Amendment proposed, in that House a stronger sense of justice | modities, so that if the determination of than existed in the mind of the right hon. the House should ultimately be to adopt Gentleman, and that they would not sanc- the proposition of the Government, the tion a Resolution so utterly at variance intentions of the House may not be evaded with everything that was fair and right, by the withdrawal of the commodities out and so fraught with injury to the agricul- of bond. That being the intention of the tural class. vote, I must decline to discuss the merits of the Resolution at the present moment, for, if I did so, every Gentleman would have a right to complain of it as a breach of faith on the part of the Government. For this reason, I beg leave entirely to decline discussion until we arrive at the stage to which my noble Friend has al ready adverted, when the question may be On the part raised and fully considered. of the Government, of course, I meet the Amendment with a negative, and adhere to the Resolution as it stands. "To leave out the words ' for and upon every bushel imperial standard measure, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity of Malt which, after the 8th day of May 1854, shall be made in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."" THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if I were to advert to the observations which have fallen from the two hon. Gentlemen who made and seconded the Amendment in detail, I am afraid that the pith and purport of what I should have to say would be, if not a contradiction, yet an attempt at a confutation of everything which proceeded from them. I could not agree, I am afraid, to any single proposition which they have uttered; and especially I fear that I should be bound, in general terms, to protest against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Bali), who appears to think that it is the landed interest whom we had in view in the imposition of this tax, and to be of opinion that this tax and the tax upon spirits are to be borne by the landed interest alone. Sir, I entirely dissent from that proposition. The view of the Government has been an equal apportionment of taxation. I shall not attempt to go into the proof of that proposition, but I content myself with respectfully stating it, and postponing to a future be defence that may occasion any against the charges of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. My object in rising is simply to apologise to those hon. Gentlemen for not entering upon the task of answering them. I assure them that it is neither out of any want of respect to them, nor from any indifference to the great importance of the subject, that I refrain from doing so; but it is that, if I entered upon a discussion of the question at the present moment, I should be guilty of a virtual breach of faith to the House. I have stated within the course of only a few minutes, that in the view of the Government the vote which you are called upon to give is purely a pro formá vote, and that its whole intent and object is to complete the authority of the revenue officers to raise the charge upon the comMr. Bentinck necessary MR. DISRAELI: I am not going, Sir, to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Resolution now before the Committee, but I merely rise to repeat the suggestion which I made last night, that the consideration of this Resolution should be postponed. The ground upon which that suggestion was met by the Government was, that there was no precedent for such postponement. Of course, it was not possible to answer a reply of that kind immediately, because it was not in my power at the moment to consult precedents on a subject which I thought of very great importance. Considering the unexpected character of the proposition of the Government-considering that it unhappily reopened the whole of that industrial question which has so often been discussed in this House— considering that, in a manner most impolitic, it brought a controversy again upon the carpet of Parliament which I thought had for ever disappeared-and considering, more especially, that unanimity was most desirable throughout the country when a tax of this nature should be brought forward, I was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord the Member for London, would have assented to postpone this Resolution, in order that the whole question of the financial scheme of the Government might be discussed together. I will now mention briefly precedents which I think are the highest authority for the course which I suggested, and which the right hon Gentleman informed me last night did not exist. I will not go into old precedents, but I shall take those which more particularly have reference to the course taken by Governments with which tion so reasonable, and enforced by such high authority and precedents, then, to prevent myself from any misconception, I must support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ball); because I cannot but feel that much apprehension will exist upon this subject throughout the country: and I do not wish it for a moment to be supposed that I, at least, can in any way believe now to be most improperly and unjustly imposed. either the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was connected. In 1840, with a Government with which the noble Lord was connected, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now in the House, proposed, upon Friday, the 15th of May, a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, for an increase of 5 per cent upon the Customs duties. That Resolu-assent to the increase of a tax which I tion was not reported until Tuesday, the 19th, although the House sat upon the intervening Monday. That was a prece- LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I thought dent afforded by a Whig Government. that the Committee of the whole House Here is another precedent drawn from a had agreed last night that, though the Government of which the right hon. Gen- formal Resolution might be agreed to tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and be reported, yet that the whole queswas a Member. This, certainly, is one of tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's the advantages which we have in arguing plan of finance should be discussed on a point of this description before a Coali- Monday next. It appears now that the tion Government. In 1842, upon the 4th right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) is disof April, there was a Committee of Ways posed to recede from that engagement, and and Means upon the income tax and upon to make new objections to the course which the Irish stamp duties. That Resolution we have proposed. His only ground for was not reported until the 13th of April. proceeding in that course is, that we had I am aware that the noble Lord may tell supposed that there were no precedents for me that the interval was occupied in dis- any other course than that which the Gocussions upon the income tax Resolution. vernment proposed, whereas he has found That is true; but during the whole of that several precedents, as he alleges, for a time the Resolution upon the Irish stamp different course. I must say that those duties, with respect to which there was no precedents are entirely inapplicable. They opposition, was also hung up, and it like- are precedents with regard to the Irish wise was not reported until the 13th of Stamp Acts and to the income tax, and April. I have now brought for the consi- are totally different from the proposition deration of the House two important and now before the House. [Mr. DISRAELI : effective precedents in favour of the course They apply to the Customs duties and which I recommended last night, when the to spirits.] The question before the Government stated that no such precedents House at present relates to a practical existed. All that I myself seek is, that injury which the public would suffer the scheme of the Government shall be if this Resolution were not agreed to. fairly discussed in this Honse as a whole. I mean supposing always that the House I know that they may tell me that the should ultimately agree to the plan of House is pledged to nothing by reporting my right hon. Friend. The precedents this Resolution. We know, on the con- which were chiefly looked to by us were trary, that no discussion on the malt tax those of 1801, of 1802, and of 1819, all can take place until the second reading of of which are precedents with regard to the Bill, that a considerable interval will malt. In 1802, the malt duty was raised elapse, that great misconception will exist from 1s. 41d. to 2s. 5d.; and in 1819, it in the country, and that, practically, as in was further raised from 2s. 5d. to 3s. 7 d. the case of the Resolution respecting Ex- Upon both those occasions, and upon the chequer bonds, although the House is not other occasion to which I have referred, pledged to assent to the proposition, the the Resolution which was agreed to upon Minister will always appeal to a Resolution one day was reported upon the next. The to that effect having been passed in Com- consequence of not doing so would be mittee and reported to the House. I must either a very great loss to the revenue, or still urge upon the Government the post- very great irregularity on the part of the ponement of this Resolution. If they will revenue officers. The revenue officers, no consent to postpone it till Monday I shall doubt, might act upon the Resolution of a support the Government; but if, on the Committee of the whole House; but that contrary, they will not assent to a proposi-Resolution, not having been approved by ed on the second reading of the Bill. He would not now lend himself, by voting with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), to an attempt to take the House and the Government by surprise. MR. HENLEY said, he should positively deny that they had come to any understanding to the effect that the Resolution was not to be opposed that evening. He would not at that moment enter into a discussion of the general question; but as he had not been a party to any understanding with the noble Lord, he felt himself at perfect liberty to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire. MR. GOULBURN said, that as he was not present during the debate of last night, he could not say whether any understanding was come to, but it appeared to him that if they were to act upon rational principles they could not resist the request to pass the Resolution. If they were not to do so, the whole of the stock now in hand would go out and be charged at full prices, including the duty, and the question to consider was, whether the Government would be enabled to levy for the public service 250,000l., or whether, by a the whole House, would not, as I conceive, | sidering that the Resolutions were now to be an authority which might afterwards be be passed pro formá, and that on Monday considered sufficient. If, however, they the whole question was to be fully discussdid not act upon it, there would probably be a very great loss of revenue. The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue has calculated that the consequence of the delay of a week in collecting this duty would involve a loss of no less than 250,000l. Now, I put this to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who say-and I am quite ready to admit the truth of it-that they have been ready and willing to give us every assistance in the exertions which we have been called upon to make in the prosecution of the war: I ask them now, will they depart from that honourable course? Will they deprive the Government of 250,000l. of revenue for the sake of-it is difficult to define what-for the sake of debating a Resolution upon Monday next rather than the second reading of a Bill? If they have then before them the second reading of a Bill imposing new duties upon malt, they may throw out that Bill, and they may reject the duty altogether, in which case the persons who have paid it would, no doubt, be reimbursed the amount which they had paid; but if, on the other hand, they approve the duty, they might pass the Bill, and they would have the consolation of thinking that 250,000l. of revenue had not been lost to the Govern-delay in coming to a decision, they would ment. I own I cannot conceive, under these circumstances, why hon. Members can refuse to accede to the passing of the MR. BARROW said, he agreed with the formal Resolution. I can assure the right right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxhon. Member for Buckinghamshire that no fordshire (Mr. Henley), that they had not person on this side of the House, neither come to any agreement on the preceding my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of evening to the effect that that Resolution the Exchequer nor either of his Colleagues, should not be discussed whenever it might will take any advantage of this permission. be brought before the House. He must They will not say, because the Resolution entirely dissent from what the right hon. passed, that the House approved the Member (Mr. Goulburn) had stated would scheme of increasing the malt tax; on be the result of the postponement of the the contrary, it will be admitted that the Resolution. The noble Lord (Lord John passing of the Resolution was necessary to Russell) had stated that there was a wide carry into effect the duty of the revenue, difference between the present occasion and the whole question can be fully dis- and the precedents cited by the right hon. cussed on Monday next. I must, in con- Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disclusion, say that this is the understanding raeli), but that difference consisted in this which I thought was come to last night.-that on the former occasion a sum of 5 It will be a great loss to the revenue, or a great irregularity, to attempt to collect the duty without the passing of this Resolution; and, at all events, I am greatly surprised at the course which hon. Members are now attempting to pursue. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that he quite agreed with the noble Lord in conLord John Russell allow the maltsters to put that sum into their own pockets at the public expense? per cent would have been lost in the interval between the passing of the Resolution and the bringing up of the Report, while on the present occasion the sum of 50 per cent was involved in this question. SIR CHARLES WOOD said, he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the House that on the former Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. occasion the small sum of 5 per cent | Grenfell, C. W. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution.' The House divided :-Ayes 224; Noes 143: Majority 81. Herbert, rt. hon. S. Howard, hon. C. W. G. Richardson, J. J. Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Langston, J. H. Ellice, rt. hon. E. Luce, T. Mackie, J. Elliot, hon. J. E. Emlyn, Visct. Mackinnon, W. A. MacGregor, Jas. MacGregor, John Massey, W. N. Euston, Earl of Ewart, W. Fagan, W. Feilden, M. J. Matheson, A. Fergus, J. Miall, E. Ferguson, J. Mills, T. Fitzgerald, J. D. Geach, C. Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Glyn, G. C. Crossley, F. Goodman, Sir G. Currie, R. Dalkeith, Earl of Gower, hon. F. L. Grace, O. D. J. Dalrymple, Visct. Denison, E. Denison, J. E. Dent, J. D. Milligan, R. Scully, V. Seymour, Lord Sheridan, R. B. Smith, rt. hon. R. V. Talbot, C. R. M. Thornely, T. Tynte, Col. C. J. K. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. Vivian, J. H. Vivian, H. II. Walmsley, Sir J. Whitbread, S. Willcox, B. M. Wilson, J. Bagge, W. Jones, D. Bailey, Sir J. Bailey, C. Baillie, II. J. Baird, J. Baldock, E. H. Bankes, rt. hon. G. Bennet, P. Blair, Col. Boldero, Col. Campbell, Sir A. I. Carnac, Sir J. R. Christopher, rt.hn. R.A. Kelly, Sir F. Kendall, N. Ker, D. S. King, J. K. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to a question from Mr. Dunlop respecting the Resolution on the sugar duties, said, that in the statement which he had the honour of making last night he had proposed a certain scale of duties on sugar irrespective of origin, and that scale of duties was to have taken effect immediately. The objection taken to this by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) was, that, as there was still a period of eight or nine weeks during which those persons interested in colonial sugar had a right to anticipate, under the sanction of the faith of Parliament, a continuation of the differential duties, the Government had, under these circumstances, given way, and had framed a Resolution by which it was proposed to raise 15 per cent additional duty on the sugar duties as they now existed. The Resolution contained no reference to the time, but it was drawn up in that respect with due regard to precedent. The proper period Pakington,rt. hon. Sir J. for limiting the time would be when the Resolution was introduced in the form of a Bill. At that stage an enactment would be proposed limiting the time to the 5th of July, and they would likewise propose that after the 5th of July the scale of duties which he had last night proposed to the House should come into operation. Naas, Lord Neeld, J. Noel, hon. G. J. Oakes, J. II. P. Cecil, Lord R. Chelsea, Visct. Child, S. Clinton, Lord C. P. Packe, C. W. Coles, H. B. Compton, H. C. Palk, L. Davison, R. Deedes, W. Dering, Sir E. Palmer, R. Parker, R. T. Scott, hon. F. MR. BAILLIE said, he wished to know if the definitions of the different classes of sugars as now understood were to be maintained? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had last night mentioned the subject of the standards of sugar that divided class from class, and that it was intended to consider and modify those standards. The alteration in the standards Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J. that would take place would be an altera Frewen, C. H. Fuller, A. E. Galway, Visct. Gaskell, J. M. George, J. Tomline, G. Gilpin, Col. Graham, Lord M. W. Tudway, R. C. Granby, Marq. of Tyler, Sir G. Greaves, E. Vance, J. tion of no great effect, but, so far as it went it would be found to be in favour of sugar of the lower qualities. Subsequent Resolutions agreed to. Bill or Bills ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord John Russell. THE ORANGE RIVER TERRITORY. MR. ADDERLEY said, he would now beg to move the Address of which he had |