherwise than by an enormous in-
creae in the property tax. He hoped yet to see an
abatement of the duty on malt and hops, but he 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, 1)7 compelling the Govern-
ment t r adopt an increased taxation on property.
Mr. K. SEYMER said the regulations of the Excise
were very vexatious. It was anomalous to maintain the
principle of free trade and retain these excise duties.
He tbuught the pressure of free trade bore so heavily on
the agricultural classee, as to impose upo❑ 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. He considered protection some-
thing more than a landlord's question. Under a system

of free import, they could oily have the continental
prices of core. 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, bet 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 i►. 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. lie 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 tbat 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 he 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 5,000,0001. 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 li.tle relief to the agricultural interest,
because the anticipated iccreasedconsumPtion 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 had been stated in the course
of the discussion that we 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.
TI 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
draw back 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 tha►,
therefore, they were justified in asking for the repeal of
the malt-tar.—(Hear, hear.) Admit the principle and
it would be impossible to stop there. What was the story
brought by every West 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 h ad to the repeal of
the Customs duties altogether?—(Cheers repeated.) He
could not understand those cheers, because Honourable
Members who supported the motion had pointed to tho
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. Wr.at
eas that but a proposal to un!ax beer in order to
tax bread.—(" Oh, oh!") If every article the pro-
duce c f British industry was to be imported duty
free, ti e House must be prepared to repeal at ore fell
swoop about 32,000 000/. of annual taxation.—(" Oh!"
and laughter.) The tax on molt was not so onerous as
the taxes on some other articles of consumption. The
tax on malt was 57 per ceat.—(" 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 tax on other articles, and
estimate its amount when the article reached the con-
sumer. The tax on malt was 57 per cmt.; 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-
cessivtly 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 if the last
eight or ten years Parliament had travelled very far in
that direction. Mr. Tierney's authority bad 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 fir 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 5,000,0001., 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 ll,ruse to throw
away 5,000,000/. of revenue would be tantamount to a
breach of faith with the public creditor.—(" 06, oh!"
and " Divider) Ile 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.) ender 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
cf 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.—(He ir,
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
had been the severity that they bad been obliged to ac-
knowledge it, and almost from the first day of the session
they had, with the view of cheering and solacing the agri-
cultural classes been predicting and promising that it
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
tho 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
behaved 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 ni t carried, it was:negatived, in one
of the fullest Houses of the session, only by a bare ma-
jority.—(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 even 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-
posed by the Government, and negatived by the House.
Again, at a subsequent period, another Hon. Member—
a gentleman on the other side of the House—brought
forward another proposition to remedy all the alleged
distress and suffering of the agricultural classes. In one
instance, their attention had been called to an essentially
practical measure to reduce the peculiar burdens on the
agricultural classes. They rejected it. In the next in-
stance they were asked to agree to a motion, the virtual
character and acknowledged tendency of which was to im-
pose a moderate duty on foreign agricultural produce. They
reject edit
ed t by a large majority; but all that time the
House acknowledged, nevertheless, the distress and de-
pression of the agricultural classes.—(Hear, hra,r.)
Well, the distress still existing, increasing in severity,
end the session (halving to a close, another propos).-

Lion 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 cla,s on whose fortunes it was par-
ticularly calculated to bear an influence.—(flt ar, hear.)
After the speech which they had just heard from the
Hon.lMember for Westbury, he must take a general view
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 int ) competition with our home agricultural
productions which was not at this moment, generally

speaking, admitted free.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to the second source of revenue—th© inland taxation—a

great portion, he tnightsilYTTe greater portion, was di-
reedy contributed by the land or its productions.—
(Hear, hear.) And with regard to the third branch of
the revenue—the lot.al taxation—the whole cf 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 proposition
DOW before the House with rs ference to recent legislation,
and the suffering condition of the agricultural classes.
It brought them to this point, that the House and the
country must decide the principles upon which the re-
venue of 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. Acknowledging the burden of public tax,,s, they
must decide whether those taxes were most grievous
when they were raised ext really or internally.—(Hear.)
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 wha'
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 that he could not
understand the chain of reasoning of 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.—(fleas.) 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 footing as the counties of
England.—(Hear.) But it was always raid 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-
meat pursued a eourse which grievonsly.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 t) their counties, he wanted to knew
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 ne-
tt onal prosperity in wheat at 20s. a g ratter, then their
constituencies would be able to comprehend their posi-
tion and their chance of relief 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 di,trcss, they were sanguine
it would soon pass away, an.i t' at they would
receive remunerating prices; that meanwhile they
were to continue to bear the whole kcal
taxation of the country, with slight exceptions; that
they sere to endure unrestrict d competition with the
foreign producer;—then he could understand them to
say that such a Government, sympathising with their
suffering and promising teem relief, but not attempting
les their policy to accomplish that re lief, 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 greatest blessing
to this country—that land was to continue to bear its
disproportionate share e f local burdens and inland taxa-
tion, and the farmers were still to meet unrestricted com-
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 pricer, 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 we 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.
evearnyd
pocsosnivbilcetiomneantshetyo
awgi
gilravfaeteel
Fbortionmd tporintackipele
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 a,e not very
sanguine, we see nothing before us but a career of des-
pair." Suoh was the language that would express the
sentiments entertained by the constituencies of England.
He was convinced that if they supported, with success,
the motion of the Hon. Member for the North Riding of
Yorkshire the effect would be to bring the House to its
nses. If the motion were carrie 1, it would not be pos-
sible any longer for a Ministry to exist which would not
de finitely announce that it was not its obj. ct not only to
[erpetuate the present suff,riags 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 these
feelings, then, he should support the motion, 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 re-
quired the repeal of the other. To confirm this, he
could quote many authorities, and he 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 Home 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 lie told the
House that the question then before them was not a
[arty question, and that he bad 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. the 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 fur the good of the community at large. In
dm statement there was at h est some ambiguity. 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
10,000,0001., 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 (Vier side of the House? He
saw, however, with great satisfaction, that the leader
of a great party in another piece gave an opinion op-
posed to the present motion, and said that if he were a
Member of the Islou-e of Commons he should not vote
which produced a revenue of
for a repeal of a tax
4,500 0001. That was the opinion of Lord Stanley—
Art . He said—
the opinion of the leader of a great p y
" I con'etts that if I were a Member of the House of
Commons, I should be rather inclined to coincide with
the latter than the former, and think no officer in oppo-
sition would vote for the remissi.,n of a duty involving
4,500,000/. without being provided with some means by
which the deficiency might be made good."
(Hear.) For his own part, it was satisfactory to him to
find that the Hon. Gentleman did not represent the sen-
timents of Lord Stanley. At that late hour he should
not enter into the particulars which the Hon. Member
for the North Riding of Yorkshire had given thsni.
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, and by political economists. No less a
Me,IS Sim Adam had paid that 260. of 270, per

quarter' might be collected from malt more cattily and
without so much burdening tt e community as it might
be from other articles. The Hun. Mt mb for Buck-
inghamshire bad t >ld 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
taken 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 had undergone. suffering could have been alto-
gether avoided. The Hon. Member opposite asked, with
great appearance of triumph, whether this was a benefit
or an evil; on these peieti, however, he bad 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 protection or free-trade, ho 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 Englsnd.— (Cheers, and cries of "Oh I") And that
was his answer to the question of the Hon. Gentleman.
He would leave prices to ho regulated by the supply
of this country and of the world, and ho would not inter-
fere with prices, whatever they might happen to be.—
(Hear.) But how was the prosperity of the agricultural
interest consistent with the prosperity of all the great
interests which together formed the well-being of 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.
Bet there were other taxes of very great amount, some
Fart of which went into the Exchequer, but the greater
part of which went into the pockets of particular classes
and interests, and which wore 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-
inanition 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
5,000,0001. 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 bad
the greater means of 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
of the exports for the month of June, 1849, amounted to
4,355,7831, the exports for the corresponding month in
1850 amounted to 5,959,9494 being an increase of no
less than 1,604,1601. on a single month.—(Hear.)
again, he took the first five months cf 1849, and com-
pared them with the first five months of 1850, he
found that in 1849 the value of the exports was
21,191,973/., while the value of these of 1850 was
26,027,9481., being ac 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 !"
be 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 fur the years 1775 and 1790, and
then tell him that the rent of the land and the return.;
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. He begged to tell the
Hon. Gentleman mat 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 be procured, and to exchange the products of their
industry with foreign nations, would aff Id the best
foundation for the increased prosperity of the land.—
(Cheers.) He beieved that it would be an entirely
false and injurious policy if, like the Hon. Gentleman,
they at eesptel 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 had 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 were almost entirely rejected by them. The fact
was, however, that the Customs' duties amounte 1 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 ?
(Hoar, 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 5,000,0001. 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. Newlegate 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 SAVINGS' BANK,
WELBECK-STREET.—Established July 5, 1830.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PROGRESS, AT SPECIFIED
PERIODS, DURING THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

Open Deposit
Accounts.

Sums invested with Na-
donut Debte ommissioners

On JULY 5,1844-1

•
„ „ 1845 ...I
ff ft 1846 ...
" 1847 •••
" " 1848. ”
1849 ...
„ „ 1850 ...

£14,633
15,724
16,729
17,939
18,564
19,848
20,866
D. FINNEY, So

£340,509
356,265
346,977
319,340
284,757
30 ' ,663
315,638

;retary and Actuary.

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

EADVERTISEMENT.]—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, qu'ckly drew back his head, and the train passed
within a band's breadth of his face. A moment luteed fir
the yfhplo trouuctiva.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

THURSDAY, JULY 4.
lIOIIE-MADE SPIRITS IN BOND BILL.

Order for Second Reading read ; Motion made, and Ques-
tion proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at
the end of the question to add the words " upon this day three
months :"—Question proposed, " That the word 'now' stand
part of the Question :" DOA e arising; Motion made, and
Question put, " That the Debate be now adjourned." The
House divided:—