Star.
London, England, 1826-05-05 00:00:00

self—(di laugh.) The Moo. Gentleman accuses nu
of cousins down tq this House to increase and maintain
taxation; now, on the contrary, I have frequently had
occasion, year after year, to bless my stars, that it
fell to my lot to have the pleasure of proposing a
reduction of taxation, and since I have had the honour

to hold my present office, the annual burdens of the
people have been reduced by eight millions and a half,
though the Hon. Gentleman says they have not been
reduced ; for that though rases are nominally less, they
are in reality the same as before, on account of the dif-
ference occasioned by the change in the currency. Sir,
this is not the case: I have been able to effect a ieduc-

tion of taxes on fbreign wines. Why did I reduce them?
Because I found that the high duties diminished their
consumption. I, therefore, brought them back to the
standard of 1801 and 1802 ; or rather below it ; and
the result was, that the consumption of wines wAs in-
creased beyond even the proportion which I had anti-
cipated. I had anticipated that a loss of about
250,0001. would be occasioned to the revenue, and I

believe that, in consequence of the increased consump-
tion, that loss will not amount to so much. More wine,
therefore, has been drank, and if I have been the means
of giving to any man a bottle of wine, which he had
never been able to obtain before, I have had the happi-
ness, so far, at least. to increase the com:orts of the

people, and surely the merit of such a change, sniail
though it may be, ought not to be denied me. But
the Honourable Gentleman, Sir, conten is, because

neatly as much revenue is raised by this diminished rate

of duty, that no relief has been given to the pe ,ple.—
To me, Sir, it appears that it is contrary to all principle
to assert that the reduction of the rate of taxation gives
no relief to the peoph-, because the amount of revenue
raised was nearly as great as before. This principle of
the Hon. Gentleman is one I fed no disposition to con•
tend agains.. The Hon. Member talks of the consump-
tion of spirits having Callen off. Sir, I know it did ;
and what did I do? Why, finding the consumption of
spirits did not increrse in proportion to the increase of
the people—finding, on the contrary, that it was gra-
dually diminishing, I reduced the duty, and the con-
sumption increased. Whatever may be the full benefit
of this reduction cannot yet be known, for in this coun-
try it only came into operation on January sth of the
present year, and the Hon. Member has no tight to
draw any conclusions concerning it from Returns that
only come down to that period. Either I have misun-
derstood the Hon. Members argument, or he has mis-
understood this part of the subject; and he is quite
mistaken in saying that it has been overlooked.—
Sir, this diminution of consumption has not been over-
looked, and I endeavoured to find a remedy for it in a
I diminished rate of taxation. The Hon. Gentleman finds
fault with me, Sir, for having stated, during three sue-
eessive years—with some feelings of exultation, I admit
—that the consumption of the people was increasing,
and that the revenue had increased; but he finds fault,'
because he thinks I had no other view in making these.
statements but to express my satisfaction that a greater
amount of revenue was extracted from the pockets of
the public. But why did I lay any stress on this ?
Because, Sir, I felt a full reliance on the system we
were pursuing, and I was happy to be able to shew that
under it the condition of tit* people was improving.'
The Hon. Gentleman says that it is not, and hefounds
his assertion on drawing a comparison between the
)eriod of 1792 and the present period. 1, Sir, did not
advert to the increase of consumption, and the increase
of revenue only—l called on the House to recollect the
greatly decreased distress. I adverted to a proof more
convincing, in my opinion, than any statement of the
amount consumed—the actual condition of the country
—the absence, during these three or four years, of all
confusion, disturbance, and distress. I called, Sir, on
the Gentlemen connected with the cl,ffeient parts of the
country, to bear witness to its improved condition.—
Where there had been tumult, violence, and bloodshed,
I said there were only peaceful industry and prosperous
exertions ;. and I gave these as plain unvarnished proofs
of the condition of the country being improved. The
Hon. Gent. says there was nothing but flummery and
flourish in my statements in 1824 ; thatthe consumption
of the people was greater ; he says the same thing of my
statement last year, but those statements were true; and
what more striking proof could I give of the prosperity
of the people having increased—of their comfort having
increased, than that the consumption of all those articles
had increased, on which their prosperity, their comforts,
and their enjoyments depend ? I know no better proof
of this and I can give no other. The Hon. Gentleman
finds fault with the comparison I made this Session, of
the consumption of the year 1825, and he says this was
done with a purpose. Sir, I admit It was done with a
purpose; but with the purpose of supporting an argu-
, went, and the argument was this—The Government
and the Parliament had, since the peace, reduced
taxation very considerably; and the statement was
made to shew, by comparing the consumption of
1816 with the consumption of 1825, that under the
reduced system of taxation which was gradually
effecting, the revenue of the State and the consumption
and comfort of the people had all been increased. This,
,air, was the purpse of that statement, and on it was
founded what I thought legitimate argument. The Hon.
Member taunts me with including wool, and asks, are'
we to take this, which was a mere speculation, as • the
test of an increased comumption ? Sir, I took care not
to include wool as one of the proofs. But it happened
to stand one of the last articles on my list ; and I said
Gentlemen would excla;m, 44 Do you mean to say that
the increase is to be taken to have been at that extrava-
gant rate, as upon wool, for instance, 443'per cent.?"
I answered, certainly not, but I produce the document to
shew, notwithstanding the high rate of taxation, that
there is that progressive power of consumption in this
country which is indispensable to her greatness, and
which forms the most convincing proof of that inhe-
rent vigour which enables her to meet and overcome
difficulties the most formidable. It is this incontro-
vertible evidence which makes me rely on her strength
for the future. Was there anything extravagant in this,
anything delusive, or intended only for shew ? I say,'
Sir, there was not, and the statement by no means dew
serves the imputations the Hon. Member has attempted
to can on it. The Hon. Member has said much about
our expenditure; and we are accused of unnecessarily
augmenting particular duties, in order to be able to •
distribute offices. The Hon. Gentleman has attributed
to me all the necessities of the country ; but for these I
am not, nor cannot be responsible; but we should sacrifice
'the interests of the country, if we did not keep up the
establishments necessary for their preservation ; and, no
doubt, it would be the greatest dereliction of ducyif these
establishments were unnecessary to continue them.—
Now, after all, this Resolution refers to 1792, but how
can it so refer ? The qdestion is one of degree; and r n
this subject, the more especially, as it must be con-