Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

a consumer and a producer; for mately paid by the consumer, could every 5s. the farmer would gain in benefit the agricultural classes, one capacity, he would lose 20s. in who must be taxed to supply the the other. The importation of deficiency. malt was now prohibited, and Mr. Mr. Wodehouse should vote Cayley had failed in showing that, against the motion. His main obif the tax were repealed, malt jection to it was, that at present would not be imported from abroad. there was an absolute prohibition His (Mr. Packe's) conviction, on of the importation of malt, and the contrary, was, that if the tax that, if the duty were removed, were repealed, there would not only though large quantities of foreign be a large importation of malt, but malt might not immediately come an increased importation of foreign in, the finer qualities of barley wheat, and for this reason he op- would be immediately affected. posed the motion.

Mr. Frewen supported the moMr. Aglionby likewise opposed tion for the repeal of a tax which the repeal of any part of the tax, operated as a strong inducement to because the finances of the coun- country brewers to drug their beer, try could not at present bear such a vast quantity of liquor sold as beer a sacrifice of revenue.

being not pure malt and hops. A Mr. Floyer supported the motion, further reason was, that malt might mainly on the ground that the be most advantageously used in maintenance of this tax was at fattening cattle, which would bring complete variance with the finan- many thousand acres into cultivacial policy of the Government, tion. pamely, that on all articles of Mr. J. Sandars said that Mr.Cayprime necessity taxation should be ley had given no sufficient reason as much as possible reduced. If for concluding that the repeal of barley were not an article of prime this tax would increase the connecessity, why was it relieved of sumption of barley threefold. The duty when the Corn Laws were re- stationary consumption of malt, pealed ? If it were such an article, compared with tea and coffee, was as he contended it was, how could owing to the habits of the people such a tax tenfold greater than the having changed; to their being amount repealed be justified ? Mr. less addicted ihan formerly to ferFloyer expatiated at some length mented liquors. Mr. Sandars upon what he regarded as sure showed that Mr. Cayley had exagsymptoms of agricultural distress. gerated the obstacles to the impor

Mr. Seymour bore testimony to tation of foreign malt, as well as the diminution of pauperism in many of the evils incident to the Dorsetshire.

tax, the amount of which was too Mr. Bennet considered this to large to be relinquished. be a question of justice to the Mr. H. Drummond, on the part agricultural interest, and that, upon of a class not represented in that the principle of free trade, our House, claimed relief from this beverages should be as free from tax, because it pressed almost extax as our corn.

clusively upon the agricultural Mr. Trelawny denied that the labourer. The deficiency might repeal of a tax, which was ulti- be supplied by a House Tax, an additional Income Tax, or any tax, so

to the influence it exerted upon that this tax was taken off the the capital of the most suffer labourer.

ing class, which was acknowledged The Chancellor of the Exche- to be in a dilapidated state; and quer appealed to evidence showing what was the remedy offered by the that the Malt Tax, which yielded Government? To give up the cullast year 5,400,0001., was collected tivation of wheat, at the same time more economically than any other keeping up a heavy duty upon tax of equal amount, and that the another crop, to which the British Excise regulations interfered less farmer had recourse for some com. with the manufacturer. If this pensation. It was impracticable large sum was obtained in a man- to maintain the Malt Tax, or levy a ner so little oppressive to the con- large local revenue separate from sumer and the producer, a strong the general revenue, if that was not case was made out in favour of the done for agriculture, which the first tax. He admitted that the con- lights of political economy had sumption of malt had not increased sanctioned, and if the cultivators, in proportion to the population; owners, and occupiers of the soil but the habits of the people had were not placed upon the same level changed. The consumption of in- as other classes. Protection had toxicating liquors was diminishing, nothing to do with this question, and that of non-intoxicating liquors inasmuch as the Malt Tax was & increasing. According to the evi- burden peculiar to the land, and a dence of Mr. Barclay, the repeal large revenue was raised by local of the malt duty would reduce the taxation from the soil for the purprice of beer only a halfpenny per poses of the community, to which quart; was it worth while to sacri- the community did not contribute. fice so large a revenue for so small If Parliament was of opinion that an advantage to the consumer? this unequal burden should remain, The repeal of this tax, Sir Charles it was for Parliament to offer terms. observed, would encourage illicit He should vote for the motion as distillation ; and Mr. Cayley had a protest against the course it was made a strange proposition, that pursuing, which was both unjust the hop-growers, who paid only and injurious. 400,0001., should be pacified by the Mr. Fuller was understood to sacrifice of 5,000,0001. If the support the motion, as did House consented to give up this Mr. Hume, who expressed his amount of revenue there would be astonishment at the speech of the no possibility of getting rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He Income Tax, or of carrying out had made no answer to the mothe system of policy for which that tion. He professed to carry out tax was continued.

the principles of free trade, yet Mr. Disraeli admitted that, after turned round and refused to give the vote upon the Income Tax, cheap drink to the working classes. this question occupied a different Mr. Bass, who had given notice position from what it did in the last of a motion to reduce the tax onesession. He could not consider it half, likewise supported the moas a mere question of fiscal regula. tion. tion, or of interest to the labourer: Mr. Brotherton protested against he looked at this tax with reference, the delusion that the repeal of this a consumer and a producer; for mately paid by the consumer, could every 5s. the farmer would gain in benefit the agricultural classes, one capacity, he would lose 20s. in who must be taxed to supply the the other. The importation of deficiency. malt was now prohibited, and Mr. Mr. Wodehouse should vote Cayley had failed in showing that, against the motion. His main obif the tax were repealed, malt jection to it was, that at present would not be imported from abroad. there was an absolute prohibition His (Mr. Packe's) conviction, on of the importation of malt, and the contrary, was, that if the tax that, if the duty were removed, were repealed, there would not only though large quantities of foreign be a large importation of malt, but malt might not immediately come an increased importation of foreign in, the finer qualities of barley wheat, and for this reason he op- would be immediately affected. posed the motion.

Mr. Frewen supported the moMr. Aglionby likewise opposed tion for the repeal of a tax which the repeal of any part of the tax, operated as a strong inducement to because the finances of the coun- country brewers to drug their beer, try could not at present bear such a vast quantity of liquor sold as beer a sacrifice of revenue.

being not pure malt and hops. A Mr. Floyer supported the motion, further reason was, that malt might mainly on the ground that the be most advantageously used in maintenance of this tax was at fattening cattle, which would bring complete variance with the finan- many thousand acres into cultivacial policy of the Government, tion. namely, that on all articles of Mr. J. Sandars said that Mr. Cayprime necessity taxation should be ley had given no sufficient reason as much as possible reduced. If for concluding that the repeal of barley were not an article of prime this tax would increase the connecessity, why was it relieved of sumption of barley threefold. The duty when the Corn Laws were re- stationary consumption of malt, pealed ? If it were such an article, compared with tea and coffee, was as he contended it was, how could owing to the habits of the people such a tax tenfold greater than the having changed; to their being amount repealed be justified ? Mr. less addicted than formerly to ferFloyer expatiated at some length mented liquors. Mr. Sandars upon what he regarded as sure showed that Mr. Cayley had exagsymptoms of agricultural distress. gerated the obstacles to the impor

Mr. Seymour bore testimony to tation of foreign malt, as well as the diminution of pauperism in many of the evils incident to the Dorsetshire.

tax, the amount of which was too Mr. Bennet considered this to large to be relinquished. be a question of justice to the Mr. H. Drummond, on the part agricultural interest, and that, upon of a class not represented in that the principle of free trade, our House, claimed relief from this beverages should be as free from tax, because it pressed almost ex

clusively upon the agricultural Mr. Trelawny denied that the labourer. The deficiency might repeal of a tax, which was ulti- be supplied by a House Tax, an ad

tax as our corn.

ditional Income Tax, or any tax, so

to the influence it exerted upon that this tax was taken off the the capital of the most suffer labourer.

ing class, which was acknowledged The Chancellor of the Exche- to be in a dilapidated state; and quer appealed to evidence showing what was the remedy offered by the that the Malt Tax, which yielded Government? To give up the cullast year 5,400,0001., was collected tivation of wheat, at the same time more economically than any other keeping up a heavy duty upon tax of equal amount, and that the another crop, to which the British Excise regulations interfered less farmer had recourse for some comwith the manufacturer. If this pensation. It was impracticable large sum was obtained in a man- to maintain the Malt Tax, or levy a ner so little oppressive to the con- large local revenue separate from sumer and the producer, a strong the general revenue, if that was not case was made out in favour of the done for agriculture, which the first tax. He admitted that the con- lights of political economy had sumption of malt had not increased sanctioned, and if the cultivators, in proportion to the population; owners, and occupiers of the soil but the habits of the people had were not placed upon the same level changed. The consumption of in- as other classes. Protection had toxicating liquors was diminishing, nothing to do with this question, and that of non-intoxicating liquors inasmuch as the Malt Tax was a increasing. According to the evi- burden peculiar to the land, and a dence of Mr. Barclay, the repeal large revenue was raised by local of the malt duty would reduce the taxation from the soil for the purprice of beer only a halfpenny per poses of the community, to which quart; was it worth while to sacri- the community did not contribute. fice so large a revenue for so small If Parliament was of opinion that an advantage to the consumer? this unequal burden should remain, The repeal of this tax, Sir Charles it was for Parliament to offer terms. observed, would encourage illicit He should vote for the motion as distillation ; and Mr. Cayley had a protest against the course it was made a strange proposition, that pursuing, which was both unjust the hop-growers, who paid only and injurious. 400,0001., should be pacified by the Mr. Fuller was understood to sacrifice of 5,000,0001. If the support the motion, as did House consented to give up this Mr. Hume, who expressed his amount of revenue there would be astonishment at the speech of the no possibility of getting rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He Income Tax, or of carrying out had made no answer to the mothe system of policy for which that tion. He professed to carry out tax was continued.

the principles of free trade, yet Mr. Disraeli admitted that, after turned round and refused to give the vote upon the Income Tax, cheap drink to the working classes. this question occupied a different Mr. Bass, who had given notice position from what it did in the last of a motion to reduce the tax onesession. He could not consider it half, likewise supported the moas a mere question of fiscal regula- tion. tion, or of interest to the labourer: Mr. Brotherton protested against he looked at this tax with reference, the delusion that the repeal of this

tax would benefit the poor man; motion, which, in the preceding bread was a necessary of life, but year, they had twice unsuccessfully beer was not.

opposed, and had ultimately deMr. Henley and the Marquis of feated only by strong exertions. Granby rested their support of the The motion in question was that motion upon the same grounds as of Lord Naas, the member for Mr. Disraeli.

Kildare, that the House should go Lord J. Russell noticed the dis- into Committee respecting the cordant suggestions of the oppo- mode of levying duty on homenents of the tax for supplying the made spirits taken out of bond. void that would be created by its The case assumed by Lord Naas repeal. That of Mr. Hume, to was, that the Irish and Scotch dissave the 5,000,0001. out of the tillers are injured by the present army and navy expenditure, which mode of levying the duty on homewas not greater than in 1845, the made spirits taken out of exciseHouse was not prepared to adopt, bond-upon the quantity originally and the finances would thus be left placed in bond, instead of on the in a ruinous condition.

quantity taken out of bond, notwithUpon a division, the motion was standing the large deduction from negatived by 258 against 122. the original amount which is made

A further experiment in the by evaporation and leakage. The same direction was made by Mr. Government case in reply was, that Bass, on the 17th of June, when this leakage and evaporation is a that hon. Member sought to ob- known average quantity, for which, tain a partial reversal of the vote in the fixing of the relative duties of the House on Mr. Cayley's re- on home-made spirits and foreignsolution, by moving that half the made spirits, the home maker reMalt Tax should be repealed on the ceives an ample allowance; the 10th of October, 1852. The Chan- distinctive modes of levying the cellor of the Exchequer opposed duties being made necessary by the the half repeal on

increased and different facilities for grounds as he had opposed the fraud placed in the way of the home total repeal, and with the addi- producer. Lord Naas went over tional objection that the proposed his case much as he explained it measure would leave untouched all in the last year. Mr. James Wilthe evils of the Excise machinery. son and the Chancellor of the ExAfter a general discussion, Mr. chequer repeated the Government Bass's proposition was rejected by objections. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. 76 to 31. An attempt made by Carter, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Hume, Mr. Frewen, one of the members Colonel Dunne, Mr. Napier, and for Sussex, to obtain a benefit to Mr. Hastie sided with Lord Naas; the hop.growers by a remission of Mr. Gibson, a member of a former the duty on their produce, was Select Committee on the subject, equally unsuccessful, the motion and Sir George Clerk, sided with being negatived by 82 to 30. But the Government. Lord John Rusthe Ministers were not always sell, just before the division, threw equally fortunate in defeating the in the remark that the simple quesfiscal projects of their opponents. tion was, should the duty on Irish They were again twice out-voted in and Scotch spirits be lowered ? the present session on the same He must say that the duties on

the same

« ForrigeFortsett »