ditional Income Tax, or any tax, so that this tax was taken off the labourer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to evidence showing that the Malt Tax, which yielded last year 5,400,000l., was collected more economically than any other tax of equal amount, and that the Excise regulations interfered less with the manufacturer. If this large sum was obtained in a manner so little oppressive to the consumer and the producer, a strong case was made out in favour of the tax. He admitted that the consumption of malt had not increased in proportion to the population; but the habits of the people had changed. The consumption of intoxicating liquors was diminishing, and that of non-intoxicating liquors increasing. According to the evidence of Mr. Barclay, the repeal of the malt duty would reduce the price of beer only a halfpenny per quart; was it worth while to sacrifice so large a revenue for so small an advantage to the consumer? The repeal of this tax, Sir Charles observed, would encourage illicit distillation; and Mr. Cayley had made a strange proposition, that the hop-growers, who paid only 400,000l., should be pacified by the sacrifice of 5,000,000l. If the House consented to give up this amount of revenue there would be no possibility of getting rid of the Income Tax, or of carrying out the system of policy for which that tax was continued.

to the influence it exerted upon the capital of the most suffer ing class, which was acknowledged to be in a dilapidated state; and what was the remedy offered by the Government? To give up the cultivation of wheat, at the same time keeping up a heavy duty upon another crop, to which the British farmer had recourse for some compensation. It was impracticable to maintain the Malt Tax, or levy a large local revenue separate from the general revenue, if that was not done for agriculture, which the first lights of political economy had sanctioned, and if the cultivators, owners, and occupiers of the soil were not placed upon the same level as other classes. Protection had nothing to do with this question, inasmuch as the Malt Tax was a burden peculiar to the land, and a large revenue was raised by local taxation from the soil for the purposes of the community, to which the community did not contribute. If Parliament was of opinion that this unequal burden should remain, it was for Parliament to offer terms. He should vote for the motion as a protest against the course it was pursuing, which was both unjust and injurious.

Mr. Fuller was understood to support the motion, as did

Mr. Hume, who expressed his astonishment at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had made no answer to the motion. He professed to carry out the principles of free trade, yet turned round and refused to give cheap drink to the working classes.

Mr. Bass, who had given notice of a motion to reduce the tax onehalf, likewise supported the motion.

a consumer and a producer; for every 5s. the farmer would gain in one capacity, he would lose 20s. in the other. The importation of malt was now prohibited, and Mr. Cayley had failed in showing that, if the tax were repealed, malt would not be imported from abroad. His (Mr. Packe's) conviction, on the contrary, was, that if the tax were repealed, there would not only be a large importation of malt, but an increased importation of foreign wheat, and for this reason he opposed the motion.

Mr. Aglionby likewise opposed the repeal of any part of the tax, because the finances of the country could not at present bear such a sacrifice of revenue.

Mr. Floyer supported the motion, mainly on the ground that the maintenance of this tax was at complete variance with the financial policy of the Government, namely, that on all articles of prime necessity taxation should be as much as possible reduced. If barley were not an article of prime necessity, why was it relieved of duty when the Corn Laws were repealed? If it were such an article, as he contended it was, how could such a tax tenfold greater than the amount repealed be justified? Mr. Floyer expatiated at some length upon what he regarded as sure symptoms of agricultural distress. Mr. Seymour bore testimony to the diminution of pauperism in Dorsetshire.

Mr. Bennet considered this to be a question of justice to the agricultural interest, and that, upon the principle of free trade, our beverages should be as free from

tax as our corn.

Mr. Trelawny denied that the repeal of a tax, which was ulti

mately paid by the consumer, could benefit the agricultural classes, who must be taxed to supply the deficiency.

Mr. Wodehouse should vote against the motion. His main objection to it was, that at present there was an absolute prohibition of the importation of malt, and that, if the duty were removed, though large quantities of foreign malt might not immediately come in, the finer qualities of barley would be immediately affected.

Mr. Frewen supported the motion for the repeal of a tax which operated as a strong inducement to country brewers to drug their beer, a vast quantity of liquor sold as beer being not pure malt and hops. A further reason was, that malt might be most advantageously used in fattening cattle, which would bring many thousand acres into cultivation.

Mr. J. Sandars said that Mr. Cayley had given no sufficient reason for concluding that the repeal of this tax would increase the consumption of barley threefold. The stationary consumption of malt, compared with tea and coffee, was owing to the habits of the people having changed; to their being less addicted than formerly to fermented liquors. Mr. Sandars showed that Mr. Cayley had exaggerated the obstacles to the impor tation of foreign malt, as well as many of the evils incident to the tax, the amount of which was too large to be relinquished.

Mr. H. Drummond, on the part of a class not represented in that House, claimed relief from this tax, because it pressed almost exclusively upon the agricultural labourer. The deficiency might be supplied by a House Tax, an ad

tax would benefit the poor man; bread was a necessary of life, but beer was not.

Mr. Henley and the Marquis of Granby rested their support of the motion upon the same grounds as Mr. Disraeli.

Lord J. Russell noticed the discordant suggestions of the opponents of the tax for supplying the void that would be created by its repeal. That of Mr. Hume, to save the 5,000,000l. out of the army and navy expenditure, which was not greater than in 1845, the House was not prepared to adopt, and the finances would thus be left in a ruinous condition.

Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 258 against 122.

A further experiment in the same direction was made by Mr. Bass, on the 17th of June, when that hon. Member sought to obtain a partial reversal of the vote of the House on Mr. Cayley's resolution, by moving that half the Malt Tax should be repealed on the 10th of October, 1852. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the half repeal on the same grounds as he had opposed the total repeal, and with the additional objection that the proposed measure would leave untouched all the evils of the Excise machinery. After a general discussion, Mr. Bass's proposition was rejected by 76 to 31. An attempt made by Mr. Frewen, one of the members for Sussex, to obtain a benefit to the hop-growers by a remission of the duty on their produce, was equally unsuccessful, the motion being negatived by 82 to 30. But the Ministers were not always equally fortunate in defeating the fiscal projects of their opponents. They were again twice out-voted in the present session on the same

But

motion, which, in the preceding year, they had twice unsuccessfully opposed, and had ultimately defeated only by strong exertions. The motion in question was that of Lord Naas, the member for Kildare, that the House should go into Committee respecting the mode of levying duty on homemade spirits taken out of bond.

The case assumed by Lord Naas was, that the Irish and Scotch distillers are injured by the present mode of levying the duty on homemade spirits taken out of excisebond-upon the quantity originally placed in bond, instead of on the quantity taken out of bond, notwithstanding the large deduction from the original amount which is made by evaporation and leakage. The Government case in reply was, that this leakage and evaporation is a known average quantity, for which, in the fixing of the relative duties on home-made spirits and foreignmade spirits, the home maker receives an ample allowance; the distinctive modes of levying the duties being made necessary by the increased and different facilities for fraud placed in the way of the home producer. Lord Naas went over his case much as he explained it in the last year. Mr. James Wilson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated the Government objections. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Carter, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Hume, Colonel Dunne, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Hastie sided with Lord Naas; Mr. Gibson, a member of a former Select Committee on the subject, and Sir George Clerk, sided with the Government. Lord John Russell, just before the division, threw in the remark that the simple question was, should the duty on Irish and Scotch spirits be lowered? He must say that the duties on