and the right hon. member for Manchester | was that manufactory? A manufactory (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had stated, that of plough-shares and harrows, and shoes this country was to be the manufactory of for horses. In fact, the only family not the whole world. Thus it would seem, engaged in agriculture was the village that the agriculturists were a mere trifle smith; and was it not a palpable error to in comparison with the rest of the inhabit-regard that family as not dependent on ants of the kingdom. The noble Lord, the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), had termed those who petitioned for a Repeal of the Cornlaws, the main body of the people. Never had a more gross error been committed never had a delusion been more widely disseminated. The manufacturers were represented as everything, the agriculturists as nothing. He would show, presently, that the Repeal of the Malt-tax was as important to the towns as to the country; but first he would advert, with more particularity, to the comparative numbers of the agriculturists and manufacturers. The right hon. member for Manchester had said, that the families employed in agriculture were 900,000, and the families employed in trade 1,400,000; but this was a gross, though not a wilful error. It arose out of the mode in which the population returns had been prepared. Every parish was stated to carry on some manufacture or other, yet it was indisputable that there were many parishes where not a soul was so engaged, and in a parish of Hampshire with which he was acquainted, the parson and the doctor were the only persons not employed in agriculture. Yet even they were agriculturists, or depended upon agriculture; for the parson had his tithes, and the doctor was paid by those whose limbs he set to enable them to follow the plough. The fallacy of the returns had misled the country, and the land was looked upon as an insignificant part of the country. The member for Middlesex had said, that England was not only a manufacturing, but a poor country. Let him look into his store-house of knowledge, and show when England had not been a rich country. It was time that such a delusion was dissipated, and one particular parish might be taken as a most apt illustration. The hon. member for Guildford was the owner of a whole parish, or extra-parochial district, and the population return stated, that there were in it twenty-two families engaged in agriculture, and one in manufactures. That hon. Member little suspected, that in Wanborough, he had a manufactory exporting to foreign countries. And what

agriculture? A similar error pervaded all the returns. In every village, there were several tradesmen who were wholly supported by agriculture, who, in the population returns, were set down as engaged in trade. But letting that pass, what was the summary, even according to the gross misrepresentation of the population returns? That there were 1,075,000 male souls of above the age of twenty, chiefly employed in agriculture; and only 320,000 males of above the age of twenty, chiefly employed in manufactures. Upon this showing, it was nearly four to one in point of numbers in favour of agriculture. The question before the House was therefore worthy of its attention, if only on account of the great majority of persons employed upon the land; but those who resided in towns were interested in the Repeal of the Malt-duty, as much as those who only lived in the country. People in towns drank beer, and in a much larger proportion. He allowed, that the Malt-tax did not affect them in the same manner-but as a mere burthen, as a mere weight, it affected people in towns as much as people in the country. People in towns were much more closely connected with agriculture. than was generally supposed. The hon. member for Marylebone wished for the Repeal of the Window-tax, in order to relieve his own constituents. Did the hon. member for Marylebone suppose, that the Repeal of the Malt-tax would not have the effect of relieving his constituents? Why, there were resident in London a thousand families, aye, he might say two or three thousand families, who were constantly occupied in making agricultural implements, in making ploughs, in making harrows, in making drills, in making churns, in making presses, in making tubs. Were these not the constituents of the hon. member for Marylebone? Destroy the agricultural interest, and what would become of those families? Why, they would all starve. What were the salesmen of cattle? What were the salesmen of seeds? Were they not inhabitants of towns? What was all Mark-lane? Were not all these persons deeply interested in the prosperity of agri

culture? What folly it was, then, to say, I into the Exchequer, he should not comthat the people in the towns had nothing plain; but the Exchequer received only to do with the land. The fact was, that four millions and a half, for what cost the the interests of the one party were closely people fourteen millions and a-half. The connected with the interests of the other; great maltsters, the great brewers, were the but if there was one more essential than people that got the money. Their capital the other, it was the interest of the land. gave them a monopoly, which they used, If the full amount of the Malt-tax were not for good purposes, but to beggar the paid into the Exchequer, and if there were land and all belonging to it. They took no extraordinary expense in the collection this enormous sum from the working of the tax, and no waste of the property of classes, and put it into their own pockets. the people occasioned by it in other The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets ways, why, then, if Government wanted (Mr. Clay) told them the other day, that the money, it certainly would be wrong malt at Mark-lane was 52s. the quarter. to deprive the Government of it. But if A private dealer could not sell upon such he could show, and he was quite prepared terms. It was only the great monopolists to do so, that besides the enormous ex- who could afford to sell cheap. While it pense of collection, the tax was in many could be sold at Mark-lane for 52s. the other respects burthensome and injurious quarter, it cost the small retail dealers 8s. to the people, he thought he should have and 9s. the bushel; the great brewers a right to call upon the House to repeal paid only 6s. 3d. the bushel, while the it. The Stamp-tax, which produced four small brewer, 8s. 6d. or 9s. The great millions annually, cost only 168,000l. in maltsters had another considerable advanthe collection. But of the whole of the tage. By getting sufficient bondsmen, expenses which attended the collection of they were allowed to remain three collecthe Excise, five-sixths were to be ascribed tions of the duty in arrear, while the small to the collection of the Malt-duty. In dealer was under the necessity of paying fact, the country was paying above a mil-up. The consequence was, that malting lion for collecting about four millions and a-half. But the expense of collection was not all. There was the great evil which attended the monopoly occasioned by the Malt-tax. The House-tax, the Window-tax, and other taxes of that description caused no monopoly. But the Malt-tax led to a most extensive and injurious monopoly. Four millions of quarters of malt, at a duty of 11. 8s. per quarter, would cost the people only 5,600,000l.; whereas the same quantity, with the cost of collecting the tax, and with the burthens cast upon it in other ways, actually did cost the people 14,400,000l. So that this tax took from the people, took from the landed proprietor, took from the farmer, took from all the consumers of beer, nearly ten millions more than they would have to pay, if there were no Malt-tax. It was not merely the burthen of the tax. He was quite aware, that it was of little consequence what was the nature of a tax, provided it was general and equal in its provision. This was a tax partial in its character; it was a tax on those who brewed beer, and on those who drank beer. But it would be said, that somebody must get the ten millions. His answer was, that the Exchequer did not get it. If it got

had become a complete monopoly in the hands of a few persons. He would appeal to those acquainted with the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, whether there was more now than one maltster in places where there used to be ten or fifteen. Thus the monopoly was in the hands of a few, to the great injury of the farmer, who was obliged to take whatever they pleased to offer him for his barley. When this question was before the House, upon a former night, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) said, he questioned whether, if the tax was repealed, the poor would brew their own beer, having been so long out of the habit of doing so. Habit had nothing to do with it. Men changed their morals, their dress, and their manners from habit; but their appetites remained the same; they must eat and drink. Habit could not alter this. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee on the beer-shops concurred so far with the noble Lord as to say, he thought it impossible, even if the law were repealed, that the labourers could brew their own beer; "for," said he, "there are few cottagers who have a house so large as this room (meaning the Committee-room), and they have not coppers or other couveniences, having been so long out of the

money in the place of beer? It would not be the same thing at all. Farmers could do more with one pound's worth of beer than two pounds paid in money, for they could give the beer at a proper time and place. Men were often employed to mow by the acre. Sometimes a labourer said, "Master Hugh, give us some beer."

habit of brewing." This was as much as saying, that labourers lost the habit of Hiking beer. He might just as well say, that they lost the habit of liking their dinner, and would not cook their bacon. How many would brew a gallon of malt at a time, as they used formerly, if it were not for this tax? It was the wife or daughter who brewed, and not the la-"No," says he, "but I will give you sixbourer himself. But then it had been said, that beer could not be brewed in a small quantity. A single gallon of malt would give twelve gallons of good beer; and he had known many persons who had been satisfied with brewing a single gallon of malt at a time. Nor did the operation require any large room or any extensive apparatus. In fact, brewing beer was precisely like making tea. Beer could be brewed with as much ease as tea could be made; and as to utensils, a porridge pot, holding five gallons, formed an excellent boiler, aad a washing tub answered admirably for a mash-tub and a cooler. With such means much better beer could be produced than any with which the public brewer now furnished his customers. The price of the malt was, in fact, the only obstacle to brewing. Mr. Simeon, a Magistrate of Oxfordshire, in his evidence before the Committee, said he caused inquiry to be made by the overseers in fifteen different parishes as to what would be the most effectual means of putting an end to the evils of beer-shops, and the conclusion to which they came with respect to fourteen of these parishes was, that the repeal of the Malt-tax was the only effectual remedy. One witness said, he feared if the tax was repealed, it would be an inducement to the labourers to steal barley. Out of fifty-nine witnesses examined, thirty-three of them said, they knew no more effectual remedy for the evils caused by beer-shops than the repeal of the Malt-tax. Mr. Goodluck, a Magistrate of Berkshire, said, the poor were prevented by this tax from brewing their own beer; and another witness was of opinion, that if the duty were taken off beer, it would diminish the tendency to drinking spirits. How much more must it tend to diminish the use of spirits if the duty were taken off malt! One of the witnesses said, he was in the habit of laying out a large sum of money to supply his labourers with beer, finding they would not work without it, but would go to the beer-shop and neglect their work. might be said, why not give the labourers ight be VOL. XXII. Third

Series

It

pence." Well, off went the labourer with the sixpence to the beer-shop, and, very probably, did not leave it till he spent more than sixpence, besides neglecting his work. It would be very different if he had the beer in the field. He would go to the hedge where his bottle of beer was, take a drink, and then return to his mowing. The labourer's wife would take care that a part of this money should be saved, and laid up, in order to purchase malt to brew his own beer. This would tend, in a great measure, and the wife would also use her influence, to keep the husband at home at nights, and break him of his habit of frequenting beer-shops and public-houses. This was not all the repeal of the Malttax would effect. Its repeal would have also a great effect in restraining young people to dwell with their parents, the not doing of which had so much demoralized and changed the habits of the labouring people. Immorality had increased among that class, because they were not induced to remain in their own houses, but tempted to go out by night and frequent the beershops. That was the mischief; and who was there that could imagine ten or twelve young people meeting together by nighthe did not say at beer-shops exclusively, but anywhere else without getting into mischief of some sort or other? In the former state of things the masters and mistresses of farm-houses prevented young people from going abroad of nights. All this had now fallen to the ground, and masters and mistresses had no longer the power to govern the young people they employed. Perhaps it would be difficult to bring back matters to the state in which they stood formerly: farms were larger now than they used to be, and farmers had become gentlemen. But at any rate Parliament ought to do something; it ought to interfere indirectly to try to bring back things to their former state. The great difficulty to come back to this state, the great objection to take servants into farmhouses, arose in a great part from the Malt-tax, since, as long as this tax stood, L

their relief, and that they were to remain in their present state. Besides, these classes would be fully satisfied, by his Motion, that he was determined to do his duty by them, when they saw him bringing this question in a straightforward manner under the notice of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

it would be difficult for farmers to provide beer for their servants, who drank a great deal of it at all times, and particularly in hot weather. Besides, it would be impossible to keep the beer locked up from them; they would get at it some way or other; and this was another objection on the part of upstart farmers to brew their own beer, and to keep house-servants. He did not pretend to say, that the repeal of Lord Althorp said, that the question this tax would remove all the evils under which the hon. member for Oldham now which the country laboured; but still it brought forward, had been decided so would be a great benefit to the country short a time since, that it could be hardly generally, and particularly to the agricul- expected, that the House could adopt. tural portion of it. It would, at any rate, such a change of opinion as would be imhave one good effect; it would reconcile plied if it agreed to the Motion of the the people to many things they now bore hon. Member. The hon. Member had with very great reluctance. In his opinion argued, in the first place, that there ought the repeal of the Malt-tax would be the to be no Malt-tax; and one of his argugreatest benefit to the kingdom that the ments was, that it would be better if farmGovernment could confer; it would go aers and their labourers drank their beer great way in reconciling the people to the Government, and it would make them say, that the Reformed Parliament had done good, that they had not been deceived by it, and that its effects would be for the good of the country. If there was any one thing that would make the present Government safer, and fix them firmer in their places, than they were at present, it was the repeal of this odious and obnoxious tax. Another effect of the repeal of this tax would be to increase the peace, comfort, and good morals, of the people. For all these reasons he had taken the liberty of making the present Motion in the broad and comprehensive shape that he proposed, though he confessed, that he put it to the House without having any confidence or hope that it would be adopted. In going into Committee, he thought it best to move for a total repeal of this tax, as he considered, that a partial repeal, even though it should go so far as to take half the duty off, would be of no substantial benefit. All the expenses of collecting the duty would remain, and the maltsters would not reduce their price, so that little or no good would accrue to the consumer. Whenever any indirect Motion of this sort was brought forward, which would only tend to cheat the people and the House, he would oppose it. He would put the question fairly and fully before the House, in order that all those, the farmers of course included, who were now crying aloud against this measure, might know that nothing was to be taken off their burthens, that nothing was to be done for

in their own houses. There was no doubt of the truth of this, and the House, on this argument, would agree with the hon. Member. Most people would, no doubt, be the better, if the taxes were removed which pressed upon them. But the question the House had to determine was, whether, in the present state of the finances of the country, it was possible to reduce between 4,000,000l.and 5,000,000%. of taxes without finding some proper substitute for so large a deficiency. The hon. member for Oldham had said, on a late occasion, when they were voting the Army Estimates, that after they were carried he could not call on Government for a reduction of taxation. Now, not only the Army but the Navy Estimates had been voted; and if it were the opinion of that House that such establishments were necessary, and he supposed every person thought they were; he considered it utterly impossible to continue them, and provide for them, if the hon. Member's present Motion should be assented to. He completely agreed with the hon. Member, that a partial repeal of the Malttax would not be beneficial, and that no good could be expected save from its total repeal. But it must be clear to the hon. Member,-and it was admitted by the whole House, that the actual state of the finances of the country would not admit of a total repeal of the Malt-tax. The hon. Member contended that the repeal of this tax would be beneficial to the inhabitants of towns as well as to persons residing in the country. He believed, that

Mr. Curteis said, it was unnecessary for him to dilate on a question that had been so recently discussed. If he could move an Amendment, he would propose, that from and after the 5th of April, 1835, half of the present duties on malt should be repealed. He could not, however, move an Amendment. He had been for many years an advocate for the repeal of these duties; but he thought the time was now come when they ought to take what they could obtain. The hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) had on a former occasion accused the agriculturists of wishing to put their hands into the pockets of the manufacturers; but this was not

it would affect both classes nearly in the | his sorrow at seeing the hon. Member same way, since he considered that even coming forward with his Motion so soon the agriculturists would gain only as con- after the question had been discussed and sumers by the repeal of this tax. But the decided. main question, he repeated, was, whether the present state of the finances would allow the reduction of any such amount of taxation as was now proposed without a substitute? In the former debate upon this question substitutes were proposed, but they were impracticable. On the present occasion the hon. Member had not even hinted at a substitute for the amount of taxation which he wished to have repealed. The fact, therefore, was, that if the House consented to the present Resolution, it would consent to nothing more nor less than a total derangement of every financial measure of the Government, and in such a case, of course, it would be impossible to carry on the ad-surely the case, since the landed proprieministration of the affairs of the country. He did not mean to follow the hon. Member through all his arguments. On the chief question, whether a tax on malt was good, he would say decidedly it was not, because, in his opinion, reasoning in the abstract, no tax on any commodity generally consumed could be in itself good. He was aware that this tax pressed on the farmers, but, as he said before, it only pressed on them as consumers. He believed, that brewing beer in their own houses would be an advantage to them. However, he was not of opinion, that the repeal of this tax would make the agricultural labourer brew his own beer. He said this, not because he thought the labourer's habits could not be changed, but because he firmly believed, that no change in the law could enable the labourer to brew his own beer at a cheaper rate than he could purchase it at. The hon. Member might shake his head in token of dissent, but such was his (Lord Althorp's) opinion. These were his views of the question, and he was afraid, that no alteration they could now make in this law would bring back among the farmers and labourers that state of society the hon. Member had so frequently alluded to. He used the word afraid, not that he considered that state of society so very desirable, but because he considered that the time was gone by for that state. If, at any time, there had been a chance, the difficulty, at present, was far greater than ever it was. He would oppose the Motion, and he could not help expressing

tors had been as forward as any in recommending the repeal of the tax on beer. The noble Lord said, no substitute had been proposed for this tax. He did not mean to go the length of the hon. Baronet (Sir William Ingilby), and tax persons going to gambling-houses, but he thought that a 1,000,000l. might be raised by a tax upon lotteries. It was useless to say that lotteries were put a stop to; they were still continued; and a tax upon such gambling transactions would be better than a tax upon private gambling. He considered, that the duty on gin might be raised without any detriment to the revenue. He had another idea which was not exactly his own, but that of Mr. Miller, a solicitor, of London, by which a substitute for the Malt-tax might be obtained; he meant an equalization of the Land-tax. By such a

measure, between 3,000,000l. and 4,000,000l. a-year might be raised. He threw out this only as a suggestion for the consideration of the noble Lord, not, perhaps, that it ought to be recommended, but it certainly might be a substitute for the tax proposed to be repealed. As he could not move his Amendment, he hoped the hon. member for Oldham would withdraw his Motion; but if the hon. Member chose to divide the House on the question, and though the result of that division should be that they would be left in a minority of six, still for the sake of consistency, he would support the hon. Member's Motion.

Sir William Ingilby thought, they ought to bring the question once more to an