house property whatever liable to taxation-were questions on which it would be altogether premature to express an opinion. His fundamental objection to the plan of the Government was, that it would cut off from the reach of the House of Commons a valuable source of revenue, at a time when it was highly probable such a resource might be essential to maintain the interests of the country and the public credit.

Mr. Labouchere said the simple issue before the House was, whether it would fulfil the wishes of the country by repealing the Window and Timber duties. He felt assured that if the Income Tax should not be continued next session, the House would not shrink from its duty of putting the finances of the country upon a proper footing.

Mr. Hume said he did not object to a House Tax, but he did object to the mode in which this tax was proposed to be carried

The principal alterations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to make this year in the Customs duties were in those upon timber and coffee. With respect to the former, he proposed a reduction both, on foreign and colonial, of one-half the existing duty. On coffee also his plan was, to levy on both foreign and colonial produce one-half the amount heretofore charged on foreign coffee. The principal antagonist of the latter measure was Mr. E. H. Stanley, who opposed Sir Charles Wood's resolution, and brought before the VOL. XCIII.

House a large amount of detailed information, to show how unjustly the equalization of duties would operate in Ceylon in comparison with Brazil. The resolutions were nevertheless agreed to by the House.

Upon the Customs Bill going into Committee,

Mr. T. Baring moved a resolution, that the directions of the Lords of the Treasury to the Excise, "that no objection be made on the part of the revenue to dealers in and sellers of coffee, mixing chicory with coffee," ought to be revoked. He showed that the sanction of this adulteration was contrary to the regulations enforced against other excisable articles of consumption; he argued that the mixture of chicory with coffee was not now called for, and that the consumption of coffee had been materially diminished by adulteration, other baser ingredients being employed besides chicory. If this deceptive practice could be prevented, it was the duty of the Government to do so, and he contended that, by rescinding the Treasury orders, this anomalous practice would be checked, which tended to demoralize the traders.

Sir J. Trollope, on the part of the chicory growers, opposed the motion, urging that it was hard, without notice, to revoke an order under which they had been induced to cultivate the article.

Lord H. Vane supported the motion, observing that it would not interfere with the interests of growers of chicory.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after pleading the wholesomeness of chicory, stated that the Treasury order had been issued in consequence of the impossibility of preventing its mixture with [H]

to the House, without a serious, probably an obstinate, opposition from one or more parties in the House. ("Hear, hear!") There was a large body of gentlemen who said that it was grossly unjust to levy the Income Tax upon an uniform percentage on the several schedules embodied in the Act; and those gentlemen had so far succeeded in impressing the House with their views as to have obtained a Parliamentary Committee, avowedly for the purpose of considering, not exclusively, but mainly, whether there ought to be a varied percentage upon the different schedules of the Act. Then, again, he did not suppose the Government them selves were to be looked upon as friendly to the permanent imposition of the tax, while there was another party whose opinion he gathered to be, that the frauds perpetrated under schedule D were of such a nature and extent as to constitute a serious, and, if not mitigated, an insuperable objection to the renewal of the tax. ("Hear, hear!") He had said that there was a party opposite who insisted that there must be a varied percentage under the different schedules; but there was also a party on the Opposition side of the House who, under no circumstances, would be induced to assent to the renewal of the Income Tax if the percentage were varied, because they believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that, apart entirely from considerations of policy, the House was absolutely precluded, by a solemn and formal pledge on the statute-book, from adopting any such variation. In what condition, then, was this unfortunate Income Tax, which had been committed to the mercies of a Parliamentary Committee, to come out of that Committee?

Would it come out with a recommendation in favour of a varied percentage under the different schedules? If so, then he predicted that the Income Tax would not receive the assent of the House. ("Hear, hear!") If, on the other hand, it should come out of the Committee without such a recommendation, it would still be certain to meet with the hostility of a powerful party. It was impossible, indeed, to forecast all the contingencies which might befall the tax; but it might certainly be said that this impost, yielding 5,000,000l., was in a most precarious position; and if so, was it politic, was it altogether honest, to exclude from the view a contingency so great, and at the same time so possible, as the total lapse of the tax? Disclaiming the duty of pointing out to Ministers the details of measures, he thought they should adopt the principle of Mr. Disraeli's motion-that the surplus in hand was not at this moment justly and wisely to be dealt with as permanent income, and given away without reference to future necessities. But if it should be thought desirable not to disappoint the expectations that had been raised with regard to the Window Tax, let them so construct the House Tax as to make it available for yielding a considerable sum to the exchequer. The precise basis of such a House Tax he could not pretend to state: whether it would be wise to take the limit of the parliamentary franchise and tax houses above 101. only-whether it would be advisable to go lower and adopt a graduated scale of taxation-whether it would be right to levy a tax on the owner or the occupier-whether it might be necessary to go so far as to make all

house property whatever liable to taxation were questions on which it would be altogether premature to express an opinion. His fundamental objection to the plan of the Government was, that it would cut off from the reach of the House of Commons a valuable source of revenue, at a time when it was highly probable such a resource might be essential to maintain the interests of the country and the public credit.

Mr. Labouchere said the simple issue before the House was, whether it would fulfil the wishes of the country by repealing the Window and Timber duties. He felt assured that if the Income Tax should not be continued next session, the House would not shrink from its duty of putting the finances of the country upon a proper footing.

Mr. Hume said he did not object to a House Tax, but he did object to the mode in which this tax was proposed to be carried

The principal alterations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to make this year in the Customs duties were in those upon timber and coffee. With respect to the former, he proposed a reduction both, on foreign and colonial, of one-half the existing duty. On coffee also his plan was, to levy on both foreign and colonial produce one-half the amount heretofore charged on foreign coffee. The principal antagonist of the latter measure was Mr. E. H. Stanley, who opposed Sir Charles Wood's resolution, and brought before the VOL. XCIII.

House a large amount of detailed information, to show how unjustly the equalization of duties would operate in Ceylon in comparison with Brazil. The resolutions were nevertheless agreed to by the House.

Upon the Customs Bill going into Committee,

Mr. T. Baring moved a resolution, that the directions of the Lords of the Treasury to the Excise, "that no objection be made on the part of the revenue to dealers in and sellers of coffee, mixing chicory with coffee," ought to be revoked. He showed that the sanction of this adulteration was contrary to the regulations enforced against other excisable articles of consumption; he argued that the mixture of chicory with coffee was not now called for, and that the consumption of coffee had been materially diminished by adul teration, other baser ingredients being employed besides chicory. If this deceptive practice could be prevented, it was the duty of the Government to do so, and he contended that, by rescinding the Treasury orders, this anomalous practice would be checked, which tended to demoralize the traders.

Sir J. Trollope, on the part of the chicory growers, opposed the motion, urging that it was hard, without notice, to revoke an order under which they had been induced to cultivate the article.

Lord H. Vane supported the motion, observing that it would not interfere with the interests of growers of chicory.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after pleading the wholesomeness of chicory, stated that the Treasury order had been issued in consequence of the impossibility of preventing its mixture with [H]

coffee; and all the order did was, not to sanction a fraud upon the public, but to exempt dealers from Excise penalties. He did not think it was the duty of the Government in all cases to interfere between the public and sellers: caveat emptor; purchasers must take care of themselves. In nine cases out of ten, however, no fraud was really perpetrated, the parties knowing that what they bought was not pure coffee. Every one of the numerous complaints which had been made to him had come from the sellers of coffee. Parties could easily protect themselves against the adulteration of coffee-the bean could not be imitated. The mere revocation of the order would be insufficient, and he was not prepared to undertake a crusade against all adulterations, and a vexatious interference by the Excise, which would provoke general complaint.

Mr. E. Stanley observed that the Government did interfere, in the case of other articles, and all that was sought was, not the introduction of any new principle, but that the principle adopted in respect to tobacco should be applied to coffee, the consumption of which had gradually fallen off, and no cause could be assigned for this diminution but adulteration. Assuming that chicory was harmless-which was a disputed question-that was no reason why a person should pay for chicory the price of pure coffee. But chicory itself was adulterated with vile and noxious ingredients. Colonel Thompson and Sir J. Tyrell opposed the motion, which was supported by

Mr. Wakley, who complained of the wrongheadedness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he had taken the fraudulent dealers under

his patronage, and had no feeling for the honest trader, who was entitled to his protection.

Mr. Hume, on the other hand, complained of the inconsistency of Mr. Wakley, who was advocating the extension of the Excise. He thought the Government perfectly right in refusing to do so, and he wished they would abolish the Excise altogether.

After a few remarks from Sir W. Jolliffe and Mr. Bass, the House divided, when the motion was negatived by five votes only, 89 voting for, and 94 against Mr. Baring's proposition. On a subsequent day Mr. Baring made a second attempt, with the same object, moving that it be an instruction to the Committee to make provision for preventing the mixture of chicory with coffee by the vendors of that article. His motion was again opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Trollope, Sir Francis Baring, and Mr. Hume; and was advocated by Mr. Crawford, Mr. Herries, Mr. Wakley, and Mr. Cayley. The result of a division was, however, more adverse to the motion than on the former occcasion, the numbers against the motion being 199, and the supporters 122.

Among the financial measures proposed during the present session by independent Members, one of the most important was the motion of Mr. Cayley, which came on for discussion on the 8th of May, for the repeal of the Malt Tax. In his opinion, said the hon. Member, there was no measure, short of a return to the system of commercial legislation we had unhappily abandoned, which would give so much relief to the agricultural interest. Neither the commutation of the Window Tax for the

University of

*[99

pealed, the consumption would be stimulated in at least an equal degree to that which followed the reduction of the duties upon coffee and tea; and there would be a further natural demand for 10,000,000 quarters of manufactured barley. Mr. Cayley showed that in the instance of home-made spirits the increase of consumption had been in exact proportion to the discriminating duties in the three kingdoms, being most rapid in Scotland and Ireland, where they were lowest. This was not, he contended, a question affecting barley only; if the Malt Tax was repealed, the accruing benefit would extend to every species of grain. The peculiarity of the article would exclude foreign malt, and the import of foreign barley of suitable quality would not exceed 500,000 quarters. The repeal of the tax would, besides, relieve the hopgrowers, and give increased employment to 100,000 persons. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill.

House Tax, nor the reduction of the duties upon timber and coffee, diminished the special burdens upon the land; whereas the Malt Tax was so oppressive, obstructive, and obnoxious, that the late Sir R. Peel declared that that tax must be repealed if the Corn Laws were removed, and other advocates of free trade had echoed the declaration. He might be accused of counselling a breach of public faith; but no friend to public credit would allow the revenue from which the dividends of the public creditor were mainly derived to sink into depression. Other means might and must be devised to sustain public credit; the land could not much longer bear the weight of taxation cast upon it. No portion of the 5,000,000l. of taxes repealed had lightened the peculiar burdens upon agriculture. If there was to be no corn-law legislation, there should be no cornlaw taxation; and it was in order to remedy this injustice, and to bring the burdens of the agriculturalists within the compass of their means, that he proposed to repeal a tax amounting to 70 or 100 per cent. upon one of their principal commodities. The maltster was, moreover, shackled by revenue restrictions, contrary to the principle of free trade, to which no other productive interest was subjected, and the effect of which was to establish a monopoly in the hands of large capitalists. Free trade professed to sacrifice every other interest to that of the consumer; the effect of this tax was, to enhance the price of the poor man's beer 500 per cent., and to drive him from his own hearth to the gin-palace and the beer shop. If the tax upon this national beverage were re

Mr. Alcock supported the motion, which he hoped would be reiterated until there was some hope of relief from a tremendous burden, equal to the Income Tax, which was cast upon a very small portion of the land. He would be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to an approximation towards a repeal of the tax, by remitting 10 per cent. this year, 20 per cent. the next, and so on.

Mr. Packe coincided with Mr. Cayley in considering that the British farmer laboured under an overwhelming distress, which he was anxious to relieve; but a fallacy ran through his argument, owing to his not distinguishing the interest of the farmer in his two capacities of