Images de page
PDF
ePub

that the repeal of this tax must, as in the cases of tea, coffee, and other articles, greatly increase the consumption of malt, while by detaching the lower classes from the use of spirits, it would diminish drunkenness, the taste for spirits having grown up, as he showed, with the duty on malt. The repeal of the tax, he assumed, would treble the present consumption of malt; this would create a demand for 10,000,000 quarters of barley, stimulating the produce of other grain, and occasioning a corresponding advance of prices, the depression of which was the farmer's present complaint. After enlarging upon the impulse which the repeal would give to various branches of industry, he suggested means by which, he alleged, the void of 4,612,000l., the net amount of the tax, could be repaid to the extent of 3,310,000l., and the deficiency, he thought, would be covered by the productiveness of the revenue.

Mr. Christopher supported the motion, urging that as the agricultural interest of this country was the only unprotected interest, and was exposed now to competition with the whole world, the House should insist upon the application of the same measure of justice to agriculture as had been applied to every other interest in this country. Upon the principle that this tax was paid by the consumer-though it was also borne by the producer-he asked for the co-operation of Free-traders in removing a burden of 100 per cent. upon a product of British industry.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to follow Mr. Cayley through all the various topics which he had discussed, confining

himself to the real topic-the malt tax. After pointing out two mistakes into which, he said, Mr. Christopher had fallen, and replying to some of the preliminary observations of Mr. Cayley, who could scarcely expect support from the Protectionist party, the leaders of which were adverse to the repeal of this tax, he assured that Gentleman that the means he suggested for replacing the malt tax would not produce a fifth of the sum. Sir Charles disputed many of the facts from which Mr. Cayley drew his conclusions. Since the unrestricted importation of foreign corn the manufacture of malt had not diminished, but increased. Though between 1839 and 1849 there had been a falling off in the consumption of malt of about 1,000,000 bushels, the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa had largely increased; and, so far from spirits having been substituted for beer, the consumption of spirits had also diminished since 1839. The result, which was by no means unsatisfactory, was, that the consumption of all intoxicating liquors had fallen off, and that of non-intoxicating liquors had increased. The effect of repealing the malt duty, which Mr. Cayley expected would treble the consumption, was shown by the repeal of the war malt and beer duty-nearly equal to the existing malt duty-which had had no effect upon the consumption. Sir Charles adduced the opinions of practical men, that the repeal of the duty would not materially augment consumption, nor benefit the farmer; if then, he asked, no great benefit would arise to either consumer or producer from the repeal of this duty, was it wise to risk so large a revenue as

5,000,000l., which was necessary for the maintenance of the national establishments and the national faith?

Mr. Henry Drummond offered to exchange this tax for any other the Chancellor pleased to name, and he wished he could muster up courage enough to tax the Manchester manufacturers. This motion would be a real test of the honesty of the plea upon which the repeal of the Corn Laws was carried-whether it was to furnish cheap food for the people, or to get rid of so much cotton manufactures. He did not advocate the motion on the ground of justice to the landed interest; he supported it because it was of essential importance to the labouring classes to have cheap and wholesome beer. Mr. Drummond gave some entertaining details respecting the sophistications of this beverage, which, in its genuine state, he believed was a very scarce article.

Mr. Bass supported the motion. Though a Free-trader, he sympathised very strongly with the condition of the agricultural interest, and considered it to be the duty of the House, by every legitimate means, to alleviate their distress. He believed that the repeal of the malt duty would afford such alleviation, and that a repeal of the whole duty, which would be a relief of 35 per cent. to the consumer, would be attended with a very different result from the case mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was only that of a diminution of the duty. He was persuaded that even a reduction of one-half of the duty would be beneficial.

Mr. M. Gibson said, the question was whether, notwithstanding

his objection to the principle of an Excise duty, and his admission of many of the evils of this tax, he conscientiously believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, after the House had decided upon the expenditure, remit 5,000,000l. a year. Before this remission was made, the House must effect, with a due regard to the public credit, a proportionate reduction of the expenditure. It was, therefore, his duty to vote against the motion.

Mr. Spooner disputed the soundness of Sir C. Wood's conclusion, that cheapening an article of general demand did not give an impulse to consumption, which would overturn the whole of his free-trade theory, to which the malt tax and the restrictions prescribed by the Excise laws were repugnant. The highest authorities maintained that nothing could justify Excise duties but absolute necessity, yet 9,000,000l. of Customs had been thrown away, and the malt tax retained.

Mr. Hodges, though he had on a former occasion voted for the repeal of this tax, could not do so now, when the alternative must be this tax or an increase of the income tax. He hoped, however, that if the circumstances of the exchequer permitted hereafter, the tax might be reduced, and he pleaded likewise for an abatement of the hop duty.

Mr. J. Wilson observed that, generally speaking, Excise duties were no infraction of the principles of free trade, which forbade only taxes for protection. There was nothing peculiar in the article of malt to call for the relinquishment of 5,000,000l., which would only lead to an increased importation from abroad; for the additional

10,000,000 quarters of barley could not be produced except by displacing a quantity of wheat. Malt was not so heavily taxed as other articles-it paid 57 per cent., whereas coffee paid 100 per cent., English spirits 333 per cent., tea 200 per cent., and tobacco 1200 per cent. After the finances of the year had been settled, to give up 5,000,000l. at one blow, would be a degree of recklessness of which the House would not be guilty, and a breach of faith with the public creditor.

Mr. Disraeli could not consider the proposition before the House apart from the condition of the agricultural classes, which no one denied was one of great depression. The only difference was, that on his side it was not unexpected, whereas on the other it was unexpected. He had, then, a right to ask of the Government some distinct view of what they thought would be the future condition of the agricultural classes. They had been heretofore told that the distress was transient, and that prices were rallying, but the end of the Session was approaching, and the depression was aggravated. Our taxation was derived from three sources-duties on imports, inland taxation, and local contributions. Great part of the second class of taxes, and the whole of the third, were raised from the land and its adjuncts. Could such a system continue, which diminished the means, whilst it increased the burdens of the contributors of the greatest portion of their revenue? The motion must, therefore, be considered, not upon the narrow basis of the state of the revenue, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible, and which was no infallible test of the

prosperity of the country, but with reference to recent legislation and the condition of the agricultural classes. The House should adopt as a principle, that relief should be sought from the reduction of Excise, not Customs duties. On every ground of policy the motion should be supported, the effect of which would be to bring the House to its senses; it would terminate for ever a series of experiments, make the Government acknowledge their purpose, and strip from them that convenient veil which had too long shrouded their features.

He

Lord John Russell said Mr. Disraeli had enunciated a dangerous principle when he exalted the land into a paramount interest, and claimed an exemption for it from an amount of taxation which, if not otherwise supplied, would disable this country from fulfilling its obligations. It was satisfactory, however, to him (Lord John) to find that upon the subject of the malt tax Mr. Disraeli did not represent the sentiments of Lord Stanley, who had declared that, if a member of that House, he would oppose the remission of this tax without a substitute. (Lord John) had never expected that the transition from one system to another could be unaccompanied by partial suffering; but when he was asked whether he considered low prices a benefit or an evil, he answered that, discussing the question as a matter of speculation, low prices might be the result of unusual circumstances, which should not be taken as a rule; but, as legislators, the Government said, be those prices high or low, they would not legislate to produce artificial prices for the food of the people. Pointing to the successful results of the free

trade policy, he inferred therefrom that the temporary depression of the agricultural interest had been more than made up by the general prosperity of the country. It was a false and injurious policy to sepa. rate the land from the other great interests of the country; the

welfare of the land was bound up with that of all the other interests, and those were the interests which the Government had consulted.

The House having divided, the motion was negatived by 247 against 123.

CHAPTER VI.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES:-ECCLESIASTICAL APPEALS BILL-Occasion of this Measure-The Bishop of London introduces a Bill for creating a new tribunal in lieu of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Church Questions-Speech of the Bishop on moving the Second Reading-The Bill is opposed on the part of the Government by the Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, the Bishop of St. David's, Lord Campbell, the Earl of Harrowby, and the Earl of Carlisle, and supported by the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Lyttelton, and the Bishop of Oxford-The Second Reading is negatived by 84 to 51. REFORM OF THE UNIVERSITIES-Mr. Heywood moves an Address to the Crown, to issue a Commission of Inquiry into the State of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin-Sir R. H. Inglis opposes the Motion on behalf of Oxford, and Mr. Napier on behalf of Trinity College, Dublin-Lord John Russell surprises the House by intimating the intention of Government to concede the Commission-Remarks of Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Roundell Palmer, and other Members-The Debate is adjourned-Incidental discussions on the subject in the House of Lords-Declaration of the Duke of Wellington-Remarks of Lord Monteagle, and assurance given by Lord Carlisle, as to the intended constitution of the Commission-Resumption of the Debate on Mr. Heywood's Motion-Speeches of Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Law, and Lord John Russell-A division takes place, which results in a majority of 22 in favour of the Commission. ALTERATION OF THE LAW OF MARRIAGE-Mr. Stuart Wortley revives his Bill of the preceding session for legalising Marriages within certain degrees of affinity-The introduction of the Bill is opposed, but without success-Debate on the Second Reading-Speeches of Mr. A. B. Hope, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Lord Mahon, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Goulburn―The Second Reading is passed by a majority of 52-The committal of the Bill is opposed by Mr. Divett, and carried by a majority of 2 only-Various Amendments are proposed without success— -The Bill is passed, but is ultimately withdrawn in the House of Lords, at the End of the Session, by Earl St. Germans. SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE-Motion by Lord Ashley, to discontinue the delivery of letters on Sunday, is carried against the Government by 93 to 68-The alteration is soon after carried into effect, but excites much controversy and dissatisfactionAfter it has been in operation a few weeks, Mr. Locke moves an Address to the Crown, praying for a reconsideration of the Order-Mr.

« PrécédentContinuer »