HC Deb 26 April 1833 vol 17 cc689-717
Sir William Ingilby

then rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice for a reduction of the duty upon malt to 10s. a quarter. The hon. Baronet said, that this tax pressed most heavily upon every interest in the country, and he considered that its repeal, or even partial remission, would be regarded as a boon by the people generally, without regard to the particular interest or class with which they were connected. The manufacturer of Birmingham would experience from it as much relief as the farmer; and therefore all were equally interested in the question, which it was his duty now to bring under the consideration of the House. From a knowledge of the fact he could state to the House that barley, and that, too, in his own county, was at the present time selling at a lower price than the duty which, if brought to the maltster's, must be paid on it to the Government. Under such a state of things, it was apparent that neither the farmer nor the landlord could much longer exist. They were both going as fast as they could to ruin; for, oppressed as they were by tithes, taxes, rents, and divers other charges, what else could happen? But if the landlord should go to ruin, he should very much like to know what was to become of the fund-lord. If the former were to fall into decay, was it likely the existence of the latter could be long protracted? In fact, they were both so much involved in one common interest, and each being obliged to depend so much upon the other, that the destruction of the landlord must inevitably bring about the overthrow of the fund-lord. This being the case, he earnestly hoped the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would, while time was yet allowed him for the purpose, reconsider his Budget, and endeavour to find out some means of providing a revenue without enforcing the Malt-tax. Looking at it in a moral point of view this impost was bad, and one of the many evils resulting from it was, that beer-shops were now as numerous all over the country as toadstools. It placed the enjoyment of a wholesome beverage at his own home beyond the reach of the poor man, and drove him to the beer-shops; and hence it was, that those nuisances had so fearfully increased in all directions. He contended that a larger revenue was produced by the former low duty upon this article than had been received since its increase to its present amount, and this he urged as a reason in favour of the proposition which he intended to make. If the capital of the landlord was to be destroyed, if the tenant was to be unable to pay his rent, how he, (Sir W. Ingilby) should be glad to learn, would the fund-lord be able to come at his dividends? He should, indeed, be sorry to see the landlord and the fund-lord in a state of warfare; and if ever such an event should happen, the day on which it took place would be an awful one for the country; but he did think that the landlord should be protected, for it should be borne in mind by the House that he it was by whom the fund-lord was guaranteed. The protection, therefore, that was extended to the one would be an advantage and an additional security to the other, and if it was really intended to preserve the national honour towards the public creditor untarnished, that would best be done by consulting the well-being of the landlord. He begged to assure the House that he did not bring forward the subject from party or personal motives, but solely for the good of the country, and to satisfy the public mind that the interests of the poor were not wholly neglected by the Legislature. He was old enough to remember the time when hardly any sober or industrious man would be seen in an ale house, but now he lamented to think, the working classes being unable, by reason of the operation of this impost, to enjoy themselves at home, were compelled as it were to take refuge in those Tom-and-Jerry shops. But the noble Lord must be fully sensible of the baneful consequences of the present system, and therefore it was, that he (Sir William Ingilby) hoped the noble Lord would soon discover some plan by means of which the Malt tax might be removed. Perhaps the noble Lord would turn his attention to finding a substitute for this tax, for he might depend upon it the country would never be satisfied to have a revenue raised from such a source. If he (Sir William Ingilby) were to be made Chancellor of the Exchequer—if he were to fill that responsible office—he did not know but that in the course of time he would be found following in the footsteps of his predecessors, and, like them, endeavouring to ruin the country by showing a preference to the fund-lord over the landlord; but in the frame of mind in which he then was, he must say, that he should be very strongly disposed to approach the rich men in the city, and out of the mass of wealth lying idle there, endeavour to obtain a capital to be applied to the purposes of the State. He knew of one man who, on being called home to his long account, left behind him no less a sum than 800,000l. It might be supposed that the possessor of so much wealth paid taxes and tithes, and kept up a large establishment in houses and servants; but what was the fact? Why, that he never paid taxes nor tithes, nor did he keep anything but an old woman and a tom cat. Here there was a large mass of money that was wholly unprofitable to the State. He brought forward this Motion in accordance with a pledge which he had given, and whenever he pledged his word to do anything, that thing was most commonly done. He had endeavoured to get some hon. Gentleman who possessed more ability than he did to take the matter off his hands: but being unable to induce any one to take the matter up, he had been obliged to make a virtue of necessity, and undertake the task, onerous as it was, himself. He begged, however, to assure the House, that it was far from his object to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, but he could, at the same time, assure the noble Lord, that even the remission of this tax which was now asked would, if conceded, confer a very great boon upon the people at large, for by them this impost was regarded as odious. The Malt-duties at present produced a revenue of nearly 5,000,000l., and it might, perhaps, be considered unreasonable if he were to call upon the noble Lord to remit so large a sum; but, under all the circumstances, he would submit to the consideration of the House whether the noble Lord ought not to be content with 2,500,000l., upon the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. By agreeing to so reasonable a proposition the noble Lord would greatly oblige, not only him, but the country. The hon. Baronet moved a Resolution, "That the duty upon malt be reduced from 20s. 8d. the quarter to 10s. the quarter."

Mr. Parrott

seconded the Motion. He was satisfied the reduction proposed by the hon. Baronet would not only benefit the agricultural classes, but be a very great advantage to the public generally. In his opinion it would be practicable to remit this tax without occasioning any diminution in the revenue. The remission of half the tax, as proposed by the Resolution of the hon. Baronet, might cause a loss to the revenue of 100,000l. The whole amount of the tax was 4,800,000l. and if a proper reduction were to take place in salaries of public officers, and the abolition of sinecure places, he would undertake to say that its total repeal would not occasion a loss of more than from 1,200,000l. to 1,500,000l. to the coffers of the Treasury. He could see no injustice in abolishing sinecures, neither would there be any in reducing the salaries of public functionaries, provided a rule of strict impartiality, extending from the highest to the lowest, was observed. This might give from 3,000,000l., to 4,000,000l. but that he was aware would not be sufficient to enable the Government to effect any very considerable reductions in the taxation of the country. No man could be more anxious than he was to maintain the splendour and dignity of the Crown, and amply provide for the comforts of his Majesty; but, under the trying circumstances in which the empire was placed, he thought his Majesty might give up at all events 200,000l. of the 500,000l. which were paid by the country for the maintenance of the Royal Establishment. A considerable reduction might be made in the salaries of the higher Officers of State and other public functionaries. They saw one Judge with 10,000l. a-year, and another with 5,000l.; but, in his opinion, such salaries doubled that fair compensation which the services of such men entitled them to. As efficient services might be obtained for half that; and if such incomes were to be cut down to that which was reasonable, he could see no injustice in it. He could not agree to the knocking off 100l. from the salary of this poor clerk and 200l. from the salary of that, but he could have no possible objection to reducing the salaries of all public officers, whether high or low, and beginning with the high in the same proportion. This alone would give satisfaction to the people. He had given his support to Ministers whenever he could do so conscientiously, but he must say that the Budget of the noble Lord had been received by the country, not only with coldness and dissatisfaction, but was looked upon in many places with scorn and contempt.

Sir John Sebright

, though connected with the landed interest, and representing a county in which perhaps more malt was made than in almost any other county in England, could not vote for the Resolution of his hon. friend, notwithstanding he was as anxious as any man in that House to see the Malt-duty repealed. It might naturally be expected that, circumstanced as he was, he would support the Motion of his hon. friend; but he had made it a rule ever since he had been in Parliament, and he should not now depart from that rule, never to allow personal or local interests to interfere with the general good. He did not think this a time when it was reasonable to ask Ministers to take of this tax, and if they were to comply with the wish of every hon. Gentleman who desired the removal of a particular tax, they would soon be without means to carry on the Government of the country. The shopkeepers and others complained bitterly of the pressure of the House and Window-tax, but he denied that they had any right to complain for it was not by them but by the landlord that those and all other taxes were paid. If no such burthens existed, the landlord would lay an additional rent that would be an equivalent for those taxes; and who would deny his right to do so? So that in no case would the tenant be in a better situation than he was; for, after all, it was not on him the burthen fell. The tradesman took the shop to carry on his trade, and whether he paid his rent partly to the landlord and partly to the Government was perfectly immaterial to him. It was, he thought, obvious that the Government could not take off this tax without substituting some other in its stead, and before he consented to its removal he should like to know how the deficiency it would occasion in the revenue was to be supplied. If taxes were to be removed in this way he should like to know what was to become of the national debt, or in what way the public creditor was to receive his interest. He fully agreed that a reduction of the Malt-tax would be of great advantage to the agricultural classes and the country at large; but at present he did not see how it could be spared; wherefore he would vote against the Resolution of the hon. Baronet. He should do so from a sense of his public duty, and because he thought it would be for the general good, for he never would vote for so discreditable an object as that of supporting any proposition merely to gain popularity.

Mr. Benett

felt the difficulty which the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had pointed out, and he would not support the Motion for the reduction of this tax, unless he could point out how the interests of the country and public faith might be maintained without it. He had voted in the minority on the Motion of the hon. member for Whitehaven. It had been said that that Motion was a dishonest one, but he denied that he had voted for it with any dishonest intention. He had never proposed to himself a depreciation of the currency, and if that had been the object, he should not have been a party to it. With respect to finding a substitute for a tax proposed to be taken off, he knew the doctrine which was held by Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House when they sat upon the opposite side of the House. Did they never vote for a reduction of taxes without pointing out how the deficiency might be supplied? He knew that it was their constant practice to do so. When they had been asked to point out a substitute for a tax which they asked to have taken off, what was the reply? Why, that they had nothing to do with finding a substitute; it was enough for them to show that the tax was a bad one, without being also obliged to point out a substitute. He certainly did not like to proceed upon this principle, but he at the same time was anxious to see a great commutation of taxes effected. He was, he repeated, anxious to keep faith with the national creditor; but still he was desirous of reducing the taxes of the country. What he wished to see was a tax upon property. Those who possessed property ought to pay for its protection, for it was they alone who were benefitted. The mode of assessing taxes he considered as unfair, for the burthen was not placed as it ought to be, on those who possessed property, and consequently required protection, but upon the necessitous. Without going deeply into the Malt-tax, he considered it one that ought to be remitted, and he only regretted that the hon. Baronet had moved for its total removal. Whenever that was done he should be prepared to show how a taxation sufficient to answer the exigencies of the State and keep faith with the public creditor could be collected. It was his opinion that property and not necessity, should be taxed. A tax on property was considered a war tax; but, for his part, he should wish to see it levied in peace, because he regarded it as less oppressive than any other which could be devised. He should support the Resolution.

Sir George Philips

felt considerable interest in this subject, but he had voted against the Motion of the noble Marquess, because he did not perceive that it would be productive of good. He thought that several Members who had spoken in the late discussions had fallen into a great mistake in supposing that the reductions of taxes which had taken place in certain branches of trade and industry were of no benefit to farmers, but a reduction of taxes on any branch of industry must, indirectly, benefit the agricultural interest. For his own part, as a Member of that House he was not disposed to divide any responsibility with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was rather inclined to acquiesce in the proposed arrangements of that noble Lord, unless it could be shown that the proposed reductions would confer no benefit. Knowing as he did the willingness of the noble Lord to reduce the burthens of the country he was disposed to give him his support. It was said, and probably with truth, that the country was dissatisfied with the amount of the proposed reduction, but, whatever might be the extent of that dissatisfaction, he was quite sure a great part of it arose from undue expectations which had been raised in the public mind. It was quite clear to any man of reflection that no such extent of reduction could take place as that which had been suggested in several quarters. He meant it could not take place consistently with the maintenance of public faith and credit. At the same time he wished to see a further alleviation of public burthens produced by strict economy and reduction of expenditure. He did not deny the existence of some distress, but he believed it prevailed more in the agricultural than in the manufacturing districts, respecting which great exaggerations had been circulated. He had some knowledge of the state of the manufacturing districts, and had taken some pains in making inquiries of several persons who had come lately from Lancashire, and the result was that, upon a comparison of the rates of wages, and the prices of clothing, food, and necessaries of life, it would be difficult to find a period at which workmen were better paid than at present. [A laugh.] Some Gentlemen might laugh, but he took upon himself to say that he had better information than they had. He did not, however, deny the existence of distress, but he would repeat that, with the exception of the hand-loom weavers, the workmen were better paid than at any former period.

Mr. Warburton

was not of opinion that a commutation of taxes was improper, provided that industry could be relieved by a fair and equitable Property-tax. But if he saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer with 13,000,000l. derived from a Property-tax in the Exchequer, he would not consent to repeal the duty on malt till he had first made terms with that great body of country gentlemen who would not assent to a Property-tax. Of all crops the barley crops were the most uncertain. In 1830, before the increase of consumption occasioned by the repeal of the Beer duty, the whole supply of malting barley was exhausted. If there was such a difficulty of securing a sufficient supply of barley, that the whole was consumed before the new crops were ready, before the whole of the Beer duty was taken off, that difficulty must be increased by the increased consumption, amounting to 900,000 quarters. It was not only one of the most uncertain crops, but only a small quantity of that grown was fit for malting. Of all the barley grown in Scotland, not above one-fourth could be used for this purpose. What, then, would be the consequence of taking off the Malt-duty? Why the whole of it would go into the pockets of the barley growers. It would not transfer that duty into the pockets of the consumers of beer, but would put it into the hands of the barley growers. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, had his 13,000,000l. to be derived from a Property-tax, he for one would not consent to take off the Malt-duty, till the country gentlemen would allow the duty on foreign barley to be taken off. They need not be much frightened at that. The barley grown abroad was not very fit for malting; even if good, when shipped, it heated on the voyage, and was unfit for the maltster. In 1830, when barley was at 40s. in this country, the best Bohemian barley could not be got at Hamburgh for less than from 30s. to 35s. the quarter. Country Gentlemen need not, therefore, be alarmed at the influx of foreign barley. He would, after making terms with these gentlemen, take off the whole duty. By the present proposal, they would keep up the whole expensive machinery for levying the tax; they would still expose the manufacturer to all the present vexatious interference, and they would raise the revenue which was left to be raised from malt at an enormous per centage. He hoped, therefore, to see it removed altogether. An hon. Member had complained of the trash drunk at the beer shops. It appeared pretty conclusive by the increased consumption of malt (900,000 quarters), that much of that trash must at least have been made from malt. He believed the beer was adulterated by the publicans, and it was of no consequence who brewed it, if they adulterated it.

Sir Eardley Wilmot

was for taking off the tax, because that would be of the greatest benefit to the morals and happiness of the people. That was, in his estimation, of more consequence than enriching the Exchequer. But he rose less to speak on this topic than to advert to another subject. He entered that House with a determination to support his Majesty's Ministers, but unless they should alter their system, it was not his intention to continue that support. He was sorry to see so much vacillation in their conduct, and he hoped they would take a more decided tone. The House, he was sure, was disposed to support them, and every independent country Gentleman, like himself, would give them his hearty support if they showed an intention, as it was their duty, to fulfil the promises they had solemnly made. They were getting into a difficult and dangerous state. At the same time, they might escape by doing justice to the country. They were exposed, on the one hand, to the pitfalls set for them by open hostility and, on the other, to the snares of pretended friendship. He was sorry to see them seduced into bye-paths, in which there was no safety,

Major Beauclerk

rose to support the Resolution of the hon. Baronet, and would have seconded it with pleasure if he had had an opportunity. He voted for the Resolution because he was anxious to remove any part of the burthen which at present pressed so heavily on the backs of the people, and he did not know anything which would afford greater satisfaction to the people than the repeal of the Malt-duty. It was now very clear that large and important reductions must be made, because the existence of distress was universally admitted. He was glad of that admission, particularly as in consequence of that it now became the paramount duty of Parliament to effect the purposes for which they were returned, namely, the reduction of taxation. The country called for great reductions, and none, he believed would be received more gratefully than the abolition of the duty upon Malt: a reduction which would promote morality, and give a stimulus to industry.

Mr. Harvey

thought, that these propositions were suggested only by selfishness or some wretched theories. Let the Government only allow hon. Members to express their opinions, and it would find strength in the diversity of their opinions. They were now called upon to repeal the Malt-duties—in a day or two they were to be asked to repeal the Assessed-taxes: would the noble Lord who proposed it support a commutation of taxes, supposing the Government were to meet the demand for the repeal by such a plan? He was afraid the noble Lord would be found in the minority. It would be curious and instructive to learn how the hon. Members would give their votes on such a plan. He should like to know how many of the minority of ninety who went out just now on the proposition to give relief to the agriculturists voted the other evening in favour of the Motion for a Property-tax. It was all very well in hon. Member's pressing the Government to recede from its engagements; but he trusted Gentlemen would take the financial situation of the country into consideration before pressing for relief. He thought that they might possibly reduce 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l., and that such a sum might, by great exertions, be spared out of the 17,000,000l. or 18,000,000l. Government had to spend. That was, however, only to be done by the most searching economy. He conceived that it vas possible that 3,000,000l., but not more, could be spared and keep up the establishments and preserve the integrity of the country; but how was that to be done if 3,000,000l. were to be taken off for this tax, and 4,000,000l. for that?—if one day the Malt-tax was to be reduced, and another the Assessed-taxes were to be taken off, making together 7,000,000l.? The Malt-tax amounted to 4,800,000l. [We only want the half taken off] He would come to that presently; but assuming that the agriculturists demanded the whole, and the shopkeepers, as the inhabitants of the towns had been called by an hon. Member, required 2,500,000l. to be removed; here were upwards of 7,000,000l. which the Government was required to reduce. Those Gentlemen who proposed this, had not shown how the noble Lord was to get out of this financial difficulty. The hon. member for Worcester had brought forward a Motion for imposing a Property-tax in a manner which would not allow that Motion soon to be forgotten, and that Motion was partly opposed because it was anticipating the Budget. They were asked to wait—told calmly to resign themselves to confidence in the Ministry, and see what a reformer, as Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce. The Estimates amounted to 18,000,000l.; and what would be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if these demands were granted without some substitute? As a Reformed Parliament they were no longer the servants, but the masters of the Ministers; and he must blame the Members for taking the law entirely from them. It was their duty to refuse the Exchequer what they thought right; not to take every thing from the Government. Let them take upon themselves that responsibility which, as a duty and a right, belonged to them, and let them say what duty should be repealed and what imposed. He wished that some hon. Member would, in that sense, move a Resolution, stating that the country required primarily a reduction of taxation to the amount of 3,000,000l.; that would be a substantive proposition; and next he wished to have a Motion that the Malt-tax and the Assessed-taxes ought to be taken off, and their place supplied by a Property-tax. This would be an intelligible proposition, and would put to the test the sincerity of hon. Members. A repeal of the Malt-duties would be of advantage principally, if not exclusively, to the landlords. This, he thought, was pretty plain, even upon the argument of the hon. Baronet, the member for Hertford, who stated that the abolition would not reduce rents. Now, if a landlord required more rent because his tenants had to pay less tithes, surely the landlord would with equal readiness increase his rent when the duty on barley was diminished. Did hon. Members mean to say, that a landlord having a farm to let at Michaelmas would demand the same rent for it whether there was a high duty on Maltor none at all? He should vote for repealing not only half of the duty on malt but the whole of it; and he was prepared to vote for the substitution of a Property-tax to the extent that the exigences of the country might require. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the member for Warwickshire that the Government had fallen in the estimation of the country, that they had lost much of their popularity, and much of public confidence; and that they were reduced from that high and proud pinnacle on which they once stood, to become objects of great distrust and suspicion. He wished that the Ministers had proposed some definite plan for the imposition of a Property-tax; and then, if it had failed, the blame of the failure could not have rested with them, and they would at once have restored themselves to popularity, and would have silenced such remarks as those which had been made upon them this evening.

Lord Althorp

said, that whatever might be the state of public opinion, and notwithstanding what had been said by his hon. friend, the member for Warwick, he must assert that he had openly and fairly stated to the House and the country the state of the finances, and he explained, as clearly as his abilities allowed him to do, how utterly impossible it was, consistent with the necessary expenses of the country, to consent to the proposed reductions without a commutation for other taxes. If then it was determined to reduce these taxes, and if the House were of opinion that a Property-tax was more advantageous it was for them to say so; but for his own part, whatever he might think of the principle of a Property-tax, he confessed that his abilities did not enable him to see through a practicable mode of an impartial and equal distribution of such a tax. There were two modes suggested of levying a Property-tax. One he understood to be a tax which would include all realized income, and he believed the hon. member for Colchester did not mean to include what he called professional income. Now the advocate of such a measure would scarcely contend that it would be a relief to the landed interests, who were said by some to be the principal sufferers. But he did not make use of that as any argument against it, nor did he then offer any argument against an equitable Property-tax; but, having considered the question attentively, he was bound to confess to the House that the difficulties which presented themselves were so great that he could not, as he said before, see his way to the formation of any plan for giving practical effect to an equitable distribution of such a tax. The next plan was one which would include a tax upon income; and he believed that no person having a recollection of the Property-tax of 1816 would be inclined to support such a measure. True it was, there was great objection to some of the existing taxes, but they were somewhat like the Poor-laws in some respects, very objectionable. But of all those who objected to the Poor-laws—and he admitted the validity of many of the objections—he had not met with any arranged plan that could at once be taken as a substitute for the Poor-laws; and it was also to be recollected that those who proposed such large reductions of taxes did not appear to be prepared or willing to propose a substitute for them. If such a system could be prepared with regard to the Property-tax, so as to be perfectly fair and equitable, he should be happy to adopt it. The hon. Member for Warwickshire said, that the Government had lost the confidence of the country by their vacillation. The hon. Member had not, however, pointed out any one instance of that vacillation. He was aware that they had sometimes been accused of obstinacy in carrying forward their measures, but he did not know that they had been accused of vacillation. If it was true that the Government had lost the confidence of the country, he did not believe that they had lost it on that account. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion proposed that half of the Malt-tax should be taken off. As far as the inconvenience to the Government was concerned, the whole might as well be reduced as a part, for in both cases it would be equally impossible to carry on the public service. The whole of the anticipated surplus income would be swallowed up; and if it were twice what it was, it would not be sufficient to meet the loss to the revenue which the adoption of this Motion would occasion. It was said, that no advantage had been given to the agriculturist. He denied the assertion. The tax on beer had been taken off, and the reduction of that was a great advantage to the barley grower, as it had most materially increased the consumption of the article he produced. As a proof of this, he need only refer to the number of bushels of malt consumed in the course of three successive years, and to the enormous increase of the amount of that consumption. In 1830, the number of bushels of malt consumed was 28,844,892 In 1831, there were 35,160,000 bushels of malt consumed; and in 1832, the number reached as high as 40,344,000 bushels. If this Motion was carried, it was impossible that he should effect the reductions of taxation which he had already suggested to the House, unless there was proposed some plan of a Property-tax such as the House could and would adopt. For these reasons he felt it to be absolutely necessary to oppose the Motion. It was objected to Ministers, and he admitted that it was a fair argument for some hon. Members to use, that they (the Ministers), when on the Opposition side of the House, had called for the substitution of other taxes for those which they proposed to be reduced. Now, whilst he admitted the fairness of this argument, he hoped it would not be considered unfair in him to admit frankly that he had not ability enough to discover a substitution for the taxes which were proposed to be reduced. He made that acknowledgment upon a full consideration of the difficulties that had presented themselves, and the House would consider him as acting fairly when he made this candid declaration. In his consideration of the subject he had, of course, kept in view the exigences of the country, and the necessity of maintaining the public honour and public credit. The meeting which took place yesterday had been referred to as a proof of the evils of giving Representatives to the Metropolitan Boroughs, and they were told that they had been forewarned of the enormous and overwhelming power they were creating when they proposed to give them Representatives. His answer was, that in whatever he had done he had endeavoured to act with perfect impartiality. His not having done more for the metropolis than he had done in the Budget, had, he found, rendered his propositions unpopular in this great city; and his not having done more for the agriculturists, would, he was also told, render them unpopular in the country. He regretted the consequence in both cases; but such was the fate of all men who took every possible care to do that which was fair for all parts of the empire alike. However the hon. member for Warwickshire might charge him with vacillation, he should not be found vacillating now. It was his determination, as long as he held the situation which he at present occupied, to endeavour to act fairly between all the different interests of the country, notwithstanding he might subject himself by so doing to the reproach that he did not act as some particular interests in the country might wish.

Mr. Cobbett

said, that before he offered any remarks upon the Motion immediately before the House, he must make an observation or two respecting the Corn Laws, in consequence of what had fallen from some hon. Members. He remembered the history well of the Corn-Bill which had been so much attacked. He had disapproved of that Bill, not because it was a piece of gross injustice, or because it was in itself opprobrious, but because it was calculated to lead the landlords to support the Ministers in their extravagance. The hon. member for South Wilts (Mr. Benett) had, he believed, at the time the Bill was under consideration presided at a meeting at Salisbury held for the purpose of determining to keep up the prices. Now, that was an error, and an injury to the landlords themselves, as he then well saw, for it produced the enormous establishments they all so much complained of. The effect had been, that the whole country, with very few exceptions, accused the landlords of calling for the Corn-laws to enable them to rob the other classes of the community. He had addressed, in the course of last year, nearly half a million of persons, and all, or almost all, thought that the Corn-laws had been passed to tax the people for the benefit of the landlords—that the laws were, in fact, a means for taking out of the pockets of the people a large sum of money to put it into the pockets of the landlords; and that, therefore, they were most unjust. He had endeavoured, and he believed he had endeavoured successfully, every where to show them, that that was an injustice towards the landlords. He believed that the landlords would be glad to get rid of these laws. The Corn-laws were represented to be something new. Why there had been Corn-laws in England since the time of Edward 3rd., and no one thought then, or long afterwards, to talk of the tax on foreign corn as unjust. It was believed to be for the good of the country. Then there was the American Government. Nobody would suppose that that Government would levy a tax to benefit a particular class at the expense of all the rest of the people. Yet there had been a tax on corn in the United States from the first moment of the Federal Government till the year 1824—a tax of twenty cents upon the bushel of wheat, Winchester measure, and a tax of ten cents upon the bushel of oats, of Winchester measure. His constituents had desired his colleague and himself to pledge themselves to vote against the Corn-laws, and they had distinctly told the people, that they would not do so, unless some of the burthens were removed from the land. They would only give the pledge upon that condition. The hon. and respectable, and, he might add, the venerable member for Hertfordshire, had favoured them with his opinions on this question, and had said that he should oppose the Motion, although he represented a county where more barley was made into malt than in any other county. To be sure he would; but then Hertfordshire was no more concerned in it than Lancashire; for though the barley was malted in Hertfordshire, the beer made from it was drunk in Lancashire. The respectable member for Hertfordshire had said, that the outcry against the Window-tax was most mistaken, for that the landlords, not the tenants, paid the Window-tax. He might as well say, that the landlords paid the Probate Duty on the wills of their tenants when they died. If that were so, then the landlords paid the Malt-tax too. Faith, then, we were in error indeed, and when the chopsticks complained of the high price of the beer they were drinking, the boy who served it could say, "Oh, you are wrong, the landlords pay the tax and not you." That was going so near the verge of absurdity, that it might be said to be absurdity, even in the presence of the hon. person for whose age one had so great a respect. He had for years past prayed to the Lord to soften the hearts of the Ministers, and induce them to take off the Malt-tax. He had for years together endeavoured to get them to take off the Salt-tax, and in that he had been successful. Now, if the noble Lord would take off the Malt-tax, he would consent to a compromise with the noble Lord, but he must take it all off, for half of it would be of no service. It was a most vexatious tax. The hon. member for Lincolnshire had told them truly, that in his county the price of the barley amounted to less than the duty paid on converting it into Malt. Suppose the barley was 20s. a quarter, as it was in Norfolk the other day, the duty was 20s. 8d., that made the quarter of malt 40s. 8d., but the malt was selling for 60s. a quarter. There was the injury to the people. That it was which made this tax an object of universal dislike, and that it was which should make the noble Lord take off this tax in preference to others. What then became of the 19s. 4d.? Oh, it was said, the maltster had it. No such thing. The maltster had part of it, it was true, but the vexatious and disgraceful system he was subjected to ate up the far greater part. A maltster could not pursue his trade as he liked. He could not wet his malt when he pleased; he could not let it stop in the cistern as long as he pleased; he could not carry it to the couch when he pleased; in fact, he could do no one thing in his business but under the spy and inspection of an excise officer. The extent of their inconvenience was dreadful. At Kingston the other day he saw a crowd, and he was told twenty or thirty maltsters were up to be fined 100l. a-piece for using a watering-pot to wet their barley. He had always said, that the English Excise was worse than the Spanish Inquisition; and he was sure, that if all the victims of the Exchequer, for the last ten years, were assembled in Palace-yard (if indeed Palace-yard would hold them), the sight of them would absolutely frighten the House. And into whose hands was this inspection of the maltsters committed? Why, into those of the excisemen. They were not the elect of the earth. They were, in fact, rude, saucy, overbearing, jacks in office. He did not blame Ministers, but the system. It took from the people 13,000,000l. a-year, and he did not believe that the Treasury received 15s. a quarter for the malt made. But that was not the only evil. It induced immorality and abasement of character. Young people were driven from the farmhouses to beer-houses, and the consequence was ruin. He remembered that, a few years ago, at his farm at Barn Elms, his men and boys cost him more for beer than for every thing else put together; and he had been repeatedly told by intelligent farmers, that they sent their men from their houses in consequence of the cost of giving them beer at home. Fifty years ago there was a very different system. Then young men lived in the farm-houses until they married; and they were not in a hurry to marry, for they had good homes and comforts. The master and mistress then took care of them—saw that they kept good hours, were regular, attended church; and the consequence was, that they were happy and their employers were benefited. Now, however, they were driven to the beerhouse; and if a spy police were established in every parish, it would do no good, for police and all would go to the beer-shop and get drunk together. The only way to remedy the evil was to repeal this the worst of taxes. The hon. Member referred to the evidence given before the Agricultural Committee in 1821, to show that the state of the agricultural labourer had been greatly altered for the worse within the last fifty years. Fifty years ago every farmer made his own malt. He had advised people to use their own ovens for that purpose, but it would be better if there might be a small kiln in every parish. A great many books had appeared lately from a society which had a great functionary at its head, and which called itself the "Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge." These books all recommended to the people to use spare diet. Spare diet, to be sure! The people of England did not require to be told by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge to use spare diet. Their necessities forced them to it. He would tell them what ought to be done; throw all the Useful Knowledge books into the fire, and give them pots of beer. The people had grown much poorer within the last few years; he recollected when he used to see crowds of healthy and strong agricultural labourers in the country churches, each dressed in his clean smock-frock, and looking happy and contented. How was it now? There was hardly one to be seen in the churches; or, if there happened to be a few there, they were sure to be found poor and miserable, and without even clean frocks on their backs, a change that was produced by the Malt-tax. He did not consider the proposition made exactly what was required, or according to his own conviction of what was right. Yet he would not oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet. It was true, the hon. Baronet only proposed to take one-half off the Malt-tax. That would give neither satisfaction nor the necessary relief. If they were only to take 10s. off, the duty and the price of the quarter of malt would still be 50s.; but let them take 20s. off, and the price would be only 20s. per quarter. The hon. Baronet had said, that the Government could not spare so much. He did not know where the hon. Baronet got his information; but it was incorrect. He (Mr. Cobbett) was not in the secrets of the Ministers, but he could tell the hon. Baronet, that they could spare the whole duty; and that they would do just as well without it as they did now that they had it, if the House chose to take it from them. He did not think, that if the Motion of the hon. Baronet were agreed to, the maltster would take 5s. off the price of the quarter of malt, and therefore if the hon. Baronet would agree to alter it, and propose to take the whole duty off malt, he should have his hearty support. If, however, the Motion of the hon. Baronet were carried as it now stood, he pledged himself on some future day to move for the repeal of the remainder.

Mr. Curteis

called on the Members for all large towns to join the agriculturists in supporting the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He considered the Motion of the utmost consequence to the agricultural labourer. It was of greater consequence to the tenants than to the landlord. He hoped, that the Motion would be carried, or at all events, that there would be such a respectable minority as would show that the feeling of the whole country was opposed to the tax. Though he always supported Ministers when he thought them in the right, he had no hesitation in opposing them when wrong; he would accordingly oppose them on the present question. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would press his Motion to a division.

Mr. Mark Philips

said, feeling, as the representative of a great manufacturing and commercial community, that he had been called upon by the hon. member for Sussex, to support the present Motion, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, that he for one needed no such appeal. He was ready as a volunteer to have supported the Motion, having long, in his own mind, been convinced of the propriety of abolishing the duty on malt; and he begged to assure the hon. member for Lincolnshire, who had that night brought forward the Motion, that all he had to complain of was, that his measure did not go far enough. He knew that the character of the hon. Baronet would clear him from the imputation of being ordinarily the supporter of half measures; but in this instance he was ready to have supported him in the total repeal of the Malt-duty. He did not consider, that in voting for the repeal of this duty he could be accused of any, the most remote, desire to create embarrassment, or to hazard the public credit. He had far too great a regard for his country's credit, and for commercial credit, which was so intimately allied with it, ever by any act of his, or by any vote which he had given, or ever would give, in that House, to endanger the public faith. It appeared to him, that a Property-tax offered a ready and practicable means of commutation for this and other taxes; and he supported the Motion because he considered that it would afford substantial relief to the manufacturing as well as to the agricultural population of the country. The two interests—the manufacturing and the agricultural—were inseparably connected; the one could not flourish without the other; and it was impossible that the one could flourish at the expense of the other. He was anxious to see a cheap, a good, and wholesome beverage, placed within the reach of the labouring classes, whether of the manufacturing or the agricultural community. He looked at the moral effects of the repeal of the Malt-tax. He wished to afford a substantial check to the dreadful effects of that consumption of ardent spirits which prevailed in our-great manufacturing towns. He wished to see the use of beer extended—not in the beer-shops, but at the domestic meal. The hon. member for Lincolnshire had alluded to the alteration which had taken place of late years in the mode of life on the part of the agricultural labourer, in his now being no longer, to the same extent as formerly, the inmate of the farmer's dwelling. He should not occupy the attention of the House by entering upon this topic, but it was, in his humble opinion, matter for serious consideration. As a representative of a large mercantile constituency, therefore, and well knowing their wishes, he could declare that they were most anxious for the repeal of the Malt-tax, not merely on account of the relief which would thereby be afforded to themselves, but, at the same time, as an act of justice to the agriculturists.

Mr. Robert Palmer

had voted that evening for the Motion of the noble Marquess below him, and would also vote for the proposition of the hon. Baronet, because he conceived both to be brought forward in a spirit of justice to the agricultural interest. In neither instance could he, in justice, be obnoxious to the charge of being actuated by a desire to embarrass Ministers. He, at least, was one who would never vote for the reduction or repeal of any tax, merely because it might embarrass the Government of the time being. He looked only to the justice and policy of the measure, and not to its probable party consequences. He would never lend himself to the views by which the papers of that day represented the noble Lord (Althorp) opposite to have been influenced when sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The newspapers contained a statement which he could not for a moment believe, but which represented the noble Lord as having stated, in answer to a question of a Member of a deputation that had waited on him in reference to a repeal of the House and Window-taxes, that "It is very true, as you say, that I did vote for a repeal of those taxes; but I did so at the time merely to embarrass Ministers." Whether this was a correct statement, he could not, of course, take it upon him to affirm; but he would say it was an example he should never imitate. He would vote for a reduction of the duty on malt, because he was convinced that no tax bore so heavily upon the working classes. The rich had their wines and luxuries, but malt beverage was the only-drink of the poor labourer; to reduce it, therefore, would be an essential benefit to that large and important class of the community. He, of course, could not expect that, if a tax so productive were reduced one-half, the noble Lord should not endeavour to make good the revenue deficiency by some other less obnoxious impost. All that he hoped for was, that the noble Lord would undertake the bold experiment of reducing this oppressive tax, substituting in its stead one less burthen-some to the working classes.

Lord Althorp

felt himself called upon to offer one or two words of explanation in reference to the newspaper statement to which the hon. Gentleman had just alluded. The hon. Gentleman did him but justice in disbelieving that statement, He never said what was attributed to him. He was asked, in a (to say the least) very unusual manner, to repeal certain taxes. On his declining, he was reminded that he had on a former occasion, when out of office, voted for the repeal of the same taxes. His answer was, a statement of the grounds on which he had voted on the occasion alluded to. He told his questioners that he had voted for a repeal of the House and Window-tax, and other taxes, because he thought the expenditure of the country unnecessarily, and therefore unjustifiably, excessive; and he voted for a repeal of taxes in order to compel the then Government to lessen the expenditure. But he particularly stated that he thought this reduction of expenditure the more called for and practicable because there was a comparatively large surplus of income over expenditure in the Exchequer at the time, he ever having held the opinion that no such surplus was desirable for the purposes of which it was the pretext. But no such state of things obtained now: the present Administration had cut down the expenditure to the utmost in their power, and they had no surplus fund. These important circumstances, therefore, being now so different, he told the meeting that he had not the same motive for a repeal of those taxes as when he had sat on the Opposition side of the House. And that was what he said, and no more.

Mr. Barron

said, that he should oppose the present Motion with great reluctance; because, being a landed proprietor, he should, of course, be very much benefited by the reduction of the Malt-duty. He could not, however, vote for the Motion, because he did not see how it was possible to reduce the establishment to the amount of 2,500,000l.

Captain Gordon

did expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have included in his Budget some proposition to relieve the agricultural classes. The reduction of taxation on taxed carts and tiles would not be felt in the particular part of the country with which he was connected, because neither taxed carts nor tiles were used there. He felt bound in justice to his constituents to vote for a Motion which would have the effect of giving some small relief. He supported it, however, for another reason, namely, that there was every reason to suppose a reduction of the duty would increase the consumption, and thus remove the objection made by many hon. Members that it was necessary for the support of the revenue.

Mr. O'Connell

would support the Motion, simply because it was a Motion for reduction of taxation. It was the duty of the House to reduce taxation, and the only way to compel the Ministers to reduce the establishments of the country was, to take from the resources of expenditure. His own opinion, however, was, that the reduction of the Malt Duty by one-half would, by augmenting the consumption, have the effect of increasing the revenue. The noble Lord said, that he had made no statement to the effect that he voted for reduction of taxation to embarrass the Government. He could assure the noble Lord, that the impression on the minds of a great number of the deputation was, that he had so expressed himself. There could be no doubt, however, that after the noble Lord's explanation, that impression was erroneous.

Mr. Hume

was convinced that the reduction of the Malt-duty one-half would not have the effect of diminishing the revenue to that amount. When the duty on spirits and coffee was reduced, the consumption greatly increased, and the revenue, instead of suffering, was benefited. He was sure, that if the present Motion was agreed to, the deficit would not exceed 800,000l. or 900,000l.; and he thought the Ministers might manage to go on very well, notwithstanding that deficiency. But if it was necessary to retain the present amount of taxation, he would, rather than keep the tax on malt, have a duty to the same amount placed on spirits.

Mr. Lloyd

said, that, although representing an exclusively manufacturing constituency, he felt called upon, in justice to the agricultural population, to vote for the Motion. In doing so, however, he expressed a hope that, whenever a Motion were made, by which the burthens of the manufacturing population might be relieved, the agricultural Members, recollecting the support they were that night receiving, would unite their efforts in having it carried.

Mr. Hodges

said that, knowing what were the feelings of the country on the subject of this tax, he felt it his duty to support the Motion of the hon. Baronet, the member for Lincolnshire; at the same time he expressed his regret that that Motion did not go to the extent of the entire abolition of the Malt-tax. While on his legs, he could not help observing, that it appeared to him rather a curious circumstance to see those Gentlemen who had supported every Administration that existed previous to the present one, now demanding a remission of taxation. In his opin- ion it would have been much better if they had not, years and years ago, lent their aid in the imposition of those taxes, of which they now so much complained. He did not, however, quarrel with them for now demanding a reduction of taxation, and the Ministers could not do better than take them at their word, and regulate the future establishments of the country more in conformity with the means of the people.

Mr. Baring

said, that as the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had declared that it was not expedient to maintain a surplus revenue for the purpose of liquidating the debt, and as that sentiment had been re-echoed from all sides of the House, it became a question for him to consider, when the whole surplus revenue was applied to the reduction of taxation, what parties were entitled to share in the scramble. He should certainly not be doing his duty towards his constituents, standing there the representative of a county purely agricultural, if he did not vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Ingilby). The agricultural interest was at that moment suffering under peculiar distress, and it was their duty to give relief where relief was most required. For this consideration, as well as in discharge of the duty he owed to his constituents, he should support the present Motion. He believed, too, that no reduction of taxation was more likely to give relief than the reduction of the duty on malt. If, however, the tax could not be spared, it might easily be transferred to some other article. He was one of those who thought the Beer Bill required consideration. The Committee appointed to inquire into that subject had received numerous representations of the pernicious consequences of the establishment of beer-shops; and it might be worthy of consideration, whether or not the transfer of part of the duty on malt to beer would not have the effect of removing those inconveniences which had been experienced from the operation of the Beer Bill.

Lord John Russell

rose amidst loud cries of "question." He certainly would not have trespassed on the attention of the House, had it not been for the surprise which he felt at the extraordinary speech which had just been delivered. It was a common but just observation, that new proselytes always went to extremes; but that any man should go from so great an extreme one way, to so great an extreme the other, was indeed calculated to excite some astonishment. For several years past, he had heard the hon. member for Essex declare, as indeed he did some nights ago, that the only means of saving this country was by keeping up a large sinking fund, to which not less than 5,000,000l. per annum should be appropriated. His noble friend, taking another course of policy, said, "Let us not burthen the people for a sinking fund, but let us avoid the difficulties resulting from a deficit, and keep up a surplus of revenue beyond expenditure of a million or less." But what said the hon. member for Essex—did he say, "keep up the taxes—retain a sufficient surplus?" Oh, no; he said, "if I cannot have a surplus of 5,000,000.,l let me have a deficit." According to the statement of his noble friend on the Budget, there would be a surplus of 1,500,000l. His noble friend proposed to take off rather more than 1,000,000l., but the hon. member for Lincolnshire, in proposing to take off half the Malt-tax, asked for a reduction to the amount of 2,400,000l. This was the proposition which the hon. member for Essex—the great patron and supporter of the Sinking Fund—thought it consistent with his line of policy to adopt. That hon. Gentleman had told them, when the Motion of the hon. member for Whitehaven came on for discussion, that he had received many letters from his constituency, but the effect which this produced on his mind was only to prove that they were grossly ignorant; but on the present occasion, he had thrown aside all previous notions—he had cast away all the conclusions of his enlightened mind, and had condescended to become the representative of the worst and most besotted ignorance. To enter on the financial year with the deficiency of one million, was what, he hoped, no Minister of this great nation would ever consent to, and what no House of Commons would ever sanction. The necessary consequence of such a proceeding would be, to make the faith of the country suspected at home—to diminish its reputation abroad—and to place us in such a situation as would necessarily deprive us of that high and noble station which we had hitherto held among the nations of the world. Those who thought the establishments of the country might be sufficiently reduced to meet the deficiency would be perfectly consistent in voting for the Resolution of the hon. member for Lincolnshire. It was, however, equally consistent for him, as one of those who brought forward the financial statement for the year—and who had proved by acts, and not by words, their desire of conducting the Government, of the country in the full spirit of economy—to say, that he thought it impossible to make so large a reduction in our establishments as would enable us to meet the deficiency which would be occasioned by passing this Resolution. There was certainly one other method which had been stated most fairly—he might say with his usual fairness—by the hon. member for Colchester, namely, that this, with some other taxes, might be altogether reduced, and a tax upon income or property substituted. He admitted, that it was the duty of that House, after having provided for the national faith and Interests, to consider what ways and means of raising the necessary taxation would prove least burthen-some to the people. If the House considered such means less burthen some than those which at present existed, it was of course their duty to adopt that suggestion. Certainly, if the whole question of taxation were now to be raised for the first time, he said he was inclined to favour the sentiments promulgated in a most able speech of the late Mr. Huskisson, in 1830. But, in his opinion, if they were now to enter into such a commutation he firmly believed that the hopes of the House would be disappointed, and that the discontent and irritation which would ensue upon the imposition of a tax which experience had proved so obnoxious, would preponderate over the satisfaction to which it might give rise. Upon the whole, then, he would leave the question to the House, believing, fortified as he was by the vote of the other night, that the House would not on any account lend itself to a vote by which the national faith might be rendered liable to suspicion.

Mr. Baring

explained. He had distinctly stated that, in voting for the Resolution of the hon. Baronet, he had by no means abandoned the principles which he had hitherto maintained with regard to the Sinking Fund. But as he found it impossible to convince Ministers of the propriety of adopting his sentiments, he had dealt with them according to their own principles.

Sir Charles Burrell

said, he should vote for the hon. Baronet's Motion, but not with an expectation that it would lead to any deficiency of the revenue; on the contrary, he believed that the increase of the consumption of malt would be equivalent to the amount of duty reduced.

The House divided on Sir W. Ingilby's Motion—Ayes 162: Noes 152: Majority 10.

Mr. Robinson

then rose and said, as one of those who voted in the majority on this occasion, he thought it his duty to state that the vote he had given had not been dictated by any feeling of hostility towards his Majesty's Government. Gentlemen might smile, but he could honestly and conscientiously state, that such was not his intention. He was aware that the effect of such a decision must lead to some embarrassment on their part. He considered, however, that a most important principle had now been established, that the system of indirect taxation, in its present extent and degree, was at an end; and he called on the landed gentlemen who had insinuated that the Representatives of the trading and manufacturing towns entertained an unworthy jealousy towards that interest, but who had now received their support in the reduction of the Malt-duty, would be equally ready when, in a few days, the hon. Baronet, the member for the City of London, would propose a total repeal of the House and Window Duty, to lend their assistance for the abolition of these taxes. It would then, when that measure was also carried, be his duty—if the Government did not make a proposition to that effect—to submit a Motion for the adoption of some means to supply whatever deficiency might be necessary, after the enforcement of every practicable reduction in the public expenditure.

Lord Althorp

said, that he was certain the intention of the hon. Mover of the Resolution was not to embarrass the Government, but to carry a measure of his own. Notwithstanding, he admitted that what had taken place that night would place his Majesty's Ministers in a state of considerable embarrassment; yet after the decision that the House had just come to, though the majority was not very large, he did not feel himself disposed to offer any further opposition on that occasion, to the hon. Baronet's Resolution.

The Resolution—"That the duty on Malt be reduced from 20s. 8d. to 10s. a quarter"—was put from the Chair, and carried.

List of the AYES.
Adams, E. H. Gully, J.
Aglionby, H. A. Handley, H.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Handley, B.
Astley, Sir J. D. Hanmer, Sir J.
Attwood, T. Harvey, D. W.
Balfour, J. Hay, Sir J.
Bankes, W. Hay, A. L.
Baring, A. Heathcote, G. J.
Baring, H. B. Henniker, Lord
Barnard, E. G. Herbert, Hon. S.
Beauclerk, Major A. Hodges, T. L.
Bell, M. Hoskins, K.
Bellew, R. M. Humphery, J.
Benett, John Hutt, W.
Bernard, W. S. Hughes, H.
Bethell, R. Kerrison, Sir E.
Bish, T. King, E. B.
Blackstone, W. S. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Blamire, W. Lalor, P.
Blandford, Marq. of Langdale, Hon. C.
Bolling, W. Langton, Col. G.
Bowes, J. Leech, J.
Brigstock, W. P. Lefevre, C. S.
Brodie, W. B. Lennard, Sir T. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Lennard, T. B.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Lister, E. C.
Cayley, Sir G. Lloyd, J. H.
Cayley, E. S. Locke, W.
Chandos, Marquess of Lopez, Sir R.
Chaplin, T. Mandeville, Visc.
Clayton, W. R. Maxwell, J. W.
Cobbett, W. Maxwell, Sir J.
Conolly, E. M. Methuen, P.
Cookes, T. H. Milton, Visc.
Crawley, S. O'Brien, C.
Curteis, H. B. O'Connell, M.
Curteis, E. B. O'Connell, D.
Davies, T. O'Connell, M.
Dillwyn, L. W. O'Connell, C.
Dundas, J. W. D. O'Dwyer, A. C.
Etwall, R. Ossulston, Lord
Faithfull, G. Palmer, C. F.
Fancourt, C. S. J. Palmer, R.
Feilden, W. Parker, J.
Fenton, J. Parrott, J.
Fergusson, G. Pelham, C. A. W.
Fielden, J. Philips, M.
Finn, W. F. Pigot, R.
Fitzgerald, T. Pinney, W.
Fitzsimon, C. Plumptre, J. P.
Fitzsimon, N. Poulter, J. S.
Folkes, Sir W. Price, R.
Fox, S. L. Rickford, W.
Fryer, R. Rider, T.
Gaskell, D. Rippon, C.
Gaskell, J. M. Robarts, A. W.
Godson, R. Robinson, G. R.
Gordon, Hon. W. Roe, J.
Gore, M. Romilly, J.
Goring, H. D. Rooper, J. B.
Guise, Sir W. B. Russell, W. G.
Ruthven, E. Turner, W.
Sanford, E. A. Tynte, C. K.
Scholefield, J. Tyrell, C.
Seale, J. H. Tyrell, Sir J.
Sharpe, General Verner, W.
Shawe, R. N. Vigors, N. A.
Simeon, Sir R. G. Walter, J.
Sinclair, G. Wason, R.
Spencer, Hon. F. Welby, G. E.
Spry, S. T. Weyland, Major R.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Williams, G.
Stewart, J. Wilmot, Sir E.
Sullivan, R. Windham, W. H.
Talbot, C. R. Wrottesley, Sir J. B.
Talbot, J. Yelverton, Hon. W.
Tancred, H. W. Young, F.
Tayleure, W.
Taylor, M. A. TELLERS.
Tennyson, C. Hume, J.
Tooke, W. Ingilby, Sir W.
Torrens, Colonel
Townshend, Lord C. PAIRED OFF.
Trelawney, W. L. S. Hall, Mr.
Troubridge, Sir E.