Star.
London, England, 1819-06-19 00:00:00

tom in the Represents-6004 that House,
and
be screed with him in wishing that the People
tore tairlv represented ia it. •
1.. )UGHAM•said, that it had been
Lord (Compton) that if we had
Tau .:v proposed, we must have the Property
Tax; tn 4: we must have taxes on the poor or
on the rich; but there was another alternative,
*mild he think of having no taxes at all ?—(Hear,
1,00—As long as we had a clear surplus of tem
moons alear, it could not be said that there watt
an absolute necessity for the new taxes. The new
tries were imposed for the benefit of the Sinking
fund, for the benefit of the Stockholder. And this
too when we had besides a surplus of two millions,
to the aid of which might be applied whatever we
cow gain by retrenchment, which would be• found
to amount to iluite as great a sinking fund in pro.
port ,n to the debti,as Mr. Pitt thought necessary tra
est.: public credit after the American war. At
time when Mr. Pitt imposed new taxes to esta-
bh his Sinking. Fund, the finances of the country
were much more distressed than they now are, for
even when'two millions of mew taxes were imposed
;,, 1756, a surplus of -ouly i-900,000 was calculated
0, which turned out in the nest year to be only
000,000. Was the inipositionof taxes, which after
ail produced ()lily this miserable surplus to be com-
pared with the present proposition to swell the Sink-
ing Fund to five millions? In opposing the present
proposition, therefore, instead of going counter, they I
awe acting in strict conformity to the.precedent of
Fox, who had also opposed the imposition of
sew taxes during the war, not only because he had
opposed the war, but on account of the nature ur
tits! taxes themselves. Though he agreed with his
Honourable Friend (Mr. Ricardo), that the taxes on
the necessaries. of, life did not fall ultimately on the
Lthourer, but on the employer of labourers, yet the.
taxes now proposed were highly objectionable, as
falling in the first place upon those we should rather
relieve—the labourers ; and in the second place, upon
these who were still more perhaps at present to be
pitied, those who employed labourers. By removing
the tax from the labourer to his employer, they were
rely removing the difficulty one step, for by taxing
tile funds which employed labour they lessened the
de.nand for labour, and reduced its reward. On
grounds he .apposed the Motion. Without -
mixiag up with the question that of Parliamentary
flziortn, he should give the tribute of his assent to
the obserSations of the Noble Marquis (Tavistock),
that if this was the*. hit Session of a Parliament, or
even the first Session of a three years Parliament,
these three millions of taxes would not have been
imposed on the people!—(Hear, hear).
'the House then divided—For the Motion, 208—
Against it,: 90—Majority,
.118. '
On the re-admission of strangers, the House was
in a Committee on the Bill.
Mr. BRAND moved to leave out the clause which
imposed a tax ea the stock of Malt which the dealers
might have on hand, both because the circumstan-
ces of the dines, which had peculiarly affected these
dealers, would justify a departure from precedent
in their favour, and because even without taking the
duty on this stock, the tax would produce £1,400,000,
the sum required. He also wished the first payment,
*Whims required to be made in October, to be
further postponed.
Ms. C. CALVERT objected to the propositiOn for
making the znaltsters declare on oath the amount of
their stock, which it was impossible for them to do.
Nit:. H. DAVIS suggested to Ministers the propriety
of agreeing to the Amendment of Mr. Brand.
Mr. C. CALVELIT knew several Maltsters who
had great quantities of malt on hand at this moment.
One Gentleman, for instance, had nearly 10,000 quar-
ters, but of which it was impossible that he could
furnish an exact account. There were several other
maltsters who had lesser quantities now in their
stores, and who were similarly situated. All that
could be expected of those Gentlemen was, that they
should level their malt so as to enable he Excise
Officers to take an account of it.
Mr. BERNALL wished to press upon the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer the necessity of reconsidering
this Tax. If the additional duty were imposed on
the stock on hand, it would have the effect of ruining
the smaller maltsters, as they were unable to pay it.
In the counties of Nottingham and Lincoln this was
considered a severe hardship, and he hoped he would
be pardoned for adding, a great cruelty to maltsters..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the Gentlemen who opposed this additional duty,
bad argued on the supposition that the whole of the
stock of malt on hand had been purchased at the
high prices ; but if they considered for a moment,
they would find that this was not the case. It would
be found, on inquiry, that the greater part, if not all
the malt purchased at what were called the high
prices, had been sold to the brewers, and that the
stock now on hand had been purchased
,at a much
cheaper rate. This would diminish the great appre-
hension entertained from the proposed additional tax,
and under such circumstances he felt that he could
not in justice to the Public abandon it. As to the
periods at which this tax was to be paid, he was
'anxious to arrange them so as to meet the wishes of
the maltsters as far as possible. He intended to pro-
pose, that the first payment was to be made on the
10th of November, at the rate of 2d. per bushel ; the
second payment was to be made on the 2d of De-
cember, at the rate of 3d. per bushel ; the third was
to be on the 3d of January, at 4d. per bushel. 'The
fact payment was to he . in February and March,
1820, when the remaining sd. per bushel was to be
paid up. This arrangement would, he trusted, obviate
every inconvenience to the maltsters.
Mr. C. CALVERT observed, that the Right 11011.
Gentleman's mode of collecting the additional duty
was but a trifling mitigation to the maltster. The
consequence of this tax would be, that the =dater
being unable to pay it, recourse mast be had to rigo-
rous measures, and it could not be expected that
stone walls would pay the deficiency.
Mr. HUSKISSON made some observations in
support of the clause.
Mr. LYTTLETON could not help observing the
manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
treated the maltsters. He first stated that the bur-
den was to be borne by them, and when they com-
plained of the hardships imposed upon them, the
Right Honourable Gentleman told them they were
I,erticularly favoured—that on a former occasion a
considerable reduction of the taxes had been mad* to

•*.

people, ,
the lower classes of what might fairly be,
a necessary of life, though considered as one of
their luxuries. For himself, if the alternative were'
that either the present or a property tax was to be
imposed, he would vote for the latter ; but he would
oppose both, as he did not consider the present a pro-
per time for adding to the burdens of the country.
Mr. RICARDO and Mr. LYTTLETON mutually ex-
plained. •

Mr. BROUGHAM opposed the addition of any
malt duties, on the ground that, in the first instance,
the tax on the malt in hand would fall on the malt-
seer, and because the general malt tax would fall on
the consumers, who were almost wholly the lower
classes of society.
Mr. C. CALVERT understood that it was first in-
tended to imp.o'e an additional duty on the spirits in
the hands of the distillers, but that this idea was
abandoned. He thought it was the duty of Minis-
ters to encourage the use of a sound and wholesome
bevera3e, and to put an additional duty on spirits, as
they were injurious both to the healthand morals of
the people.
Mr. HUSKISSDN rnaintainea that if the stock of
Malt in hand wer! not subjected to the tax propose 4;
the maltsters would in consequence have an undue
advantage in the market over the growers.
Mr. S. WORTLEY dissented from the opinion of
his Right Hon. Friend who spoke last, thinking it ex-
ceedingly unfair that the disadvantage of a new tax
should be superadded to that of the fall of prices upon
which the maltsters had but too much reason to cal-
culate—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ALTHORP opposed the clause.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that as the
brewers had stated their intention to reduce the price
of beer, if it were not for their expectation of a new
tax upon malt, they had no right to demand any ex—
emption from this tax. For no reduction having taken
place in the price of beer, they had realized an ac-
tual profit at the expense of the consumer, without
any benefit to the revenue. As to the fall in the price
of malt, that fall would take place on the stock in
hand, whether this tax was imposed or not, and the
maltsters had no title to say that they should be ex-
empted from this tax in consideration of that fall, or
that they should be reimbursed for the failure of their
speculations at the expense of the revenue.
A MEMBER read a letter which he had received
from a maltster, stating the loss that would be sus-
tained through the proposed tax by maltsters who
had any stock on hand. The loss the writer rated at
between SOs. and 40s. per quarter.
Mr. T. WILSON thought that the rnaltsters were
not entitled to the indemnity which they required,
by an exemption from this tax of the stock in hand,
merely in consequence of the failure of their specula-
tions through the purchase of barley at a higher price
than that at which it was likely to sell at the ap-

proaching harvest. - •
M. J. P. GRANT maintained that the disadvan-
tage which the maltsters were likely to suffer through
the fall of prices upon the stock in hand did, entitle
them in fairness to complain of the additional disad-
vantage of the proposed tax, and that the property
which they had in hand should not be depreciated.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served; that the proposed tax would not operate until
November,. and that of course it could not affect the
•
price of the stock in hand to the extent which some
Teendemen appeared to think.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said, that the ques-
tion before the Committee was, whether the maltsters
were entitled to an exemption of the stock in hand
:from the proposed additional tax ? He was ready to
say that he opposed this as well as the ether new
taxes, and especially, that under consideration, be-
cause he thought it likely to injure the poor and the
interest of agriculture, for it was a fallacy to sup-
pose that it would not fall upon the grower of corn
and the consumer of beer. With respect, however,
to the malt on hand, it was said that this was likely
'to fall in price, but if, on the contrary, it wereto rise,
would not the maltsters put the difference in their
own pockets—(Hear, hear.) And why, he would
ask, should they be indemnified for the fall ? it
would, indeed, be a novelty io legislation, to indem-
nify any body of men for a &lure of their specula-
tions at the expense of the revenue. If the maltsters
could skew that they had it not in their power to re-
imburse themselves for the proposed tax by any ad-
vance of charge to the purchaser of the stock in
hand, they would be entitled to consideration in this
-case, but not otherwise, according to his judgment.
Mr. RICARDO observed, that while the maltster
had the power of transferring the proposed additio-
nal tax to others, he could have no right to complain
-a the extension of this tax to the stock in hand.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON observed, that it was as-
serted, even by those who brought forward this mea-
sure, that the price of beer must fall if the new duty
were not imposed. That its great pressure must be
upon the poorer classes, seemed to him evident. If
the situation of Ireland were considered, both the
health and morals of the people must be improved
by a reduction in the prices of malt liquors. It ought
also to be considered, that the manufacture of them
formed a new branch of industry, and a new opening
for the employment of capital in that country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro-
posed, that the additional Tax should be paid by in-
stalments—namely, 3d. on the 10th of November ;
3d. on the 10th of January ; 4d. on the 10th of. Fe-
bruary ; and 4d. on the 10th of April.
On 4ie proposition of Mr. J. P. GRANT, the House
divided upon the Clause for extending the Tax to the
stock of Malt on hand. For the Clause, 175—
Against it, 67—Majority, 108:.
On readmission to the Gallery, the Chairman was instructed
to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Howie ac-
cordingly resumed, and a Message was received from the Lords,
stating their Lordships' assent to the Loan Bill, and the Hon-
duras Murder Prevention Bid; and also that their Lowish*
had passed a Bill to indemnify sack persons as should give evi-
dence in their Committee with respect to Bribery and Corrop-
rion.at
This t
which Bill they respired the coneurreeee
ref that House. This Bill was read a first sad second time, es the
motion of Mr. Wynn, and ordered to he ementitted oa Monday.
The House again resumed into a Committee on

, .

paid
be increased in amount of tax to Is. nearly doubling
the sum. That article, before the duty was dimi-
nished, was consumed in a very small pfoportion.
effect of the diminution was considerably to increase
the consumption. He should not divide the Com-
mittee, but in order to have the vote recorded he
should move that the blank be filled up with the
words seven-pence halfpenny in place of one shil-
,ling. The amendment was negatived.
On the clause for imposing the additional Excise
buty, snaking a total of 3s. 6d. on malt per bushel,
from the sth of July next, the Committee divided--
Pm the clause, 171—Against it, 82.
On the clause for an additional duty of 4d. per
pound on Tea.
Mr. ALLEN objected to the proposed increase, as
it materially affected a necessary of life ; which, in
these very distressed times, supplied the place of
meat and beer, with the lower orders. He suggested
the propriety of diminishing the duties on -French
Wines, as a certain method to increase their con-
sumption, and to benefit the Revenue materially.
Mr. ELLICE declared his decided conviction, that
the increased tax would not be productive. At the
late Tea sales of the East India Company, the prices
of the lower Teas were considerably diminished, in
consequence of the diminution of the consumption.
He had heard, from the best authority, that the di-
minution of Revenue arising from the diminution of
price, was calculated to amount to sixty thousand
pounds. Was it wise then, when the East India
Company felt compelled, by the falling off in the
consumption, to lower prices, in the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to counteract the effect by an addi-
tional taxation ? And could he believe that such an
imposition would, under such circumstances, be pro-
ductive P The people of this country on that article,
besides the 3i millions of revenue which it yielded to
the Government, had two millions additional to pay
to uphold the monopoly of the East India Company.
The effect of the whole of this system of taxation was
to reduce the spirit of the people, by making them
dependent on the poors' rate.
Mr. HUME objected to the clause, and trusted at
the proper moment the people would be relieved
from the pressure of the East India monopoly.
Mr. HARVEY, Mr. HURST, and Mr. BROUGIIAM,
objected to any additional taxation on articles of such
necessity to the poorer classes. It would not be
productive.
Mr. AIdermanWAITHMAN said, its effect would
be to fill the workhouses with aged women, who now
mainly depended on a weekly pittance, of three or
(oar shillings from the parish, and who lived chiefly
lon bread and tea. Honourable Gentlemen should
recollect that every thing consumed by the poor was
also taxed—their beer was taxed—their tobacco was
taxed—in short, they were devoured by taxation.—
(Hear, was time for the House to grant
them some remission from taxation, instead of adding

to their burdens.
The CNANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
stated, that his reason for not selecting wines for tax-
ation was, that such a measure would be only attend-
ed with a diminution of the consumption.
Mr. MONEY defended the conduct of the East
India Company.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY expressed a hope that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way on
an article so essentially affecting the subsistence of
the poor.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCARLETT suggested a diminution of the
present duty on tea, as most likely to increase the
consumption, and of course the revenue.
Mr. LYTTELTON observed, that the whole
amount of £120,000 bore a very small proportion to
the total amount of new taxes. To give it up would
render a material service to every cottage in the
country.
Lord MILTON suggested a postponement of the
discussion on the Clause, to give time for an

arrangement.
Mr. WILSON suggested that all tea sold at the
sale under two shillings a pound, should pay at the
rate of 96 per cent. and that all above it should pay
100 per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
adopting the suggestion, proposed the following
Clause :—Ttiat 96 per cent. should be cbarged upon
all tea sold at or under 2s. a pound at the sale, and
100 per cent. upon all above it.
The Clause so amended was agreed to.
The blank in the clause respecting the duty on To-
bacco being filled up with "three shillings per pound;'
the 13(11 with its Amendments was ordered to be re-

ported on Monday next.
Mr. ELLICE wished to know whither it was the
intention of the Right llonourable Gentleman to pro-
pose any additional duties upon Sugar?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
answered, that no alteration was to be made in the
duties upon that article.
Mr. WAITIIMAN asked, whether the war duties,,
which were to expire next year, were included in the
Customs Duties Bill?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
they were not.
The House then went into a Committee on the
Customs Duties Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro-
posed that a duty of sixpence per pound should be
laid on all foreign sheep's, wool or lamb's wool, and
that the duty should attach upon wool imported
from any part of Europe, from the sth of October,
and upon that imported from any other part of the
world from the sth of January, 1820.
Lord NILTON opposed the clause as a departure
from the ancient policy of this country, which was
to draw the raw material of our manufactures, free
of duty, fi om foreign parts. The consequence bf the
present measure would be to injure the woollen trade,
as appeared from the various Petitions which he
would lay on the table for the information of Mem-
bers, although he could not bring them formally be-
fore the. House. He would ask whether the
was a period to try such an experiment? rev::
L was nominally 6d. per pound, but it would be at the

.:4:
-s.

in many cases a shilling. This he CSE.
. be sufficient to deterninie the prefelei•Le
in America, ttl the Yienaisi‘and.Frer.:ll
To impok such a tax at such a WO-
national, distress, would go as far as any
.ouldto alienate the the affections of royal
sufferis population.
WESTERN spoke in favour of the duty. The
. appeared to him to be, whether they, would
annihilate the growth of wool in this country 0 • nt t?
He insisted strongly on the great increase in the im-
portation of foreign wool, which from an average of
three millions a year amounted in . a silent period to
an average of twenty-four millions. Atwas idle to
suppose that an ihrportation so extensive should Mt
have the effect of discoaraging the growth of the ar-
ticle at home, and thereby of obliging our manufac-
turers to depend on foreign countries instead of their
own for the raw material.
Mr. DICKINSON opposed tee tar. It was imprac•
ticable to carry on our own manufacture without the
admixture of foreign wool. It would be a heavy im-
, post on the whole community, as it would add Is. 4.d.
Ito the price of every yard of cloth. Our woollen
manufacturers were at present in great distress. Po.
reign manufacturers were entering into successful
competition with them. Such was the existing state
of things, that confidence was almost at an end, and
every commercial adventure assumed the character
of a hazardous speculation:
Mr- Ht 811EISSON supported the expediency of
imposing the duty. lie compared it with the duty
on cotton. The former was only 7 per cent.—the
latter 10 per cent. Of wool, however, we prOduced -
much—of cotton, not a pound. Adverting to a
pamphlet Which had been circulated by the Commit-
tee of Woolstaplers, is London, he ridiculed the
ciples On which Gentlemen founded their arguments.
He supported the duty, because he was perstladed
that it would net injure our manufactures; and that
the article in question could better bear the proposed
duty than any other that could be selected.
Mr. S. WORTLEY warmly opposed the proposed
tax, as most detrimental to the manufactures of the
country. It was impossible that our main facture:l
,could make good cloth without foreiga wool. 411
duties on raw materials were injurious, and this was
peculiarly so. The duty would shut us out altoge-
ther from the Continent of Europe, and nearly so
from that of America. There was already great dis-
treis in the manufacturing districts ; the propsilled
duty would throw them into despair.
Mr. H. SUMNER maintained the expediency of
the duty as affording a very necessary protection of`
'
the agriculture of the country.
Lord LASCELLES, on the contrary, contended,
at considerable length, that the advantage of the
agricultural interest ought not to be thus consulted
to the danger.of ruining the woollen manufacture.
Mr. W. BURRELL thought there was now a fair
chance of a fair remunerating price to the Wool•
grower ; he was only sorry the Chancellor of the
Exchequer allowed the wool of this year to enter the
country.
Mr. LYTTLETON 'condemned the impolcey of
attempting to remunerate the agriCulturist at the ex•
pease of the manufacturer—the ruin of the one would
be attended with the ruin of the other.
Mr. PHILIPS said that the landed interest had re.
Presentatives in that House, the mercantile interest
*as also represented, as the great towns were repre.
seated ; but the manufacturing districts were not re-
presented, and the manufacturing interest was not
therefore represented, except by accident. If we were
to be a commercial country, if we exported, we must
also import; but with an increased import of foreign
wool, we had also had an increase of English wool.
If you obstruct the imports into the couutry, you oh.,
struct also the exports from the country.
When Mr. PHILLIPS had concluded his speech,
cries of " Question, question!" and " Withdraw, with•
drew!" resounded from several parts of the House.
Mr. HART DAVIS said, the manufacturer of this
country would, if this tat were imposed, have 30
per cent. against him in competing with the foreign
manufacturer.
Mr. EVANS, though he had supported the Minis•
try during the war, and though he was not unwilling
.to support new taxes, still felt it his duty to enter his
most solemn protest against the present tax—( Cries
of " Question, question 1')
Mr. T. WILSON (of London) assured the.HOuse,
I that when he informed them that he intended only to
say a few words, he intended to adhere strictly to his
promise. The words he had to utter were, his down-
right abhorrence of the tax now proposed-!
The question being again loudly called for, the
House divided—For the Tax, 106—Against it, 63.
Majority for it, 43.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and re-
quested leave to sit again.
Mr. HUME moved for the printing the Annual Accounts of
the East India Company.—Ordered.
An Account of the Average for the last two years, ending in
January, 1819, of the Excise Duties.—Ordered.
The other Orders of the Day being disposed of, the
House adjourned at THREE O'CLOCK this Morning.

THE MINORITX .
,
ON WIZ MAILOGIS OT EATISTIICI 6 MOTION AGAINST TIM MALT AND
llTlftlt TAX TILLS.
Althorp, Viscount Fitzgerald,lit.lin.M,Newman, K. W.
Barham, Joseph F. Fitzroy, Lord C. Neville lion. IL
Harnett, James Grant, J. P. North, Dudley
Beecher, W. W. Gordon, Robert Ord, William
Bernal, R. Graham, Sandford Palmer, C. F.
Benyon, Hen. „ Grenfell, Pascoe Parnell, Sir H.
Brand, Hon. T. Griffith, John W. Phillips, G.
Browne, Dons. Guise, Sir W. Phillips, G. jun.
Brougham, Henry Gurney, R. H. Phillips, C. M.
Callaghan, J. Harcourt, John Ponsonby, Hon. F.C.
Calcraft, John Hamilton, Lord A. Powlett, lion. Wm.
Calvert, Charles Hill, Lord A. Rickford, William
'Campbell, Hon. S. Honeywood, W. P. Ricardo, David
Clifford, Captain Hume, Joseph Robarts, A.
Clifton, Lord Hutchinson, Hon. C. Hobart., W. T.
Colborne, N. R. J. Kennedy, T. F. Rowley. Sr William
Coke, T. W. Leslie, William Ruisell. Lord G. W.
Concannon, Lucius Lamb, Hon. W. Hassell, Lord John
Crompton, Samuel Lamb, lion. G. Scarlett, J.
Calvert, Nicholas Lambton,J. G. 'Stuart, Lord James
Crawley, Samuel Langton, W. G. Stewart, William
Davies, 'F. H. I.atouche, John Taylor, M. A.
Douglas, lion. F. S. Lemon, Sir W. Thorp, Alderman
Denison, W. J. Lyttelton, lion. W. Waithman,Aldermall
Duncanden,Vlscount Maberiey, John Wood, Alderman
Dandy!, lion. L. Macleod, Roderick Webbe, E.
Dundas, Thomas Mattocks, W. A. Western, C. C
Ebrington, Viscount Martin, John Wilson, Sir Robert
Mike, Edward Wdton, Viscount
Huston, Earl of Merest, J. W. D. Isas.tits.
Fasakettuy, N. Mb, G. Bennett, Hen, XG.
Ferguson, Sir R. C. Mooch, Sir C. Tavisseek, Islarsois
Mt. Mow paired off against tke.igalt Tn.,

1

-~~
a "'

- .
•
tnd that them, and therefore they hid a it ils.COntribute the Taxes. • ein 'the elaise advettlitgrO ita additional least SI and ;
plp were now. This lax, generally, would tu depiiue the Ds*/ on Coffee And Co*t Nuts, . ceived would 1
consumer of almost the only luxu left to him; it )4i. ,T. P. GENET animadverted as the ecnitilst given even in
i argued 'would operate to deprive the lower plisses of the use between the amount of the tax to be levied on that manufaitures.
not the of a wholesome beverage ; it wouldo in a word, lessen part of the article which *as low priced and consti- ment of natic
Iroperty the comforts and injure the morals of people. The tuted a main article of consumption with the poor thing could.tc
or taxes Chancellor was between the horns of this dilemma; classes, and that imposed on the high priced colfee. and sufferis I
e, what either he must raise this tax from 'a comparatively Coffee which sold at the wholesale price of 2s. and Mr. WEST
—(Hear, small portionof the people, or else Le must raise it by 2s. 6d. a pound, and now paid a duty of lid. was to question appei
of two depriving the lower classes of what might fairly be be increased in amount of tax to ls. nearly doubling annihilate the
sere was called a necessary of life. though enntidered ac one of the SIMI_ That artielf._ before the duty was dime- He insisted sti

**1144

J