perity, and there was a real, and not a fictitious surplus in the Exchequer. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in dealing with this question last night, had argued as if there was a great surplus in the Exchequer, and he did not seem for a moment to consider that by taking off the malt tax he was making a deficit. The right hon. Gentleman kept steadily out of the consideration of the Committee the fact, that in taking off the malt tax he was making such a deficit that the Government were obliged to extend and double the house tax, and to lower the income tax to 1007. of precarious income, and 501. of fixed incomes. The right hon. Gentleman had argued the matter as if he was doing all this from an overflowing Exchequer, instead of commencing by making a deficit. He (Mr. B. Osborne) thought the right hon. Home Secretary, when he was arguing as to the effect of repealing the malt tax, and looked back for something like 100 years, quite forgot the altered habits and tastes of the people of this country. He seemed completely to have forgotten that the people of this country now consumed upwards of 60,000,000 lb. of tea, and 40,000,000 lb. of coffee, a circumstance unheard of 100 years ago, and that the taste for those beverages was unquestionably extending. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not stop to argue this question upon sanitary grounds, for he believed that to be purely nonsense. He believed it would be just as possible to prove that there was a great increase of nervous disorders in consequence of the use of tea, as to prove that there was any harm in good wholesome beer-such beer as was brewed by his excellent Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass). He (Mr. B. Osborne) believed with the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Works (Lord J. Manners) beer to be a good, wholesome, and national beverage, and, therefore, he at once dismissed all sanitary considerations on the subject. He must deny, however, that this proposed reduction of the malt tax was a consumer's question. He denied that the price would be materially affected so far as the artisan and mechanic were concerned. What had every Gentleman who was acquainted with the brewing trade, and who had spoken during the debate, said on the subject? The hon. Member for Derby, who, he thought, had sailed rather near the wind with regard to protection, had admitted last night, that although barley had been falling in price He for many years, the brewer was the only man who got the benefit. Indeed, that hon. Gentleman said in effect, "If you'll take off the whole malt tax, we will give you something handsome;" and it seemed that this "something handsome," if onehalf the malt tax was repealed, would be a farthing a quart on the price of beer! But if it did not benefit the artisan, how would this partial remission of the malt tax benefit the farmer? Now, he was himself a considerable barley-grower. He had taken some pains in considering the subject, and he did not believe the proposed measure could benefit the agricultural interest generally. What portion of the agricultural interest was chiefly suffering at this time? Not the producers of barley. He knew that the barley-producers were never better off than they were now. had himself sold barley last week, and he had never got a better price since he had been farming. But what was the description of agricultural land, the occupiers of which were now complaining? The heavy clay lands, the wheat lands. Well, he might be told, perhaps, that this land would be forced into the production of barley; but what sort of barley would they get from such land? Every one at all acquainted with the subject knew that the inferior sorts of barley had no sale with the brewers, but the brighter kinds of barley, such as the best Chevalier barley, were what they bought. It was then absurd to suppose that the partial remission of the malt tax could be of any benefit to the farmer. Then something had been said about the advantages which would be derived by the farmer with regard to the fattening of cattle; but the opinion of all the practical men of science-of Baron Leibig, of Dr. Lyon Playfair, and of others, who were examined before Lord Monteagle's Committee in 1846-was, that cattle might be fattened much better upon ground barley than upon malt. He denied that this partial remission of the malt tax would benefit either the consumer by lowering the price of beer materially, or the agricultural interest as a whole, by allowing the farmer to grow a high class of barley, or to fatten his cattle to advantage. But he could adduce on this point the evidence of a Gentleman who had applied his mind to these matters, and who was well qualified to form a judgment on the subject. In the year 1851, when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) brought forward his Motion for a reduction of one-half of the malt tax, the hon. Member for North | Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) expressed himself in the following terms: "No man had voted more steadily than him self for the total repeal of the malt tax; but its partial remission would neither diminish the expense of its collection nor remove the restrictions which it imposed upon agriculture or on brewing at home; in short, it would afford none of those indirect advantages which the agricultural community valued. He should much rather support the partial reduction of a Customs duty than of an Excise duty, because a reduction in the former case would lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting the Customs, while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial repeal of an excise tax."-[3 Hansard, cxvii. 912.] Exchequer to propose to repeal half the malt tax and to make up that deficiency by laying a tax on houses and incomes. He thought that if the Committee adopted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would enter upon a most mischievous course, for they would remove a tax which was collected at the least possible expense, which was onerous and oppressive to no one, which would not relieve the agricultural interest as a whole, and which would not cheapen beer to any great extent. They would, in fact, be repealing a tax in order to keep up a delusion that it would benefit the agricultural interest, while, in Now if he (Mr. B. Osborne) were to speak fact, it would only benefit the brewer and for five hours--if he were making a Budget the publican. He must say he regretted speech, and he did not say so sneeringly, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apfor he had listened with great delight to the peared to have forsaken all his former whole speech of the Chancellor of the Ex- schemes. He wished to know why the chequer he could not adduce better rea- right hon. Gentleman had not moved for a sons against the partial remission of the Committee of the House to consider the malt tax. He therefore claimed the vote peculiar burdens affecting land. What of the hon. Member for North Warwick- had become of the right hon. Gentleman's shire on this occasion. He had, however, schemes for the growth of tobacco in Irea still higher authority against the partial land? What had become of the right hon. repeal of the malt tax-that of the late Sir Gentleman's proposals for placing the esRobert Peel, who summed up most com-tablishment charges of the poor-rate on the pendiously the advantages and disadvantages of the tax in a speech which he made in 1835. In that speech the right hon. Baronet proved most conclusively that no tax was collected at so trifling a loss to the revenue, and he showed that 5,100,000l. of revenue was collected at an expense of only 150,000l., and he warned the House in the most emphatic language against tampering with that tax. He (Mr. B. Osborne) found that whenever the House had made any changes in the malt tax, they had always come back to its reimposition. In 1816 one-half of the malt tax was removed, and in 1819 it was again imposed. In March, 1821, the tax was repealed, and in the following April the vote was rescinded. In 1833, on one Friday the tax was repealed, and, on the following Friday that vote was rescinded. In 1833, Sir William Ingilby, who was then an amateur Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward a Budget, by which he proposed to repeal the malt duty; that Budget was accepted; but the House of Commons would not make up the deficiency which that repeal would occasion by laying on fresh taxes on houses and windows; on the contrary, they took off the taxes on houses and windows. They were put on again, but it remained for the right hon. Consolidated Fund? The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason the other night for not having stood by his colours, and for not bringing forward some Motion to place the establishment charges on the Consolidated Fund. If the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were good for anything in 1849 and 1850, why did he not bring forward some Motion on these subjects now? He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not promise the right hon. Gentleman his vote, but he would tell him this, having some interest connected with land that he thought it would be a very fair subject of inquiry whether there were any peculiar burdens affecting land, in order that the question might be finally set at rest. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound, after all his promises, to have held out to the agricultural interest something more solid than this partial repeal of the malt tax, which was, in fact, no concession to the agricultural interest. He (Mr. B. Osborne) entirely dissented from the manner in which the income tax had been treated by the Government. He regarded that tax as most inquisitorial in its nature, and as extremely demoralising to the people of this country. It was only necessary to read the evidence of Mr. Pressly, and of the other witnesses examined before the Committee on the Income Tax, to be turing upon any criticism of those opinions, satisfied of its demoralising tendency. that no one more admired his literary He must, however, deny the statement talent; he read him with delight by day, which had been made, that that tax had and listened to him with pleasure by night; been imposed in order to maintain free he was a man who must do honour to any trade. He understood, when the tax was assembly of which he was a member. But brought forward by the late Sir Robert this must be said of that distinguished Peel, that it was proposed as a temporary Member of Parliament and of the literary expedient to make up a deficit. It was world, that he gave somewhat original merely a temporary expedient voted for reasons for his change of politics-a subthree years; but Parliament had since gone ject into which he (Mr. B. Osborne) should on voting it for three years at a time. It not have thought of entering, but that the had been said that the public had become hon. Baronet had considered it necessary habituated to this tax; but, for his own to make a defence, not only for the Minispart, he hoped the public would not be- ters, but for himself, when his conduct come habituated to it, for he regarded it was not impugned. The hon. Baronet said as a most odious tax, because it was both he had always abided by the Liberal party inquisitorial, and, therefore, demoralising. till it was in a state of exhaustion, and The Government were bound to state their then he left it. For what? Because he views upon this subject, and as to the differed with them on the principle of free length of time for which this income tax trade. And what did he do? Why, he was to be imposed; for they had at other joined the other party just as they had times given very strong opinions upon it. given up the principle for opposition to Lord Derby said, on the 28th of February, which he had left his friends! A singular 1851, in the other House, that "any sur- reason for so eminent a Member of Parliaplus revenue that might arise should in ment to give! Singular that he should the first instance be applied towards a re- have left the corpse of the noble Lord the duction and final extinction of the income Member for the City of London without tax;" and that was followed up in the consigning it to a decent funeral; but more House of Commons by a Motion to that singular that he should have left the noble effect, made by the right hon. President Lord upon a difference on the principle of of the India Board (Mr. Herries), whom free trade, and joined the right hon. Genhe (Mr. B. Osborne) was sorry not to have tleman opposite just as he had given up heard upon this Budget, for the right hon. the principle for which the hon. Baronet Gentleman was an able financier, and his forsook the noble Lord! He hoped the studied abstinence from assenting to any- hon. Member had not forgotten his speeches thing in this Budget was remarkable; when for the ballot and triennial Parliaments. he was appealed to, there had been nothing He hoped the air of Hertfordshire had not but a grave shrug and a very suspicious had that enervating effect upon him that silence. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not he had forgotten his vigorous youth when go into the distinction attempted to be representing Lincoln. But he chiefly redrawn between precarious and certain in-ferred to the hon. Baronet because he come; he did not feel qualified to give any gave an extraordinary opinion, for him, the opinion as to the justice or the scientific other night, in favour of direct taxation. accuracy of the discriminating duty pro- Probably one of his books, by which he posed. That question had puzzled many would live longest in the world, was that He remembered hearing the admirable work upon the institutions of late Sir Robert Peel say, that if you de- this country-England and the English. termined to interfere in that way, you He (Mr. B. Osborne) would advise every would have to do away with the tax alto-new Member immediately to get a copy of gether that you never could make any that work, because there was a chapter on approximation to a discrimination. He the formation of a national party which, at (Mr. B. Osborne) wished to look further this particular epoch, was well worthy of into the subject before pronouncing upon study, and in which he gave his opinion that part of the scheme. He would pro- upon taxation; and here were his views on ceed now to advert to some very remark-taxation. They were a little curious, as able opinions which he had heard uttered compared with his present views. This the other night by the hon. Member for was in chapter 8. The book was published Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), whom, in 1840:however, he begged to assure, when ven wise men. "I have little faith in the virtue of any com mutation of taxes. I have studied the intricacies | (Mr. B. Osborne) was one of those who, of our finance; I have examined the financial systems of other countries; and I cannot dis. though representing an English constitucover any very large fiscal benefit as the probable ency, but not from any paltry consideraresult of new combinations of taxation. House tions merely of property in Ireland, would and window taxes are less just than property tax."never shrink from saying that he thought, He then went on, in reference to direct taxation, of which he was oured now enam "An immense national debt renders direct taxation a dangerous experiment." And here was a most extraordinary note; he believed it was only appended to the fourth edition. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: The book was written twenty years ago.] This was published in 1840, according to the date on the title page. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: Yes; but that is a recent edition. The book was originally published in 1833.] But had the hon. Member forsworn all his opinions of twenty years ago? Then he did not tell the whole secret the other night. He thought the hon. Member quitted his party only for free trade. But at any rate this note was worth listening to, and was most instructive. This was revised by the hon. Gentleman; it was the last edition he revised, and here was the editor's note; let county Members listen to this: "I firmly believe that if the national debtor be ever in danger, the fatal attack will come less from the Radicals than the country gentlemen, who are jealous of the fundholder or crippled with mortgages. The day after the repeal of half the malt tax (leaving a large deficit in the revenue) was carried, I asked one of its principal supporters, a popular and independent country gentleman The hon. Member, transplanted from the healthy atmosphere of Lincoln to the rather sickening and enervating soil of Hertfordshire, came down and said it was written twenty years ago. He (Mr. B. Osborne) supposed the hon. Member was now a convert to direct taxation, and very probably he would go upon "Master Fundholder. In this debate very little comparatively had been said upon the Irish part of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his address to the Buckinghamshire constituency, eloquently alluding to that country, said that Ireland had irresistible claims." He under the circumstances of Ireland, it was neither wise, beneficial, nor politic, to extend any additional taxation to that country. He would go further, and say, the "Consolidated Annuities" were a gross injustice to that country; and the labour-rate, by which money was forced upon the people of that country, and no option was given them in the spending it, but their roads were broken up and the people demoralised was a bad and unjust system. He would say, further, that the potatoe famine ought always to be looked upon as an Imperial calamity, and Ireland no more charged for it than she would have been for the expense of a defence if a foreign invader had landed in Ireland; and till these accounts were put upon a juster footing, he, for one, would be no party to an increase of taxation upon Ireland. But, if the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Davison) last night were to have any weight, one could have little hope for Ireland. The hon. Member, who said he was no orator, but a simple man of business, gave as a reason for supporting the Budget, that there was a most popular Lord Lieutenant, a most amiable Chief Secretary, and most intelligent Law Officers. It was true the people of this country were to be enough; but was that any reason why loaded with the house tax? If he (Mr. B. Osborne) might respectfully address himself to the Irish Members, who he thought in the main always voted right, for the advance of great and liberal principles, he would say to them, "Beware how you inflame the mind of the English people by laying on a tax you refuse to bear yourselves." But the virtues of the Irish functionaries were no argument for laying on a tax, and would be very little consolation to the English householder when the collector called. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary wound up his most interesting and spirited speech by an elaborate panegyric upon his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. B. Osborne) was not prepared to say that in many points of that panegyric he did not fully concur. He would grant all that was said as to the energy, the ability, the great powers of the right hon. Gentleman-he would grant it ungrudgingly and fully. He thought the right hon. Gen "When he had done, some followers of mine own, At lower end o' the hall, hurl'd up their caps, Richard!' And thus I took the 'vantage of those few Thanks, gentle citizens, and friends,' quoth I; This general applause and cheerful shout Argues your wisdom and your love to Rich tleman had the ingenium velox, audacia was to be maintained? He had always perdita, sermo promptus. But he must been foremost in favour of the remission of take exception when the right hon. Home indirect taxation. [Mr. OSBORNE: No!] Secretary talked of him as the most bold Why, the hon. Gentleman had voted for and prudent financier the world had ever the repeal of the corn laws, the abolition seen. With regard to finance, he (Mr. of the differential duties on sugar, and B. Osborne) was of opinion that the great other indirect taxes. The hon. and galmajority of that House would incline to lant Member had declared himself disapthink that in financial projects "discretion pointed with the proposition of the right was the better part of valour." But the hon. Gentleman, and had characterised the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, Budget as meagre; but, on the other hand, following in the footsteps of the hon. the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), Halifax and the right hon. Member for the that this Budget must be a most popular University of Cambridge were of opinion. Budget, because there was such a cordial that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reception at Guildhall; and he quoted a aimed at too much, and that he would passage from Lucretius, as he (Mr. B. have done better if he had extended it over Osborne) believed, but he was irresistibly two years. In his (Mr. Alderman Thompreminded of a parallel case, as narrated son's) opinion, the Budget was a bold, by Buckingham to the Duke of Glo'ster, statesmanlike, and wise measure, and deof what had occurred in the Guildhall served the confidence of the country. He when the Duke's claim to the Crown was would even go further, and say that, with urged there. Gentlemen would remember the exception of certain objectors within the quotation in Shakspeare:the walls of Parliament, it had been received with very general acceptation. The hon. Member said the Budget was framed in a revengeful spirit. Did he mean to say that the working classes would receive no benefit from the reduction of the duty on tea, and from the reduction of the sugar duty in July? [Mr. OSBORNE That is not in the Budget.] Well, but when he complained of the hardship upon those who occupied houses at rents between 101. and 201., it was proper to show that the occupiers of 107. houses had obtained great relief from the course of legislation which had been adopted of late years, and that they had no cause of complaint whatever in being called upon to contribute towards a house tax. The tax, in point of fact, would fall upon the capital invested in houses, the rents of which were from 107. to 127., the returns from which were in general from 10 to 20 per cent; it appeared to him, therefore, that the proposed extension was rather a landlord's than a tenant's question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding had attempted to show the distinction between taxing houses and land; but land being worth thirty years' purchase, and houses only fifteen, it was clear that the latter produced double the income, and ought to pay a larger rate of taxation. He did not mean to say that he was prepared to vote for doubling the house tax, but that he was prepared to vote for extending it to the 101. householders, both because of the large incomes which houses of that de ard.'" The passages were somewhat parallel. He would venture to suggest to the right hon. Home Secretary, when he quoted the reception at Guildhall, that it was not very probable a set of well-to-do gentlemen, who were met to discuss the tender merits of turtle and venison, would be inclined to criticise with any severe eye the dry details of a financial project. No, those were not the classes they must quote as giving a cordial reception to their Budget. It was the industrious clerk, striving to support his family upon an income of not 1507. a year it was the energetic mechanic just emerging into independence, whom they must ask what they thought of the Budget. Sure he was this Budget could never be popular with those classes in this country; and he called upon the Committee, in the name of those classes, to resist a Budget which was based at once upon tyranny and injustice. MR. ALDERMAN THOMPSON said, that he should like to hear the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down state to the House the sources from which he thought the taxation of the country ought to be raised, and how the national credit |