The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-30 00:00:00

FRIDAY.

The Speaker took the chair at a quarter-past twelve o'clock,
after which the house was occupied in advancing the private
business a stage, and in the reception of petitions until three
o'clock, when the Speaker left the chair.

The Speaker resumed the chair at five o'clock.
Lord Auriton.p laid on the table a copy of a supplemental
convention between his Majesty and the King of the French,
for the more effectual suppression of the traffic iu slaves.
Mr. LENNARD brought in a bill for the abolition of the pu-
nishment of death in cases of breaking into and stealing from
dwelling-houses.—Read a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time on Friday next.

Sir E. KNATCIIBULL presented a petition from a place in
Kent for the repeal of the malt duty ; and a petition from the
archdeacon and diocess of Canterbury against the Irish Church
Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought up the reports of the seve-
ral committees on flues and recoveries; on the limitation of
actions; on the law of dower; and on the courtesy of England.
—Reports ordered to be recommitted on the Ist of May.
On the order of the day being read for the house resolving
itself into a committee of supply,
Mr. C. O'CoNNum, (we understood) asked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether the houses of licensed victuallers would
be comprehended under the same exemption as houses with
shops, in the contemplated reduction of the assessed taxes. Ile
thought the licensed victuallers entitled to the same privileges
as others.

Lord ALTIViRP replied that licensed victuallers would not be
so comprehended, uor did he think they were placed in the
same situation as shopkeepers.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

The Marques of CHANDOS rose for the purpose of bringing
forward the resolution of which he had given notice relative to
agricultural distress. He was aware that the object of his mo-
tion had been in some measure forestalled by the notice given
by the noble lord (Althorp) for a select committee to inquire
into the state of agriculture. He, however, saw uo reason why
he should refrain from pressing his resolution.on the notice of
the house. The noble marques concluded by moving the follow-
ing resolution :—" That in any reduction of taxation which
may be considered expedient, it is necessary that the interests
•of the agricultural portion of the community should be duly
considered."

Mr. COSBETT said, it had been asked what were ministers to
do in order to relieve the burdens of the people ? He would
answer, let them takeoff part of the expenditure of the country;
for that, and that alone, was the way.
Lord KI.THORP could not quite admit the principle
which the noble marques seemed anxious to lay down, that the
agriculturists could only be relieved by the repeal of the taxes
which pressed immediately upon them. He (Lord Althorp)
thought, on the contrary, that the cultivators of the soil would
be more effectually relieved by the repeal of the taxes which
pressed upon the community m general, for did not the profits
of the cultivators of the soil depend upon the consumption of
the produce of the soil ? The effect, therefore, of taking off
the taxes which were levied upon the productions of industry,
must be to relieve the agriculturists. The grand object he had'
in view was to effect such a.degree of reduction as would gene-
-rally relieve the people. The amount of reduction was, to be
sure, not great,-but as far as it went it would, be-believed, have.
the effect he intended, and that was to benefit every other class
of the community as well as the agriculturists. The noble
marques had complained of the insufficient nature of the reduc-
tions in the cases of carts and bailiffs, but could he devise a.
reduction in any other specific tax which would be more bene-
ficial to the farmers'?

The Marques of CHANDOS replied he ,could, and instanced
the tax on agricultural insurances.

Lord ALTHORP, whose reply was very 'indistinctly heard,
was understood to object to a reduction in•this tax, and to per-
sist in his.opinion that the reductions proposed by government
were the most likely to alleviate the burdens of the agricultur.
fists. He objected to the resolution submitted by the noble
marqu es, because he thought it would interfere uselessly with
the motion of which he had given .notice. While he opposed
the resolution, he, however, wished it to be distinctly under-
stood as his opinion that the agricultural classes were entitled'
to relief as well and as speedily as any other class of the.com-
inunity.
On•the motion for a division, the numbers were :
For.the original motion. • . 188
For the amendment . • • . 90

Majority 'against the Marques of Chandos's
resolution . . • • , • , 28
MA LT :TAX.
Lord ALTHOUP having moved that the Spealcer•do leave the
chair,___

SIT W. INGILBY rose to move for a reduction in the duty on
malt, and argued that not only the agricultural interest, but the
country, -gene' ally, would be greatly relieved.und benefitted by
a remission, or alleviation of the malt duty. In'his own county
barley was now selling at a lower price than the .amount of
duty paid to government on its conversion into malt. It' the
farmers and landlords were to be ground down and destroyed
by oppressive taxes, what ultimately was to become of the land-
lord himself ? He hopctl and-trusted.that the noble lord, while
there was .yettirne, would endeavourto find means for providing
for the deficiency that would be occasioned by a remission of
this obnoxious tax, •anti afford some relief to the agricultural
-interest by reduciug it. He -was sorry to tell the noble lord

that he was but too well satisfied• that the rents which were
paid did not come out of the producti, e sources of the soil, but
from the capital of the occupiei. The object of his propo-
sition was to benefit the land, at the same time that he gaN e
contentment and satisfaction to all classes of the community,
and advanced the moral character of the great mass of the people.
Ile had beenasked to find a tax as a substitute for the malt duty,
but it was not his duty to do so. When he had been created.
Chancellor of the Exchequer, it wonid he time enough for
him to consider the ways and means (laughter), though then,
perhaps, like other Chancellors of the Exchequer, he might
be more afraid of the fundlord than the landlord, and there-
fore omit to tax capital which was lying dead and unproductive
to the country. I. rom his situation and circumstances in so-
ciety, the. landlord was obliged to keep his carriages, and horses,
and servants, all of which benefitted the country,• and all of
which were taxed; but the fundlord might receive thoneant;s
in the shape of dividends, and content himself with keepingVa
old woman and a cat. (Great laughter.) The hon. bariinat
having recapitulated some of the arguments adduced by him
on a former evening for a remission of the malt tax, observed
that he had again brought forward a motion on the subject, not
for the purpose of troubling or embarrassing the noble lord, but
for his gratification (a laugh) with a view to afford him an op=
portunitv of revising his former opinion. No doubt the noble
lord would have felt disappointed if he (Sir W. Ingilby) had
not kept his promise and again raised the question. In con-
clusion the hon. baronet moved, that the duty on malt be 're,
ducted from 20s. &I. to 10s. a quarter.
Mr. PARROTT seconded the motion, and argued that if it
were complied with the loss to the revenue would not be above
£1,200,000. The gross produce of the tax was £4,825,000; but,
notwithstanding a remission of half the duty, increase of con-
sumption would prevent the revenue from suffering to a greater
extent than he had stated.

Sir J. SEBRIGHT was thoroughly sensible of the benefits that
would arise from the adoption of the hon. baronet's motion ;
few things would give greater relief to the country than a re-
duction of the malt tax. Nevertheless, he regretted that he
could not support the motion, because he did not think the pre-
sent the time when ministers could reduce taxes in general.
Mr. BENETT concurred with the hon. baronet who had just
spoken on the impropriety of supporting the remission of a tax
without being satisfied that it could be spared, or being in a si-
tuation to point out a mode of supplying the deficiency. He
was an advocate for a great commutation of the taxation which
affected productive industry by a tax upon property.
Lord Ai:rimer said that if the motion of the lion, meniber
for Lincolnshire, and that of which notice had been given for
the repeal of the assessed taxes, should be adopted by the house,
a commutation of taxes would be inevitable. He wished mem-
bers to reflect upon the question of a property tax, which was
so constantly urged in that house, and to consider whether, if
that tax were in operation, it would, upon the whole, be more
advantageous than the present aystem of taxation. Ile appre-
heude.d that the property tax which was spoken of was one up-
on realized income, and not upon income derived from profes-
sional exertions, and if so, he would ask members connected
with the landed interest whether such a tax was likely to prove
beneficial to them? Ile, however, would not be content to
argue the question in that way; he objected to the introduction
of a property tax, because it was opposed by difficulties which
he could not see his way out of. lie was uite certain that no
man who recollected the property tax of 1816 would say it, was
an equitable tax. Indeed, every one said that it was not. This-
subject of a property tax very much resembled the state in which
the question of the poor laws stood. Everybody was agreed
that the system of poor laws was bad, but they found great dia.;
culty in suggesting a better. He had never heard any plan pro-
posed by which property could be equally subjected to a tax.
An hon. baronet had asserted that the government had lost
the confidence of the country on account of their vacillation.
—They had been accused of being very obstinate, but he had
never heard it suggested that they had exhibited an extraordi-
nary degree of vacillation. If he and his colleagues had lost
the confidence of the country, it could not be for their yacilla;
tion. The present motion proposed to reduce £2,500,000.- It
mattered little whether that amount or the whole tax was pro-.
posed to be reduced. In either case, if the proposition were
agreed to, it would be impossible to provide for the service of
the country. It must be recollected that the whole amount of
the surplus, without the reduction of taxation which he (Lord
Althorp) proposed, was only £1,500,000, and yet the hon.
member proposed to reduce taxes to the extent of £2,500,000.
He might just as well propose to reduce £5,000,000. He was
ready to admit, as a general proposition, that in reducing. taxes
on articles of consumption the revenue did not suffer to the full
amount of the reduction, because consumption increased; but
that argument did not apply so strongly to the malt-tax as to
other taxes. The tax upon malt did not appear to operate with
such pressure as to diminish consumption. Hon. members who
talked of nothing having been done for the interests of the
barley growers must recollect that the repeal of the beer-tax
had been most beneficial to them. In 1830, previously to the
repeal of the beer-tax, the number of bushels of malt consumed
was 28,814,892; in 1831, (after the repeal of the beer-tax) it
was 35,160,000; and in 183'2 it was ,10,334,000. From this it
appeared that the tax had not much impeded consumption,
though to a certain extent of course it had, and therefore he
was justified iu concluding that a repeal of a part of the tax
wouldasot greatly augment the consumption. An hon. mein
ber said he would show ministers how to supply the deficiency
occasioned by the reduction of the malt-tax, and he had spoken
of large masses of capital lying unemployed, which he though;
ministers ought to get hold of. lie should be very glad to do
so, if the hon. member would be so good as to tell him whew
those masses of property were. (A laugh.) Whatever hon.
members might think of the motion before the house, lie was
sure of this—that if it were agreed to, it would be absolutely
impossible to carry it into effect, unless some other member
should propose a property tax. For these reasons he felt it to
be absolutely necessary to oppose the motion. An hon. baro-
net had said that it was the duty of the government to find a
substitute for any tax which the house might repeal. He ad•
mitted that was fair doctrine, but at the same time he felt it
his duty to state, that he was unable to provide any substitute
for the tax proposed to be repealed. which would prove equally
satisfactory to the house and the country. He hoped he should
not be considered as acting unfairly in stating that there was.
no tax which he should feel- himself justified in proposing as a
substitute for the malt tax. Then the question was, were the
house, in the present state of the finances, prepared to reduce
such an amount of taxation as must necessarily affect public
credit? It would be impossible for the interest of the debt to-
be paid if the house should reduce such a large amount of tax-
ation as was proposed by the present motion. On a former
occasion, an lion. member had asserted that the members for
the metropolitan districts had obtained a complete control over
him. What had passed within the last two days must convince
any person that that was not the case. In bringing forward his
-budget, he had.endeavoured to act as impartially as he could
towards the different interests in the community. Ile knew that
in consequence of not having done more for the inhabitants of
.theanetropolis, his plan was unpopular in this great city, and
he Might also collect from the speeches which he had heard
that evening, that it was likewise unpopular with the agricul-
tural interest. That was the fate of every man in his situation
who endeavoured-to do-what was fair to all parties. (Hear.-)
He trusted, however,. that he was not a person to vacillate
much in his conduct in consequence of such unpopularity com-
ing upon him, and it was his intention, as long as he held the
situation which he had the honour to till, to endeavour to re-
duce taxes fairly with reference to all classes of the commu-
nity. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. Bunarma would support the motion before the hours,.
He did not believe that any deficiency would be caused by the
reduction of the duty • for, in his opinion, the :reduction of the
duty would have the duty;
of doubling the consumption of malt.
The house then divided on the amendment proposed by Sir
W. Ingilby, ,when-there appeared :
Ayes - - 162
N oes
Majority against ministers —lO
The result was received with loud cheers. On .re-entering
the gallery,
Mr. Itomasox- was on his legs. He ilisclainaed being info.
eneed in the vote he had given hy any feeling of hostility to
the :ministers. (A laugh,) He considered the :effect of the
motion to be of great importance? and that it established tagreat
principle, that the system of indirect taxation was at an end,
and that the result of -the vote was to lead to au enlarged con-
sideration of the whole
.systemcf our taxation. Itam.w_rested
with his:Majesty's 1-linisters to say in ,what manner the defici-
ency was to be made up; and:he should, if they did not, submit
a motion forthe supply of- the sum reduced.

Lord ALTJIORP. gave the hon. gentleman full credit.when
stated that he did not intend to embarrass ministers by the.VOLe
he had.given. (Hear, hear.) He believed other honourable
gentlemen had the same views; but the decision of the house
had certainly placed his Majesty's government. in a situation of
considerable embarrassment. Of course,. however, after the
decision the house had come,to, ,riotwithstamliiT, the majority
was not very large, he should be ashamed to make the least
opposition or objection to, carry the resolution. into effect.
The resolution that " It is the _opinion of this house that the
duty of malt should be rciluced to 10s. the gliarter," was then
put and agreed to.
Lord AiTHORP then moved that theiorslerpf the day:for the
house going into a committee,of ways andaneaus be postponed
till Monday, which was agreed to.—Adjourned: