The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-13 00:00:00

was attempted to support that the assertion appeared to him ex-
ceedingly defective. What inducement could the poor Mau have
to brew •his own beer which he did not possess at the present
moment? Why should he not buy malt, and with that brew as
much beer as he needed for his own consumption ? The hon.
member for Oldham argued, that in consequence of the high
price of malt, and the large profits of the malsters, it was quite
impossible for.the poor man to buy malt in retail. But sup-
posing that the matt duty were repealed, .would the poor man
then be in a better conditicn to compete with the great mats-

ter. If the poor snail were disposed to brew his own beer,
why did be not do so previous to the duty on beer being
repealed? The hon. gentleman (Major Handley) had said a
great deal against beer-shops, and came to the conclusion that
beer was of no value unless it WAS drank by labourers in their
own houses and brewed by their own hands. He (Sir It. Peel)
entreated the house not to consent to the loss of £5,000,000 of
revenue under the delusive expectation that encouragement
would thereby be given to the agricultural labourers to brew
their beer in their own cottages. (ear, hear.) The same rea-
son which induced them, to go to t e beer-shop at present would
continue to operate after the repeal of the malt duty. If the
labouriug man purchased his beer at the public-house, and took
it away to drink at his own house, he might have the beer at a
reduced rate. There was a considerable difference between the
price of a pot of beer purchased at the public-house and carried
away, and the price which was charged to a man who sat and
consumed a pot beside the tire in the public-house. Notwith-
standing, however, this difference of charge, there was some-
thing in the charm of a good fire and of company which tempted
the labourer to pay an additional penny for his pot of beer.
(Hear, hear.) The repeal of the malt tax would not reduce the
price of a pot of beer Inure than a halfpenny. The right hon.
baronet then alluded to Sir Wm. lugilby's motion last year,
.

and remarked that he lost his election even for au agricultural
county. Such would he, he (Sir R. P.) apprehended, the fate
of every man who should rise to propose new taxes in lieu of the
£5,000,000 produced by the malt duty. (Hear.) He was there-
fore of opinion that the arguments founded on the advantage
which the agricultural interest would derive from the repeal of
the malt duty were not valid ones. If the house did away with
the malt tax, he would ask what they expected would be the
consequences of the total repeal of that impost? His noble friend
said, that if the nialt tax were taken off there would be a great
increase in the consuinptioa of beer. Now he (Sir H. P.) must
say that he had an impression that the very contrary effect would
be produced by the removal of the tax. He was greatly afraid
that tlie direct consequence would be to promote illicit .distilia-
tion; for although it was comparatively difficult to distil spirits
from unmalted barley, the process by which illicit spirits were
distilled from the barley after it had been made into malt was
very ea (Hear.) He would ask then lion. members how,
wi!h the increased facilities given to the defrauder of the public
revenue by the removal of the malt tax, it would be possible for
the excise to watch the proceedings of the unfair trader with the
same vigilance and success with which they now checked him,
without interfering with the domestic concerns of private indi.•
virluals to such a degree that the country would never submit to

it? Supposing the house determined to vote in favour of his
noble friend's resolution, what was the course it proposed to
pursue? There were but four uaehods which could be sug-
gested for its adoption, and one out of the four they must act
upon. The house might increase the duties imposed on other
articles of consumption, or they could resort to a property-tax
(hear, hear), or they might look to a reduction of the estimates.
(Great cheering from the opposition.) He could assure hou.
members that he felt no pleasure in witnessing improvident
expenditure, and that he had no interest to serve in maintain-
ing the present amount of the public burdens; but he would
ask any man in that house whether he conscientiously be-
lieved that, looking to the reductions which had been made by
Lord Althorp in the last year, and a further reduction in taxa-
tion to the amount of £500,00b which would be made in the pre-
sent year—whether, looking at this, it was possible to make any
even the most trifling reduction in the estimates? But, at any
rate, if any reduction was to be effected, let the question of such
reduction-be looked at abstractedly with reference to its own
merits (hear, hear) and not with•a• view to substitute the sum
thus saved for the produce of the malt-tax. But be really could
not persuade himself that any man, bearing in mind the reduc-
tions which had been made, and the demands of the West India
proprietors on the public purse, could hope to replace the
£4,600,000 which the malt-tax furnished, consistently with the
maintenance of the public honour and regard to the interests of
the country, by any considerable reduction in the sums voted
for the public service. There were other considerations which
affected this question. In the last session the duty on spirits
in Ireland was 'educed, and now some members were fa-
vourable to an increase of them. This unsteadiness of pur-
pose was the unwisest course any legislative assembly could
adopt— Were they to increase the duty on spirits and re-
move the duty from malt, the farmer would find that
the defrauders of the revenue would not use grain, but
molasses, on account of thp greater facility of distillation, and
the increasing knowledge of chemistry. He now came to the
third substitute for the malt tax, one on property. There was
a majority of the house, under circumstances not dissimilar to
the present, when the late chancellor of the exchequer had at
his disposal an available surplus of £1,500,000, and with this it
was proposed to make up for the repeat of the malt-tax and the
house and window tax, amounting in the whole to £5,000,000
sterling. The surplus which, after providing for the exigencies
of the public service, would be at the disposal of parliament in
the present year, was but £250,000, and the proposition was
now renewed which was made when there was a surplus of
£3,500,000. (Hear, hear.) But even with that surplus, a large
majority decided that the revenue which would be given up by
the repeal of the malt-tax could only be supplied by the impo-
sition of a property-tax. Now his prophecy was, that they
would make that tax necessary (loud cries of "(tear")—to that
they must come if they repealed the malt-tax. They would try
their taxes on trifling articles of consumption, on tabacco and
spirits, and wine (hear; hear), and they would meet with a
storm which would make them hastily undo what they had been
doing. (Renewed cheering.) To a property-tax, then, they
must come; "and," continued the right hon. borouet, "I con-
gratulate you, gentlemen of the landed interest, on finding
yourselves relieved from the pressure of the malt-tax, and fall-
ing on a good property-tax, with a proposal for a graduated
scale. (Great cheering and laughter.) And you who represent
the heavy land of this country (general and `continued laughter
and cheeringy, I reiteit.te lull oh tt' pyoctisuet
you." If they believed that the substitute would he advantageous
to their interests, let them not, when they found out their mistake,
lay the blame upon those who warned them in time, but upon
their own comprehensive views and sound judgment. (Cheers.)
The hon. and learned member for Ireland, (laughter,)be.meant
for Dublin, in refereuce to the imposition of a property tax,
had said that if it was to be laid on it ought to affect all his
majesty's subjects equally, and certainly this was no more than
justice. He begged, then, the representatives of Ireland" to
consider what would be their situation if they voted for the re-
peal of the duty on malt. It would be infinitely worse than that
of the occupiers of clayey soils, and a thousand times worse.
Ireland paid'ut present but £240,000 out of the £4,600,000 which
the malt tax produced, and it would be a great hardship to Ire-
land to have a property tax imposed upon her as a countervail-
ing substitute for her moderate portion of the malt tax. (Hear,
hear.) 'They might depend upon it, however, that a property
tax was inevitable if the malt tax was repealed, and the attempt
to, he would not say levy that tax, for he was sure the people of
Ireland would obey the laws, but to exact it, would be a fruit-
less undertaking. He now came to the fourth alternative, and
that was to make adeficit and do nothing, (laughter and cheers,)
and lie was afraid there were many members who, when it came
to the trial, would, upon the whole, make up their minds to act
in that manner (renewed laughter and cheering)—who, upon
the whole, would prefer that plan. The hon. member (Mr.
Handley) had recommended a small loan, (a laugh,) but why
not a large one? (Laughter renewed.) He also had suggest-
ed the sale of the crown lands, and advised that there should be
no jobbing in granting the crown leases. Now he (Sir R.
Peel) had always thought that the crown was an indulgent
landlord. But as to the proposition for raising a loan to meet
the deficit, he earnestly hoped that the house would not resort
to that discreditable "alternative, that they would not con-
sent to incur the risk of that disgrace, if, after having
made the declaration which was the object of the noble
lord's motion, they found it impossible to "maintain the ser-
vice of the state without some adequate equivalent. (Hear.)
By keeping up the value of the public securities, and faithfully
performing the national engagements, the government of the
country had been enabled, since the year 1822, to nfake a re-
mission of the public burdens to the amount of £2,350,000.
(Hear.) If they continued to pursue the same course they
would derive the same advantages. They had a debt of
£250,000,000 in the 3i per cents., which they might hope to
redeem at no distant period. They had the experience of the
benefits of good faith, but if they were careless to secure the
honour of England, and maintain the national credit, they
would simultaneously lose that fame which they hitherto had
always sustained. Ile warned the house not to -forget that on
three several occasions it had been obliged to retrace its steps
-on this question. In 1811 a part wf this tax was taken off, but
reimposed in 1819. In 1821 the house, by a small majority.
took the whole tax off, but was obliged to rescind this vote one
month after it had been passed. In 1833 the house, in a mo-
ment of enthusiasm, resolved that it should be repealed on a
Friday, but found it necessary to annul that vote on the fol-
lowing Monday. If the house agreed to the motion of his
noble friend; there would be no other course than retractation
and repentance. It was his great desire to preserve parlia-
ment from the charge of vacillation and inconsistency. Ile
was told there was no hope of keeping on the malt tax—he had
beeu informed so—many members were pledged to its repeal—
.....alnuahey must vote for its abolition. But his uniform ati•ewer
was, that he could not believe that men, having heard the delihe-
, rations in that house, would be influenced by any other consi-
deration than an attention to the interests of their country.
(Hear.) He was so sure that, with a mere surplus of £250,000,
they would never think of taking off the malt tax without a
proper substitute, that he could not believe those who told him
he must despair of' a majority, or that the house would sanction
so rash and dangerous a measure. (Hear, hear.) He still
retained that hope; but whatever might be the determination
of the house, it was enough for him to have stated his views;
but if the house chose to reject them, lie would leave them sub-
ject to the responsibility of the consequences. (The right lion.
baronet resumed Isis seat amid loud and continued cheering from
all parts of the house, which lasted fur some time after he had
sat clown.)
Mr. COnBETT complained that the right hon. baronet had
endeavoured to scare the people by the insinuation whiCh, he
had thrown out of leaving them to themselves if the motion of
the noble marquis was carried.
Lord NoiluEys was afraid many who would vote for the
motion of the noble lord, ptofessing themselves friends of the
landed interest, would turn round upon him, and make the
repeal of the malt tax a ground for repealing the corn laws,
There had been a notice of motion given for the 23d of very
great importance, and if ever there was a time when it was
necessary that there should he union amongst the friend§ of
government, and that they should consider it essentially im-
portant to avoid a division, this was that period.
Mr. BENET spoke at considerable length, and concluded by
saying that he could not, as an honest man and a faithful re-
presentative, do otherwise than support the resolution of his
uoble friend. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. Wool) was prepared to give his Majesty's govern-
ment the support of an honourable and not a factious vote—a
support such, he was happy to say, as had on a former occasion
been giueu to the late administration, much to his credit amid
honour, by the present chancellor of the exchequer. (Cheers.)
But, of whatever materials the majority of the evening might
be composed, he sincerely hoped and trusted the decision would
be, not to spurt away so large an amount of revenue, but to take
care that in the result they left unendangered and unimpaired
the national faith and honour of thesouutry. (Loud cheers.)
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULI. spoke against the motion, and
was followed by Mr. SeitiNG Ries, who animadverted upon the
language used on a former occasion by Sir E. K. and Mr.
Baring with reference 'to this question. • Ile concluded by say-
ing, whether in the government or out of it, he could entertain
but one opinion of the members of that house—namely, that
they would feel it as a paramount duty to maintain the national
faith. (Hear, hear.)
The members who followed in the debate were Mr. A.
Baring, Mr. P. Thomson, Sir James Graham, Mr. R. Gordon,
Mr. Hume, Mr. Giote, Mr. H. Fleetwood, Sir R. Gresley, Mr.
Hall Dare, Mr. eurteis, and Mr. Trevor.
The Marquis of CHANOO3, in reply, expressed his regret that
any hon. member should deem his resolution unseasonable. If
he had supposed that his right hon. friend would in his budget
have given up either the whole or a part of this tax, he would
not have brought his motion forward. If that motion were lost