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 208. in who must be taxed to supply the the other. The importation of deticiency. malt was now prohibited, and Mr. Mr. Wodehouse should vote Cayley had failed in showing that, against the motion. His main ob if the tax were repealed, malt jection to it was, that at present would not be imported from abroad. there was an absolute probibition 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conviction, on of the importation of malt, and the contrary, was, that if the tax that, if the duty were removed, were repealed, there would not only though large quantities of foreign be a large importation of malt, but malt might not immediately como an increased importation of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 mali and hopis. 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. Car. prime 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how could owing to the habits of the people such a tax tenfold greater than the having changed; to their being amount repealed be justitied? Mr. less addicted than formerly to fer. Floyer expatiated at some length mented liquors. Mr. Sandars upon what be regarded as sure showed that Mr. Carley had evrg symptoms of agricultural distress. gerated the obstacles to the impor

Mr. Seymour bore testimony to tation of foreign malt, as well as the diminution of pauperi-mn in many of the evils incident to the Dorselshire.

lax, the amount of which was wo Mr. Bennet considered this to large to be relinquished. be a quention of justice to the Mr. H. Drummond, on the part agriculiural 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 ertar as our coru.

clusively urain 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

.....:

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

[ocr errors]

&

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 bad 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 Nans, 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 dis save 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 1815, 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, not withL'pon 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 the same 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. Jaines Wilthe evils of the Excise machinery. son and the Chancellor of the Er. After a general discussion, Mr. chequer repeated the Government Biss's proposition was rejected by objections. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. 16 to 31. An attempt marie by Carter, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Blume, Mr. Fresen, one of ihe members Colonel Dunne. Mr. Napier, and for Sussex, to obtain a benetit 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, siled with being negatived by *2 to 30. But the Government. Lord Jolo Rusthe Ministers were not always sell, just before the division, threw equally fortunate in defeating the in the remark that the simple ques. fiscal projects of their opponents. tion was, should the duty on Irish They were again twice oul-volei in and Scoul spirits be lowered ? the present session on the same He must say that the duues on

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

.

spirits were not the kind of tax Wood then gave notice that on the which he specially desired to re- report of the resolutions being duce. Mr. Disraeli interposed his brought up, he should once more sauction of the motion : it was take the sense of the House upon quite time that these routine rea- the subject. He did so, and at sonings and stereotype arguments last succeeded in defeating his opof public officers should receive ponent, the Bill brought in by some decided check. The House Lord Naas being thrown out by divided, and the numbers were- 194 against 166. For the motion to go into

A nearly similar result attended Committee

159

a motion made by Lord Robert

Grosvenor, for leave to bring in a Against it

159

Bill to repeal the annual certificate Ministers and Opposition

duty on attorneys and solicitors.

The noble Lord proposed not to rein equilibrio .

0

move the duty in the present year, The Speaker had to give his and if the Chancellor of the Exchecasting-vote, and in accordance with quer would promise a favourable custom he voted for going into consideration of the subject in the Committee, that the House might following session, he would not have an opportunity for second press the motion at all, though he thoughts on the resolution itself. regarded the tax as a sample of The result produced great cheer- unjust legislation against a class. ing from the Opposition.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer On the 6th of June the Ministers declared that the revenue could not were again defeated by Lord Naas, afford the loss of this duty, neither and in a more decisive manner. did he regard it as having a paraOn the House going into Com- mount claim to remission.

On a mittee on the resolutions already division the Government were deagreed to, the Chancellor of the feated by 162 to 132. The vicExchequer moved that the chair- tory, however, was fruitless, as the man do leave the chair, and was out. Ministers succeeded in getting rid of voted by 140 to 123. Sir Charles the Bill before the second reading.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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

opposed, and had Mr. Henley and the Marquis of feated only by si Granby rested their support of the The motion in a motion upon the same grounds as of Lord Nats, i Mr. Disraeli.

Kildare, that ill! Lord J. Russell noticed the dis- into Committee cordant suggestions of the oppo- mode of lessly. nents of the tax for supplying the made spirits to void that would be created by its The case mu repeal. That of Mr. Hume, to was, that the Ii save the 0,000,0001, out of the tillers are 11" army and navy expenditure, which mode of less was not greater than in 1845, the made spinta House was not prepared to adopt, bond-up ini and the finances would thus be left placed in !! in a ruinous condition.

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

the ori A further experiment in the by Aval' same direction was made by Mr. Gover Bass, on the 17th of June, when this le that hon. Member sought to ob- know tain a partial reversal of the vote in the of the House on Mr. Cayley's re- on! solution, by moving that half them. Malt Tax should be repealed on the

C. 10th of October, 1852. The Chan di cellor of the Exchequer opposed the half repeal on the same grounds as he had opposed the i total repeal, and with the addi. 1 tional objection that the propos measure would leave untouched sell the evils of the Excise machinery After a general discussion, V Bess's proposition was rejectail 70 to 31. . An attempt male Mr. Frewen, one of ihe mens for Sussex, to obtain a bener the hop-growers by a remium the duty on their produ.. equally unsuccessful, the gu being negatired by H2 to 34 the Ministers were not equally fortunate in des final projects of their ! They were again twice ». the present session ("

.

1

« ForrigeFortsett »