« ПредишнаНапред »
on a division, by 211 to 115. Mr. lief,” here he meant to introduce Dawson proposed an amendment an explanatory clause stating, for a reduction of 5000 men, that this was meant only to exwhich was negatived by 195 to tend to “such acknowledgment 130. The remaining resolutions of foreign jurisdiction, &c. as is were then gone through, and the or could be incompatible with the report was ordered to be re- civil duty and allegiance which is ceived.
due to his majesty or his subjects; House of Lords, March 15.— or with the civil duty and obeThe general enclosure bill was dience wbich are due to his courts, read a third time, and passed. civil and ecclesiastical, in all
The earl of Shaftesbury present matters affecting the legal rights ed a petition from the mayor, al- of his majesty's subjects." He dermen, &c. of Colchester, pray- wished to act upon that scheme ing that no further concessions of comprehension which had been might be granted to the Roman the great object in queen Elizacatholics.
beth's reign. He would so modify House of Commons.-The flax the oaths of abjuration and allemanufacturing encouragement bill giance, as to make them one and was read a third time, and passed. the same for persons of both re
March 16.— Several petitions ligions; but if it were insisted on, were presented for and against he would incorporate with them, the catholics.
as to catholics, the strong oaths Mr. Plunkett in moving the already taken by the catholics of second reading of the bill for the Ireland. The only offices from relief of the catholics, stated, which he would propose to exthat, the bill went to remove two clude catholics, were those of the grounds of disqualification. Ist, chancellor, privy seal, lord lieuThe disqualification by means of tenant of Ireland, and first lord of the oath of supremacy, and 2dly, the treasury. He could not agree The disqualification by reason of to exclude them from the bench the declaration against transub- of justice. In addition to these stantiation. On the latter he con- precautions, he thought it but ceived it unnecessary to dwell, as right that the protestant mind referring merely to speculative should be thoroughly set at rest opinions. The former (the oath on the subject of the nomination of supremacy) he wished to of catholic bishops, and their corbe taken with some limitation. respondence with the see of Rome, Whereas these words, “I do de- and he explained the provisions clare that no foreign prince, pre- which would be introduced for late, states, or potentate, hath, or that purpose, and the following ought to have any jurisdiction, oath to be taken by the catholic power, superiority, pre-eminence, clergy in reference to this point, or authority, ecclesiastical or viz. spiritual within this realm,”— “ I. A. B. do swear that I will "might be construed to import never concur in or consent to a disclaimer of the spiritual autho- the appointment or consecration rity of the pope, or church of of any Roman catholic bishop, or Roine, in matters of religious be- dean, or vicar apostolic, in the
Roman catholic church in the alterations were to be made in
Mr. P. then stated that he meant Mr. Plunkett, the second reading
21.- Vr: Western rose to proSir 1. Scott said, as so many pose the repeal of the lust duty,
of ls. 9d. per bushel, or Is. 4d. 1802. In that year it was raised per quarter, which had been laid to 18s. 8d. and in 1803 it was on malt. The question was in farther raised to 34s. per quarter. itself simple, though of vast im- He now came to state the proportance to the community. A gress of the duty on spirits. In great portion of the people looked 1791 the duty was about 21. 10s. with anxiety to the result of the per quarter; in 1793 it was raised present motion.
He trusted that to 21. 17s. 4d. and in 1796 to he should be able to make out a 41. 3s. 4d. per quarter, and so on, strong case for the repeal of this till it reached its present amount duty, whether it was viewed in of 101. the quarter, exclusive of its operation on the agricultural the duty as derived from malt and classes, or to its effects on the beer. Now he begged the house habits and morals of the people to consider how this operated on whether we viewed it as a ques- the grower. Supposing an acre tion of justice or of policy. In of land to produce 4 quarters of looking at the immense burdens malt barley, the duty of 28s. which pressed on the agricultural quarter would amount to 51. 12s. classes, he would say that no per acre. The duty on malt and thing was more severely felt by beer together would amount to them than the heavy duties on 121. per acre, and the duty on malt. He would first call the at- spirits, at the same average of 4 tention of the house to the extent quarters to the acre, would amount of the burdens already upon malt: to 401. on the acre. Now he was they would find them astonishing. not prepared to say that all this The total amount of the tax on pressure fell upon the agriculturist malted barley, including that on only; undoubtedly it fell in a beer and spirits, was 10,000,0001. great measure on the consumers; In the last budget of finance it was but it still could not be denied 8,670,0001. in England, and about that a great portion of the evil 1,300,0001. in Ireland. But he fell also upon the cultivator, bewould for the present look to it in cause this heavy pressure of taxaGreat Britain only. To go into tion necessarily reduced the conthe detail—there was, first, the sumption, and of course occasioned tax of 28s. per quarter on the a reduction of the growth to a malt; then a tax of 32s. per quarter great extent. He thought it was on it in the beer-making in the worth the observation of the house whole 31. per quarter on malt and that the duty on malt barley, beer. The duty on it as ma which was at 70s. 6d. in 1780, nufactured into spirits actually was not increased during the amounted to 101. per quarter: whole of the administration of Mr. that was, every quantity of spirits Pitt. Notwithstanding the great made from a quarter of malt paid difficulties and financial distresses that duty. The house might wish of his administration, he had to know what was the progress of never thought of raising this tax this duty. In the year 1780, the to any extent worth mentioning. duty was 10s 6d. per quarter on In 1791 the house did enact, that malt, and so it continued with a an additional tax of 3d. per very little deviation, which he bushel should be laid on malt should afterwards notice, until barley; but it was then only
considered as a temporary measure; tion was, 4,855,000; in 1804 it and in 1792, so convinced was was 2,750,000; and, in the last the legislature of the impolicy of four years, not much more than continuing it, that it was repealed. one million. This was the exact The question was very ably dis- diminution; but, by a comparison cussed in the house of lords, of the increase of population withiwhere the impolicy of pressing on in the time mentioned, we should the lower classes of the people, find that it ought to be considered and depriving them of the com- greater. By a simple calculation forts which they derived from the in the rule of three, we should use of the beverage which was find that the population, since thus taxed, was very forcibly 1791, being increased, and the maintained. The additional tax consumption less, the proportion of 3d. per bushel was in conse of decrease must be considered quence repealed, nor during the greater than the nominal amount remainder of Mr. Pitt's admini. he had stated. If the calculation stration was any additional tax was made upon a population of on that article proposed. In the ten millions of people consuming administration of lord Sidmouth upwards of twenty-seven millions in 1802, the tax was raised to of bushels, as was the case in 18s. 8d. and in the following year 1791, the defect of consumption it was farther raised to 34s. Now in 1804, considering the increased to show how the increased duties population at that time, would pressed on the farmer, by the di- appear 12,675,000 bushels; and minution of the consumption in in 1818, the defect would be England, Scotland, and Ireland, 14,672,000 bushels; or, in other he would take three periods, each words, making a diminished conperiod being the average of four sumption of 1,824,000 quarters years. In these averages he within the period of thirty years. would not include the year 1800, He was convinced that if this tax as it was a year of great scarcity. were reduced, the increase of conTaking the average from the year sumption would more than ade1791, he found that the consump- quately supply the deficiency in tion was 27,672,047 bushels. the rate of the tax. But, indeThen came the high duties in pendently of the benefit that would 1802 and 1803. After this, tak accrue to the revenue, would it ing the average and beginning not be a great advantage to agriwith the year 1804, there was a con culture to have a market for an sumption reduced to 23,450,000 additional quantity of 1,824,000 bushels, and in the last four years quarters of grain ? and was it not the average
22,600,000, an injustice, as well as a discoumaking a diminution of five mil. ragement, to agriculture to bé lions of bushels in the consumption deprived of that market by excess as compared with the year 1791. of taxation? He was one of those In Scotland the diminution was who thought that consumption in that time nearly one half; was the best subject for taxation; and in Ireland it was still greater. but whenever it appeared that the In 1791 in that country, taking tax reduced the consumption, the same averages, the consump- there was a sure proof that it had
been carried to a prejudicial ex wheat had been imported; which tent in every point of view. If it was five times the amount of the were necessary to give any ad. annual import during the twenty ditional proof of the effect which years preceding. In addition to high duties had in reducing the this, there had also been immense consumption of corn, it was only importations of Irish wheat. Some necessary to look at the immediate regulation was unquestionably operation in each successive year wanted to restrict this superof that period during which he had abundant importation; and he already given the average amount. was persuaded that an adequate In the year 1803 the number of remedy might be devised without bushels consumed was 31,900,000; altering the object, or violating in 1804, it was reduced to the spirit, of the act of 1815. It 22,421,000 ; in 1805, it was was necessary that the foreign 22,343,000; in 1806, when the and the British agriculturist should increased duties began to operate, be placed on a fair footing; for if the consumption was 27,400,000; the latter must start in the market in 1807, it sunk to 24,920,000; with the load of aggregate taxand, in 1808, it was 23,486,000. ation to which he was at present The honourable member then liable, it was impossible that he stated the annual amount of the could compete successfully with consumption in Scotland during the former, who had no such burthe same term of years, and showed
den to support.
But another that it was in the same proportion cause of the sufferings of the agrias that of England. Was it pos- culturist, and one, indeed, which sible to expect any other result, affected all classes in the country, when the duty had been raised was the act of 1819, vulgarly callfrom 10s. 6d. to 34s. 6d ? The ed Peel's bill. He had not the general difference between the presumption to call in question price of wheat and that of barley the wisdom and talents of those was one half; but, by the last who devised the measure in quesreturns, it appeared that wheat tion, but he was bold to affirm was now at 54s., and that barley that that act could not be perwas down to 24s., which showed, manent in its operation. The in a clear point of view, the ope honourable member concluded by ration of this tax. It was evident moving for leave to bring in a bill that the agriculture of this coun- for repealing the last additional try was at present oppressed by duty imposed on malt. excessive taxation; but he be Mr. Mackenzie, seconded the lieved that there were two other motion. causes which contributed materi Mr. Ellice supported the motion ally to increase the evil. One of of his honourable friend (Mr. these was the act of 1815, which Western). did not afford adequate protection The Chancellor of the Exchequer to the farmer. The consequence
wished to recall the attention of was, an inundation of foreign corn. the house to the question immeHe believed that, from the year diately before them. The hon1817 to 1819, no less than ourable member for Essex could 2,600,000 quarters of foreign not deny that which was proved