THE MALT DUTY.-OBSERVATIONS.

usual. He would suggest that the police, | mind the suggestions of the hon. Member, as well as private persons, should insti- with a view to any improvement which tute prosecutions in all these cases, for seemed necessary. few persons could follow the excellent example set by Sir Frederick Slade the other day, and summon, in the public interest, omnibus conductors or cab-drivers who were guilty of imposition. That domestic question possessed just now a cosmopolitan interest, and he hoped that the Government would not lose sight of it.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he was sorry the answer which he gave a short time previously did not appear sufficient to the hon. Gentleman. There was a great distinction between cabs, which plied for hire for uncertain distances, and omnibuses, which, like stage-coaches, plied between certain given points. Still, some of the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman were worth consideration. On the other hand, the law already provided for some of the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For instance, omnibus "nursing" accompanied with violence or obstruction, was an offence which was already punished by suspension of licences, and by fine. Many of the complaints made as to the public vehicles of the metropolis were caused by the very unusual demand for them. In ordinary times competition was the best security for low fares in omnibuses; but at present the demand much exceeded the supply, and that was even more true of cabs than of omnibuses. Then, with regard to police prosecutions, the police had received instructions, upon which they acted, to watch the conduct of cab-drivers where they refused to take up passengers; and numerous cases had occurred in which, upon the information of the police, cab-drivers had been fined and their licences suspended. It was impossible at such a time to prevent the misconduct of individual drivers, and in all cases to secure their punishment; but the police were doing everything they could to protect the public, both Englishmen and foreigners, against imposition. With regard to the inconvenience of the present omnibus, Parliament could not well prescribe the form of the vehicle, or make any minute regulations respecting it; but one improvement would certainly be, that the table of fares should be painted outside as well as in. It was hardly worth while to bring in a Bill on purpose to effect that object; but it might be desirable at an early period to revise the law with regard to public vehicles, and then he would bear in

MR. BALL said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the continuous oppressive Duty on Malt. They had had discussions upon questions of expenditure which had elicited some very able speeches. He thought that those speeches which had emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) were calculated to do a vast deal of good. They were the handwriting on the wall which declared that no Government would ever again be allowed during a time of peace to raise a revenue of £70,000,000. A feeling had sprung up throughout the country that an immense expenditure should no longer be tolerated; and that as it was wholly unnecessary, it ought to be materially reduced. But if they had a revenue of even £75,000,000 or £80,000,000, they would be sure to spend it; and therefore their great security for the future would be their determination to refuse such large sums of money as had hitherto been asked for. If they were to abridge the revenue, he was sure that their expenditure would be cut down. Now, he did not know anything that claimed more strongly the consideration of the House and the Government than the reduction of the malt duty. Before the corn laws were abolished, it was generally admitted that the interests of agriculture would have fair claims on the consideration of the Government. They had not, however, received the consideration which had been promised. He hoped that the time would never arrive when they would suffer from a dearth of corn as they were suffering from a dearth of cotton. They had always been told that there would be an abundant supply of all commodities if free trade were fully established; but in the case of cotton it had failed to keep up the necessary supply. He hoped that the time would never arrive when a war with Russia or America would prevent a supply of corn coming into the country. He was disposed to think that the House was not aware of the amount of revenue derived from malt. Besides the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which were derived from the article of malt, there were £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 more from spirits; and thus the country derived about £17,000,000,

bring in any measure on the subject; but he wished to lay before the House his views on the subject, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to give his attention to it, and if he had courage enough-he (Mr. Ball) believed he had grace enough to strike the duty off malt and to put it on beer. By so doing, the right hon. Gentleman would confer one of the greatest blessings on society; and prove himself one of the greatest moralists of the age.

nearly one-fifth of the revenue, from the which so much disgraced the country single article of barley. That was most would be diminished. There was no opimpolitic, as well as oppressive to the agri-portunity during the present Session to culturist. In his opinion, if the duty were reduced, an equal, or perhaps greater, amount of revenue from malt would be received from the increase of consumption. Malt had been taxed to such a degree that an extension of the consumption could not be obtained. Moreover, the farmers were not permitted to use their own malt, without paying a tax for it, for the purpose of rearing or fattening cattle; so that in this respect they were unable to meet the foreigner on equal terms. The dutypaid malt in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the years 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834, was on an average 4,932,632 quarters. And in the years 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860, after the lapse of thirty years, the duty-paid malt was 5,159,897 quarters, being an increase of only 227,265 quarters, or about 5 per cent in thirty years. While the population had increased at the rate of 30 per cent, and the wealth of the country had increased at a greater rate than 30 per cent, there must be some cause for so small an increase in the consumption of malt. He believed that that cause was to be found in the great and severe amount of duty imposed upon it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would materially reduce the amount of that duty, he believed that the amount of his revenue would be by no means lessened. There were two modes by which relief might be given to the agricultural interests. One was by materially reducing the amount of duty on malt. But that was not the mode of relief which they ought to desire either in a national point of view or as moralists. If the House had virtue enough-if the representatives of the people had independence enough, and if there were not parties to control the Government, the most effectual and essential way of giving relief to the agriculturist would be the removal of the whole of the duty on malt and the placing it upon beer. That would be one of the noblest things a Chancellor of the Exchequer could do; and one of the most beneficial movements that the House could adopt. From the facility afforded for rearing and feeding cattle withness. The tax on alcohol in beer was at malt, there would take place an augmented consumption of the article. The farmers would be able to supply a nutritious beverage to the hardworking man employed in field labour, and at the same time the tippling, drunken, and demoralized habits

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the hon. Member had with great fairness stated his reason against the continuance of the malt tax. Nevertheless, in dealing with the question, he had overlooked some important considerations connected with the subject. When a complaint was made that there had been no considerable increase in the consumption of malt, it was but fair to take into view the fact that during the period to which the hon. Member had referred the country was becoming a community consuming a much less average quantity of strong liquors than formerly. Let the House consider what was the consumption during the period alluded to of spirits and wine. The consumption of wine, until the recent change, was stationary; and the consumption of spirits, he apprehended, had positively receded. The hon. Member, when he said that barley laboured under oppressive taxation, ought to bear in mind the average prices for barley for the last ten and twenty, or forty and sixty years, and he would then perceive that barley was a grain of which the progress in price had been much more marked than that of any other grain. That was a conclusive answer to the statement of the hon. Member, that barley was a grain unduly ground down by taxation. The system of this country was to levy a large portion of revenue from strong liquors; and how was malt treated as compared with other strong liquors? Without saying that it was less taxed than it ought to be, he, nevertheless, maintained that it was treated with mild

the rate of about 28. the gallon. The tax on alcohol in wine was at the rate of from 48. to 7s. the gallon; and the tax on spirits was at the rate of 10s. the gallon. The hon. Member ought to remember that malt had received very great advantage

the hon. Gentleman could show that the agriculturist was deprived of a beneficial article of nutriment by the law as it stood, he would have adduced an important reason for its alteration. That, at the same time, was a matter which the hon. Gentleman had not attempted to discuss on the present occasion, and he should not therefore detain the House by quoting authorities on the subject. Let not his hon. Friend, however, run away with the notion that a reduction of taxation always meant an increase of consumption. No doubt, in judiciously selected instances, that had proved to be the case; but it must not be regarded as a mathematical axiom. If the hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the article of coffee, he would find that although much had been done in recent years to relieve it from duty, yet no appreciable increase in its consumption had taken place. His hon. Friend had discharged his duty to his constituents and to his conscience, and no man felt that duty press more heavily upon him; but he (the right hon. Gentleman) hoped that it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion further.

from recent legislation. There had been the remission of the duty in Scotland on all malt used in making spirits, and the great competing article with malt-spirits -had had the duty on it immensely increased, while the duty on malt had remained stationary. The duty on spirits in Ireland ten years ago was 2s. 8d. the gallon; in Scotland, 38. 8d., and in England about 78. the gallon; while now, throughout the whole of the three kingdoms, it was 108. the gallon. The effect had been to occasion a considerable reduction in the consumption of spirit, while that of beer had increased. The hon. Gentleman's proposal to transfer the tax from malt to beer was attractive at first sight; but it was a mistake to suppose that it would be any great boon to the brewer; because at present it was the malster, and not he, that was liable to the survey of the Excise. As regarded the revenue, it would be a most formidable change to remove the survey from the 10,000 maltsters to the 40,000 brewers. There might be good reasons for a change such as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman if it could be proved that malt, but for the regulations of the Excise, would MR. SPOONER said, the Chancellor of be extensively used in the feeding of cattle. the Exchequer was wrong in thinking that That, however, was a question which had the question had been settled. He could, undergone the most careful consideration from personal experience, confirm the before a Committee not composed of per-statement of his hon. Friend the Member sons hostile to those connected with the for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball), that malt sale and growth of barley; and he spoke was much more valuable than barley for without fear of contradiction, when he feeding cattle. asserted that the result of the investigation had been to show that it was far more profitable, on account of the superior nutritive qualities of barley, to apply it to the feeding of cattle than to convert it into malt, and then to use it for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman complained of the mode in which the farmers were exposed to competition with the foreigner. Competition in what? In malt? It was admitted that the foreign maltster could not compete with the English. Was it, then, in the article of meat? If so, he could only say that there had been a steady increase in the price of meat, and yet the hon. Gentleman had come forward and complained, in lugubrious tones and with a perfectly grave countenance, of the position of two agricultural products in the case of which, ever since competition had come into operation, an upward movement in price had been the result. That circumstance, however, afforded no reason why the law should not be improved; and if

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Supply considered in Committee.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

[BILL NO. 162.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.

Clause 6 (Power to make Works according to deposited Plans).

MR. AYRTON said, that although there had been frequent discussions in the House in connection with the Thames Embankment Bill, they had little or none at all on the merits of the embankment itself. Up to that time the proceedings with regard to the project had been conducted upstairs with closed doors, and the public were apt to suspect, under such circumstances, that everything that was done was

done in an imperfect manner. But the with the same propriety when the project time was come when he hoped they might was to be executed at the expense of a get rid of all personalities, and arrive at a large portion of the general public. The proper consideration of the intrinsic merits fund from which the cost of the embankof the project embraced in the Bill. There ment was to be defrayed had been intrusted was great misapprehension both within to the Treasury, who had accepted the and without the walls of that House on trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of the subject. The objects of the Bill were the metropolis; and they were, therefore, four. First, it was proposed that there bound to regard the question as a purely should be a solid embankment from West- public question, which ought not to have minster Bridge to the east side of the been taken out of the hands of responTemple; and from thence a viaduct upon sible public servants and placed in those piers in a curve to Chatham Place. A of private professional men. He would second part of the Bill provided for a street touch but lightly upon one part of the from Charing Cross Bridge to Somerset project-namely, the new street from House. A third, for a street from about Hungerford Market to Wellington Street, the same place to Whitehall Place; and because, as the House had been told, the a fourth for a street from the embankment Committee came in their own minds deto Whitehall Stairs. That was an enor- liberately to the conclusion that the street mous undertaking, not merely of embank- in question ought not to be made. He ment, but also of street improvement, would simply ask, then, why was it in which was estimated to cost in the first the Bill? It would be remarked, that instance £1,240,000. It was said that although the new street remained in the some property would be re-sold, and that Bill, there was another clause to the effect the net cost would thus be reduced to that it was not to be begun until all the £969,000. In relation to the project his other works were completed. That was, constituents stood simply in the position perhaps, the most inconvenient sort of of contributors to the fund, for individu- clause which could be inserted in a Bill, ally they would derive no advantage from because it would hamper owners and octhe works to be undertaken. They were cupiers in the enjoyment of their property therefore entitled to scrutinize the project, for an indefinite period. In connection to ascertain what its character was, and with that point, he could not help sayto be satisfied that it was reasonable and ing that the hon. Member for Westminster moderate. The project was launched (Sir John Shelley) was put in a most unforunder singular and extraordinary circum-tunate position-one not of his own seekstances. It was at variance with the re-ing-when he was placed upon the Comcorded opinions of the most eminent per-mittee. His hon. Friend asked him (Mr. sons for a period of upwards of twenty- Ayrton) to serve in his place, knowing five years; and though it was promoted that he was being thrust into an invidious by the right hon. Gentleman the Member position, and he declared himself ready to for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), it was really not launched by him as Chief Commissioner of Works, because his department had nothing to do with it. The persons connected with his office disapproved the scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to place himself in the hands of individuals not in the public service, and not, therefore, responsible to the Crown, who became his professional advisers and agents in passing the Bill through Parliament. Here, then, was a great public measure, promoted by professional persons with singular skill and ability, no doubt, but conducted as if it were a private enterprise, unable to stand upon its own intrinsic merits. But what might be done with propriety by a skilful professional adviser to carry a railway Bill through Parliament could not be done

do so, but said the matter rested with the Government, who were nominating the Committee. The hon. Baronet thereupon made a representation to the Government, but they preferred placing the hon. Gentleman in an equivocal position, in which he really, as the representative of a locality through which the embankment was to pass, could not discharge the duties which the metropolis expected from him. It was only proper to state, however, that the hon. Baronet proceeded with great ability, fairness, and judgment, paying every possible attention to the interests of the ratepayers at large. While the inquiry was in progress, the hon. Baronet told him that the new street had, by some mystification which he did not understand, been sanctioned in form, although it was against the opinion of the Committee, and