by the accounts on the table, that the produce of the tax of 1819 had fully answered the expectation,

and risen to the amount which the country had been led to expect. The honourable member had contended that the consumption of barley had been reduced by taxation; but he (the chancellor of the exchequer) denied that the honourable member had accurately exhibited the accounts which were before the house, or stated a fair view of the subject. The inference which the chancellor of the exchequer drew from these accounts was, that the repeal of the war duty in 1816 did not afford relief to the agriculture of the country; and this he proved by an argument of expressly the same nature as that used by the honourable gentleman himself in favour of the repeal of the duty at present. The repeal in 1816 did not increase the consumption during the succeeding year, although not only was the duty then withdrawn, but that which had been advanced for the stock on hand had been repaid. The average quantity of corn, on which duties were charged, between July, 1816, and July, 1819, when a considerable proportion of the war duty was resumed, was 22,000,980 quarters, making an actual diminution of nearly 3,000,000l. on the revenue during these three years, as compared with the three years' preceding 1816. Neither had the re-imposition of a part of that duty in 1819, diminished either the consumption or the revenue since that period. The quantity was in fact increased by 1,200,000 bushels. The right honourable gentleman continued his reply to

the propositions of the honourable members for Essex, Rosshire, and Coventry; but his arguments were given in so indistinct a tone, that it was with difficulty we could catch even a few detached sentences. The right honourable gentleman contended as we understood him, that the new duty on malt had in no degree lessened the consumption of strong beer; and that, by consequence, the tax falling not upon the farmer but upon the consumer, was an eligible impost, pressing fairly and equally upon the public at large. He next proposed to meet the objections to the new duty as they applied to the case of Scotland peculiarly. It was said that the imposition of so high a duty held out an encouragement to illicit distillation; but it would not be found, he believed, that since the new duty had been in operation the extent of legal distillation had been diminished. On the other hand it was to be remembered that Scotland had a free importation of English grain; and if English barley could be carried into Scotland, there, at a reduced duty, converted into malt, and in that state brought back into the English market, what security was there for the English grower or maltster? He certainly could not consent to a partial reduction of the duties, therefore, which was to benefit Scotland exclusively, at the expense of crippling the revenue of the country. There was another point on which the honourable mover had expatiated – he meant the superannuations which had been adopted under the system of 1818. Persons, he admitted, had been allowed to retire; but the alteration of circumstances

circumstances rendered it necessary; and if any increase of expence had been the consequence, those circumstances could be fairly pleaded as a reason for it. Many persons considered that it would be far more desirable to reduce some of the duties on foreign products for the purpose of effecting general relief, rather than to remove such an impost as this: but when he himself proposed to remove the tax on one article, (we believe on the importation of certain description of silk goods,) he found that persons interested in the trade would not agree to such a proposition. If, then, a reduction of an impost on foreign articles would not be allowed, still less was it likely to be admitted with respect to a great internal duty, which fell equally on all classes of the community, and the amount of which could be accurately computed. Under these circumstances he should oppose the motion.

Lord A. Hamilton observed, that he was anxious to express his opinion on this subject, with reference to the operation of the last malt duty on Scotland. He would endeavour to make out a strong case, in the hope, feeble as it was, that his countrymen would be able to get something back. The right honourable gentleman (the chancellor of the exchequer) had stated, that the taking off the duty in 1816 was not met by an adequate consumption. He had urged that that measure did not augment the consumption. Now, he (lord Archibald Hamilton) thought that it would be conceded on all hands that the abandonment of the tax then existing could not operate on the crop, and any person who

recollected what the crop was in 1817 must be aware that it did not amount to more than half the ordinary average. Therefore the right honourable gentleman could not fairly expect any increased consumption. What followed? The first operation of the new measure must have taken place under these circumstances in 1818, when the crop was improved, at which time the new measure was revoked. What did the chancellor of the exchequer do? With that promptitude which, perhaps, belonged to, or was inherent in, the nature of his office, because the alteration did not operate in three or four months, he returned to the original tax, ex-, claiming "There is no use in a repeal: you see it has produced no augmentation of consumption." But a fair trial was not given to the measure; in fact, there was no trial at all. How did it happen that, supported as the right honourable gentleman was, by the landed interest in that house, not one individual connected with that interest got up and said, that the taking off this duty would have no effect in improving the state of agriculture? No per

son ventured to advance that opinion, even amongst those who on other occasions were extremely willing to give their vote in favour of the measures of the right honourable gentleman. This argument he would press more immediately to those gentlemen who were connected with that country, the interests of which he was particularly anxious to further on this occasion. The honourable members, to whom he alluded, were not backward in supporting the measures of administration; but there was not one of them

who

Who would say that this tax was a matter of indifference to them. On the contrary, they must admit that it appeared as a cruel grievance on the landholder of Scotland. That it was so, must appear evident when he stated that the amount of duty for malting a boll of barley (being about half a quarter) in the last year, exceeded the original price of the article. He would say nothing more in the way of detail, except to state the progress of those duties, as they had been laid on, and then leave it to the candour of the house to decide whether it was an inordinate and excessive burden. The noble lord then went on to show that when an additional duty of Is. 2d. per bushel was laid on English malt in 1819, there was a duty of 1s. 10d. imposed on the Scotch malt. This increased duty, he observed, was attempted to be justified, on the principle of correcting illicit distillation; but it had no such effect. It was, he conceived, a very wrong mode of calculating on the part of the right honourable gentleman, because he found some small districts of land in Scotland, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh,equal in production to the best land in England, to make his calculation on that land, which did not, in fact, constitute the one hundred and tenth part of the whole ac

count.

Lord George Cavendish agreed with the honourable mover in thinking that this measure would afford great relief to the agricultural interest: and although he did not concur in some of the general principles thrown out by the honourable member (Mr. El

1821

lice) in the course of the present discussion, still he felt it to be his duty to vote with him on this occasion.

Mr. E. Wodehouse conceived that there could be but one opinion as to the principle of this tax, which was, that it was the very worst principle on which a tax could be founded, since it was calculated to produce a pernicious effect on the physical powers as well as on the moral feelings of the working classes, by subsituting an unwholesome beverage for a wholesome one. He knew that it had tended to decrease the consumption of malt liquor. One individual had informed him that he had formerly brewed 700 quarters of malt, but that he now only brewed one. He had endeavoured to procure all the information he could on this subject from different individuals in the towns of Norwich, Yarmouth, and in other places; and they all agreed that there was a great diminution in the brewing of beer; some estimating it at one third, and others making it much more. Let the house consider calmly the effect of this tax on the growth of barley, and they would find that it tended to destroy the cultivation of barley altogether. Persons would cultivate wheat as the most remunerating crop. The consequence of adherence to that system must be to overwork and impoverish the land. The land must at length become exhausted, and then would come the greatest of all curses-a high price of bread.

He was one of those who was ready to confess that he was amongst the most determined and devoted of the partisans of I government.

government. But, avowing that, he conceived it to be his duty to declare, that if there did exist in his majesty's government any wish to underrate the general distress which now prevailed, and to which agriculture was particularly exposed, they not only deluded themselves, but they deluded the country. Agriculture was never so much oppressed as it was in the present moment; and it was owing in the first place to the magistrates, and in the next to the yeomen of the country, that the distress was not much greater. The evil was not confined to one county or to another: it extended more or less to all. In his opinion the distress was only warded off by the magistracy and the yeomanry; and if no project of relief were held out to them, which would speedily operate (for immediate relief was out of the question) the most lamentable consequences must follow: because it appeared to them that they were fast approaching to that state, when the magistrate would be compelled to make orders of maintenance for men whose substance was gone, and whose fortunes were destroyed. On these grounds he would support the motion; guarding himself, however, against any implied censure on the conduct of government.

Mr. Holme Sumner said that it was not enough to show that two and two make four: the circumstances must be considered in order to make that proposition satisfactory to the mind. The war which had required the present heavy taxation had been supported by the people. Never since man became a pugnacious animal had a war been more cor

dially supported by the people. He voted for the repeal of the horse-tax; and he would vote with every member who proposed any reduction of taxes that might relieve agriculture; yet he would vote against the present motion.

Lord Folkestone expressed great regret that the pugnacious disposition of the honourable gentleman who had last spoken had induced him to resist the motion, notwithstanding the reasons which he had given for supporting it. It was his (lord Folkestone's) decided opinion that it was impossible for the country to go on paying the interest of the national debt. There might be circumstances where to break faith was the only mode of keeping good faith. If faith could not be kept, it was not only excusable, but proper to break faith. "Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia." It might, therefore, be an act of good faith to break faith. If the whole was to be preferred to a part, if the substance was to be preferred to the form, if the reality was to be preferred to the appearance, the relief and security of the community were to be preferred to the wishes of a small part. This view of the subject was becoming every day more clear to his eyes, and he was glad to perceive that it was becoming daily more open to the observation of others. It was incompatible with the security, peace, and freedom of the country, to keep what was called good faith with the public creditor. Let it be supposed that there were an invasion -that, as the honourable general had stated last night, the congress of Laybach sent an army to inMade this country, and that there

was

was a difficulty to raise money to pay the interest of the debt, and to repel the invader--would it not be a gross dereliction of duty not to break faith with a part in order to protect the whole of the community? If the interest of the debt could be paid only by constant suspensions of the Habeas Corpus, it followed, in like manner, that to preserve our own freedom we must break faith. He thought it right thus to avow his principles. He hoped, however, that those who were disposed to support the motion would not take the alarm. The best way to avoid the extremity he had supposed-and an extremity it was the best way was, to support retrenchment, economy, and in short, to vote for the motion of his honourable friend.

Lord Castlereagh complained that the present time should be fixed upon for with-drawing this tax. Would the house tolerate such an attempt, when the country was in a course of restoring its currency? The house had pledged the government to that course, and could not now, when the manufacturing distresses were not so great in any degree as they were some time back, call upon them to reduce its revenue two millions, without knowing whether next year they could reckon upon the same state of the revenue in the ensuing year.

The result was hailed by loud cheering.

Mr. Western then obtained leave to bring in a bill to repeal the malt tax.

March 22.-Mr. Hume moved for the abolition of the offices of receivers general and distributors of stamps, upon the ground of promoting economy in the collec tion of the revenue, and reducing the power of patronage. This motion was negatived, but an amendment, proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer, for the selection of a committee for inquiring into the subject, was agreed to.

The following committee was then appointed:

The chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hume, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Macdonald, the Solicitor General, Mr. Bankes, Mr. C. W. W. Wynn, sir C. Long, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Courtenay, sir T. Acland, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. E. Wodehouse, Mr. Holford, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Chetwynd, sir H. Parnell, Mr. R. Smith, (Lincoln) Mr. N. Calvert, Mr. W. Whitmore, lord Binning.

23. Sir John Newport moved the order of the day, for the house going into a committee on the Roman catholic disability removal bill. The question for the bill being re-committed, was carried affirmatively. The house then resolved itself into a committee Mr. R. Smith in the chair,

first clause, and the house divided: I 2 For