was 74d. a bushel in Scotland, the con- not be overlooked. He, therefore, entreated sumption was 5,000,000 of bushels. In of Her Majesty's Government not to aggra1802 the tax was raised to 3s. 6d., and vate this serious evil. Were it not for the despite the increase of population in that present state of the country, he would country the consumption had then already call on the House in every point of view, become only 1,780,000 bushels. Before whether as regarded the producer or con1802 the Scotch were a beer consuming sumer, whether as regarded religion or people, but the policy of the Government finance, to repeal this tax. At present he of the day also drove them to become al- only asked them not to increase or aggramost exclusively a whisky consuming peo- vate the evils of it. He (Mr. Cayley) would ple. It was for these and several other trespass on the indulgence of the House no reasons that he always honoured the at- longer. He lamented the necessity of the tempts made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. step he was now taking, but his sense of Disraeli) to rectify this great evil. It was public duty left him no alternative. He for these reasons that he supported the believed this new tax was as uncalled for able Budget of that right hon. Gentleman; as the war had been in the first instance. because he saw and felt that it had but one He felt certain if either the noble Lord the animus, one aim, which was to do justice Member for London (Lord John Russell), and to conform our financial condition to the Earl of Malmesbury, or the noble the new commercial system, without dis- Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), tinction of class, person, or party. Again, had continued to hold the foreign seals, we in 1822 the malt duty on beer in Scotland should not now be engaged in war. And was reduced from 28s. 10d. to 22s. 8d., if his right hon. Friend the Member for and in 1823 a further reduction was made Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had reto 14s. 8d. The consequence was, that mained Chancellor of the Exchequer, we the consumption of malt, which was should not have had such an injustice as 147,000 quarters in 1821, rose to 490,000 an aggravation of this tax to deal with. in 1823, thus showing the abstinence from Other sources, if it had been necessary to beer was not natural, but forced by exces- raise additional taxation, could have been sive imposts. He was not there at that found, perhaps more productive and less critical moment to argue for a decrease unjust. He objected to this war, because of the tax; although, under more favour- it was unnecessary, though now inevitable; able circumstances, his desire would be and he objected to this tax because it was to have it abolished altogether. Apart unequal, oppressive, and unjust. On these from its injustice and oppression, it was grounds, he begged to move that the Bill one of the most fruitful sources of crime be read a second time that day six months. and immorality which afflicted society in MR. STANHOPE said, that he felt in driving thousands to the beer-houses. Le-a time of war those in opposition ought to gislation had much to answer for in that be most careful as to how they opposed respect, because undoubtedly the evidence the financial prospects of the Government, of Sir Richard Mayne and others connect- and he felt that the course he had taken ed with the police, both in London, Liver- was the more difficult because he agreed pool, and elsewhere, went to show that with some of the propositions of the Channearly all the crime of the country was cellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with hatched in these beer houses. In 1834 the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that a Committee of that House sat to exa- they should as far as practicable abstain mine into the causes of the increase of from raising a loan; he also agreed with drunkenness. A magistrate of Oxford- him in thinking that it was not advisable shire was summoned to give evidence, as and perhaps not safe, to raise so large a also to state his opinion as to the best sum as that required by direct taxation; means to be adopted for its prevention. admitting this, he deemed it incumbent to That gentleman stated, that before leav-show strong reasons why he considered ing home he consulted with fifteen clergy- that the present tax should not be resorted men in his locality on the subject, and to. He objected to it on three grounds— fourteen out of fifteen declared the only remedy they could suggest was the repeal of the malt tax. Now, the testimony of these rev. gentlemen, coincident with that of the Commissioners of London and Liverpool Police, was very important, and should firstly, because it was extensive in amount; secondly, because it was laid entirely on one class, and on one class only; and he objected to it lastly, because there was no necessity for such a tax arising out of the exigencies of the war, and the only reason money with the right hand, while they were remitting another large sum with the left. Whatever might be the result of the present Motion, he trusted the House would compel the Government to stop the reduction of the tea duties. He could assure the House that there was no disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen on his side to offer any factious opposition not to give the necessary supplies for carrying on the war, but he wished those supplies to be granted through a better and a wiser system of taxation. Believing that this was a national war, undertaken for the honour and glory of England, he regretted that its expenses were not distri buted more equally over all classes of the community. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." that they were called upon to bear this additional burden was to remedy the financial errors made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last Session. One of the most grievous hardships on the farmer was, that he was not allowed to convert his own produce into the liquor which he himself and his servants and labourers consumed. With regard to the supposed increase in the consumption of malt, his there was no disposition on their part belief was that in consequence of its enhanced value less malt would be put into beer, and thus there would be a check placed on the consumption. The whole course of their legislation for some years past had been to reduce the taxation on articles that seemed to be prejudicial to commerce; but he was borne out by facts when he stated that in no case had they reduced any tax that was prejudicial to the farmer. He maintained, therefore, that it was unjust and wrong in policy, when a time calling for increased exactions came, to impose a tax like the present upon the farmer. They were rather bound to review the policy they had been pursuing, and lay on again a small portion of the various taxes they had remitted during the last few years. Then, if, unfortunately, the war should be continued so long as to make additional exertions necessary, the agricultural classes would, no doubt, be ready to respond to any call that could reasonably be made upon them. But the point on which, in his opinion, the whole of the question turned was, that this sum of 2,400,000l. was not required for the exigencies of the war, but simply and solely to fill up the vacancy which was caused by what he must consider the most injudicious conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in remitting such an amount of taxation at a time when he saw the political horizon so threatening. It appeared to him that it would be very unwise to reimpose the vexatious restrictions to which this part of the trade of the country was subjected. A large remission of the duty on tea was to be made, which was to be spread over four years-in the present year they would lose 600,0001; at Ladyday, 1855, they would lose another 500,000l.; and at Lady-day, 1856, they would lose a still larger sum, being a prospective loss of upwards of 1,000,000l. Under existing circumstances, the first step the Government ought to take would be to stop the further remission of the duties on tea. It appeared to him to be a gross absurdity to raise a large sum of Mr. Stanhope VISCOUNT MONCK said, he must thank the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken for the spirit in which he had addressed the House. If he had preceded him, he should have been tempted to make some strong observations on what had been said with reference to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman he felt it would be unbecoming to reopen that question. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Cayley) had made an admirable speech for repealing altogether the malt tax, whereas the proposition before them was not to repeal, but increase the malt tax. A good deal had been said about the policy pursued of late years by that House in their commercial legislation. Now, he had looked at the Resolution of 1852, and found that there were two points mainly contemplated in it-the one being unrestricted competition, and the other the abolition of taxes imposed for protection, as contradistinguished from those imposed for revenue. The propo sition before the House violated neither of these principles; this tax could not, on any ground whatever, be said to be opposed to the principle of competition. It was a tax imposed solely for purposes of revenue. It could not be for protection, because there was nothing to protect-for foreign barley would be taxed to the same extent as home-grown. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment based his speech on the supposition that it was a tax on the producer. The hon. Gentleman who seconded it said the tax would lie altogether on the consumer. He did not believe in either of these statements. In considering this point, they had to ascertain whether the tax was likely to have such an effect on the consumption of beer as to affect the price that the farmer received for his malt. Barley was different in this respect from almost all other raw materials. He believed that no stimulus they could apply would increase the cultivation of barley in this country. They did not find the consumption of malt increasing with the diminution of duty in the same proportion as other articles, therefore there must be something in the production of barley that made the difference; and it was just because the field for producing barley was so limited that it required a large imposition of taxation to diminish the demand for it, and, on the other hand, a large diminution of taxation to increase the demand. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment argued as if this were an agricultural question, and not a barley question; he could not agree with him in that view, but, on the contrary, thought that it was simply and solely a barley question. In fact the amount of land that was cultivated for the growth of barley in this country was comparatively so small that this tax, as applying to it, could not in any way be construed as a pressure upon land generally, and it was very unfair to argue on such an hypothesis. It was well known that very much of the land in agricultural counties would not grow barley at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had talked a good deal about it being our duty to tax the untaxed foreigner, and not to press so constantly and so heavily upon our home industry, and in the increased imposition of the malt tax these hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of carrying out the principles they professed to venerate, inasmuch as this was a tax which such foreigner would have to pay. Again, it had been said that by the proposed increase of the malt tax we were departing from the principles upon which we had been of late years acting relative to articles of consumption, and the removal of taxation from them; but hon. Gentlemen who made so much of this point should bear in mind the particular time at which it was proposed to increase this tax, and to remember, at the same time, that it was only to be a tax for the purposes of the war, and not to be a permanent tax. When the remission of this tax was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), in his character as Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was then argued by him as if it were a consumers' tax, and, taking it as such, the conclusion would be, that if the consumer were benefited by its remission, the consumer also would have to pay the increase, if any such were made to it. It was for this reason, among others, no doubt, that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had selected this particular tax at this particular time, when all parties must be made to contribute their quota towards the sustentation of the war. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire proposed to reduce the duty by onehalf-the precise measure of the addition which was now contemplated—it was calculated that the effect of that would be to reduce the price of beer by one farthing per quart. Surely it could not be seriously intended that a rise in the price of beer to that extent would have any appreciable effect upon the price of barley, the supply of which was so limited from the nature of our soil? He hoped that the House would consider well before they threw out so important a portion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measure as the increase of the malt tax undoubtedly was, and he believed, if they did throw it out, that the notion would go abroad that the House of Commons were unwilling to meet the necessary expenses and face the exigencies of the present war. COLONEL GILPIN said, that, as the representative of an agricultural county, and as one who had had an opportunity of consulting his constituents, as well as many other persons connected with the agricultural interest, since the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been laid before the House, he could bear witness that the uniform feeling among them was antagonistic to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and that, in their opinion, the imposition of an increased malt tax at the present time would fall most heavily and unjustly upon them. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget, while he was imposing a fresh injustice on the agricultural interest, that he himself had admitted that the income tax, as already imposed, pressed unequally on the landed interest in comparison with other interests, and now it was sought to inflict a further injury upon them in the shape of an increased malt tax. ! cellor of the Exchequer's policy could not An increase of the malt tax was a means of be trusted, because of the failure of some raising a large sum with very little trouble, of his financial schemes of last year. He and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman gladly availed himself of it. But with free trade in corn, to tax home-grown barley to the extent of 7,000,000l., could not be called an act of justice. One great objection he had to the tax was, that it would not produce the amount contemplated by its imposition, inasmuch as he had already found, and he thought experience proved, that when taxation on a generally consumed article was increased, the consumption of the article invariably diminished. He did not think that the present Government effectually exemplified the principles of liberality they professed by the way in which they endeavoured to treat the landed interest, whom they had first of all forced into competition with all the world, and now proposed to increase their burdens, hitherto all but insupportable. The only principle, in fact, upon which he believed the Government acted was that of putting their muchtalked-of principles into their pockets, and extracting all the money they could out of the pockets of the landed and agricultural interests. (Mr. Warner) still believed that the plan proposed for the creation of new stocks was a wise and well-considered measure. It would have turned to the advantage of the public revenue that unreasonable and ridiculous panic which existed at that time about the depreciation of gold. He believed, too, that that measure would have been successful had it not been for the discussions raised by the Member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). To be sure, the right hon. Gentleman was unfortunate in his arithmetic. He laboured to prove that the scheme would cause a loss to the Exchequer, but it turned out, in the course of the discussion, that the gain would be all on the side of the Exchequer, and the loss for those who accepted the new stocks. Of course, the public took alarm, and the scheme failed. But it had been said that the scheme must in any case have failed in consequence of the fall in prices which would follow from the war; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been charged with recklessly putting forward his scheme, when, as a Member of the Cabinet, he must MR. WARNER said, he was not one of have been acquainted with the contents of those who had felt much enthusiasm about those secret papers which had only just this war, or much sympathy for the cause been made public, and must have known which it had become the fashion to call that war was inevitable. But those secret that of our ancient ally. It was surprising papers did not prove anything of the kind. to him that those who had been most eager Where did all this righteous indignation in calling for the declaration of war, were against Russian aggression come from? the first to raise difficulties and objections We stood by when America invaded Mexico, when Ministers were really attempting to when France occupied Algeria, when our carry it on. The Chancellor of the Ex- Government, with more shameless injustice chequer explained the other night how than all, confiscated the revenues and anMr. Pitt's wars were popular, because of nexed the territory of the blameless Ameers the great opportunities which his loans on the banks of the Indus. We had always afforded for making enormous fortunes. shown a special sympathy for Russian amPerhaps this war had lost something of its bition. Hon. Members who so loudly depopularity, when hon. Gentlemen heard nounced the massacre at Sinope, and called there was to be no loan. If they would go upon our Government to avenge it, seemed back a little further than Mr. Pitt's time, to forget that there was once a massacre at they would find that in that most dishonour- Navarino. It had been said, with great able and disastrous war which we carried truth, that this country had for a long on with our American colonies, the Minis- course of years acted the part of exters were hounded on by the country gen- ecutor to the will of Peter the Great. tlemen, who had been told, and believed, It seemed to him that the Chancellor of that by taxing the Colonies they might the Exchequer might fairly have expected relieve themselves from the pressure of the that the present policy of Russia would land tax. We were not quite so ignorant be looked upon in this country as we now; perhaps not quite so unjust. Still it would appear, even now, that the means of carrying on war were to be made a secondary question to the reduction of the malt tax. It had been said that the ChanColonel Gilp in had looked upon her former aggressions, with indifference, if not with approval. However, the question of to-night was simply this-would the House provide the necessary supplies for the existing war or not? We could not have war without | These were the real causes of the war, which taxes. The property tax reached one class he believed might in their absence have of the people, the malt tax another; and been avoided. But now we were engaged both were properly to be increased toge- in the war, he was certain no one on his ther. If the war continued long, no doubt side of the House would attempt to obfurther additions must be made to both. struct the Government or withhold from He was glad to find that in this discussion them the supplies necessary to carry it on it had been generally admitted that the with vigour, so as to bring it to a glorious malt tax, like other excise duties, was a and successful issue. But they were bound consumer's tax. If, however, hon. Mem- to consider what were the means by which bers were sincere in wishing to relieve the they should best raise the supplies necesburden on the consumer, why did they not sary so to carry it on, and which would rather attack the licensing system. This prove the least oppressive to the people was a tax on beer four times heavier than whom they represented. He quite agreed the malt duty. It was a subject to which in the principles which had been propoundhe had given much consideration, and he ed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, believed it was perfectly practicable to do that the war was, whether just and necesaway with the licensing system without sary or not, at all events national; and doing injustice to vested interests, with that it should be paid for by all classes of advantage to public morality, and with the community. And it was because this considerable benefit to the public revenue. principle was not carried out by the proHe trusted that this Amendment would be posal for increasing the malt duty 50 per withdrawn. It was not for the honour of cent that he felt himself bound to resist the nation to have a division on it. The it. The Government proposed to impose want of unanimity on the present occasion this enormous amount on one portion of would be most injurious to our national the community- the one more heavily reputation on the Continent, where the taxed than any other; and which had been nature of our institutions was not under- deprived of protection, but relieved of none stood. If the war was to be carried on in of its burdens. And it was on this ground earnest, and the prestige of the British he should certainly feel bound to oppose name maintained, they must vote this and the imposition of this new duty. It was all the necessary taxes not only with una- said, indeed, by some of the supporters of nimity, but with acclamation. If they were the right hon. Gentleman's measure, that not prepared for this, they must be ready the malt tax was not oppressive to `the to surrender their ancient liberties to the agriculturists; for that it fell upon the contempt of nations and the mockery of consumer. The noble Lord the Member despots, and to proclaim to their enemies for Portsmouth (Viscount Monck) had said, and the world that they were unworthy to that it fell partly upon the producer and exercise their boasted and blood-bought partly upon the consumer-that it was an right to tax themselves. exception to the rule that a tax levied on consumption restricted production, and that a tax upon malt did not tend to limit the growth of barley. That, however, was plainly not the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so far felt that an increase of 50 per cent on the malt tax would affect consumption and limit production, that he actually allowed an average of 5 per cent as his calculation as to consumption. If there were a diminution of consumption, it was clear there must be a diminution of production, and a diminution of production must fall upon the producer. What did Mr. M'Culloch say upon this subject, and no one would dispute his being an authority: THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY said, he felt some difficulty in giving any other answer to the speech of the hon. Member who had last addressed them, than that one part of it answered the other. In one part of it the hon. Member declared no one could refuse to vote the taxes for the war, as just and necessary; and in another part of it spoke as if no one could support it as just and necessary, and talked of Sinope as a set-off for Navarino. For himself, he begged to say that his opposition to the tax was not an opposition to the war. Individually he believed it to be neither just nor necessary. He believed it to be a war which had been occasioned by the exaggerated confidence exhibited towards the Emperor of Russia at one time, and the no less marked and needless bitterness and animosity displayed towards him at another. "It is needless to say that the malt tax, like any other tax on commodities, falls on the con sumer. Still it must be admitted that it is indi rectly, if not directly, especially injurious to the |