said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the frequent wrecks which have recently taken place along the coast of Cardiganshire, Merionethshire, and Carnarvonshire; and whether the Government or the Trinity House contemplate placing another Lightship along that coast, or altering the position of the Lightship now stationed in Cardigan Bay, so as to make the same of use to vessels bound for the Irish Channel and for ports along the above coast?

replied, that the information received by the Board of Trade was not such as to show that any additional lightship was wanted on the coast of Cardiganshire and Merionethshire. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that a lightship had been placed on the coast of Carnarvonshire at the end of November last.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of Government to bring in a Bill this Session to amend the "Habitual Criminals Act," so as to make it more applicable to and more workable in Scotland?

would beg to inform his hon. Friend that such an amendment of the Act would be necessary, and that he would endeavour to frame a Bill to effect the object desired by his hon. Friend.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government purpose proceeding without airy more delay with the completion of the system of Indian Railways; and if he will state the total number of miles the Government propose to construct, and the number of miles per annum?

Sir, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government of India is proceeding with the greatest zeal and activity in the extension of the Indian railways under the instructions contained in the despatch of the Secretary of State in Council, dated the 15th of July last. Ample details as to the system of railways which is to be created by State agency will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament last year; and I am happy to say that, so far from any delay having occurred, one great railway—that which is to connect Lahore with the north-western gate of the Empire—is under construction, while along three other projected lines—that from Agra and Delhi across Rajpootana, that which runs along the Indus Valley, and that which connects Koolburga with Hyderabad—preliminary operations are being pushed forward with a promptitude which is highly creditable to all concerned, and very agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether it is intended that under the Elementally Education Bill all classes of the community shall be free to participate in the School system proposed to be based upon payment of rates, School fees, and Government grants?

said, in reply, that he presumed the hon. Gentleman's Question had reference to the 4th section of the Revised Code. He could only repeat an answer he had given on more than one occasion—that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, it would be the duty of the Government to take every part of the Revised Code into their consideration.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Returns called for by him from the different Highway Boards are completed; and, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

said, in reply, that the Papers to which the hon. Member referred could scarcely be called Returns. A number of questions had been sent out to the Highway Boards, and in many cases answers to them had been received. All these could not be printed; but a useful Return might be prepared from the materials contained in the questions and answers, and he would confer privately with the hon. Gentleman, and endeavour to arrange the form of such Return.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, The expense to which this Country has been put on account of the joint occupancy of the Island of St. Juan from 1859 to 1869?

said, in reply, that the last account of the expenses of our occupancy of the island of St. Juan were only made up to December, 1868, and therefore ranged from August, 1859, to the former period. The expense had been about £22,150 0s. 5d. That amount did not include the ordinary pay that our men would receive under any circumstances; and other charges connected with the occupancy—such as the salaries of magistrates and other civil and colonial expenses borne by the Army and Civil Service Estimates—were not included. He would suggest to the noble Lord to move for this information in the form of a Return.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have refused permission to the Marseilles, Algiers, and Malta Telegraph Company to land their cable at Malta; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table Copy of the Convention by which they guarantee £3,000 a year to the Mediterranean Extension Telegraph Company?

Sir, this matter is still the subject of negotiation between the Government and the company, and it would be very inconvenient to make a statement with respect to it till the negotiations come to an end. I shall then be happy to lay on the table any Papers and to give any other information on the matter. I must correct the hon. Gentleman as to the amount of the guarantee; instead of being £ 3,000, it is unfortunately £7,200 a year. I have no objection to lay a Copy of the Convention on the table.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is now prepared to state the number of free Emigrants that will be sent to Western Australia during the present season; and, if he has any objection to lay before the House the Despatch recently received from the Governor of that Colony?

said, in reply, that no emigrants would this year be sent to Western Australia, except convicts' families, unless Government had conclusive evidence that free emigrants were wanted, and would be permanently employed. The despatch which had recently been received from the Colony furnished no such evidence, and until they received further despatches it would be impossible to say what would be done. There would be no objection to lay the despatch, on the table.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Return relative to the total amount of Sales in the Encumbered and Landed Estates Court, and prices of agricultural produce, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, he could not at present say when the Return would be ready; but he would see that it was produced as soon as possible.

said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, If it is true that members of Stock Exchanges in large towns have a priority over all other communications transmitted by the Post Office Telegraphs; and, whether they have any advantages which the public do not enjoy with regard to the payment of messages?

said, in reply, that before the transfer of the telegraphs to the Post Office the Stock Exchanges of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and, he believed, other towns, were connected by special wires; and some facilities were given to the members of these Stock Exchanges, in the shape of a short credit, for the settlement of their accounts. Those advantages were continued to them by the Post Office; but he was not aware of any priority or of any other advantages given to them over the public generally.

said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, If he is able to give an opinion as to what average time ought to be occupied between the reception of a telegraphic message at any of the chief district Post Offices of the Metropolis and its delivery within one mile of the terminal office in any important town within 200 miles; and, if he does not consider two hours much too long?

replied, that it was impossible for him to say what exact time ought to elapse between the sending and the delivery of a message such as those referred to by the hon. Member. The time depended on the state of the wires and the amount of business. If the hon. Member alluded to the transmission of a message from Telegraph Street direct, the time ought not to be more than from twenty to thirty minutes. If the wires were in proper working order, two hours would be too a long a time. If the hon. Member knew of any particular case in which there had been undue delay, the better course would be to bring it under the notice of the Department.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Boroughs of Cashel and Sligo; and whether they intend to propose to the House that new writs shall issue for those or either of those Boroughs this Session?

replied, that the Report of the Sligo Commissioners had not yet been received. As soon as it was received the Government would be prepared to make a statement with respect to that and also to the borough of Cashel.

said, he would beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to proceed with the Navy Estimates that evening? He apprehended it was unusual to take those Estimates on a Friday evening at so early a period of the Session; and it would be inconvenient to do so on the present occasion, as the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), the late First Lord, was detained at his residence through illness.

replied, that he was not aware that it was unusual to take the Navy Estimates on Friday evening. As he had given full notice, he would bring the Estimates on if he could do so at a sufficiently early hour; but, as a particular Paper on the subject of the Naval Reserve, which he had hoped would be in the hands of Members that morning, had not been delivered till the afternoon, he would not propose to take Vote No. 4.

, in rising to move a Resolution that it is desirable to legislate for the proper reception, detention, and management of Habitual Drunkards, said, that as the present was not a party or political question he trusted it would receive that fair and impartial consideration which was always given to measures not appealing to party feelings. He would not detain the House by anything like a history of intemperance. He would rather appeal to the sad personal experience and knowledge of all who were listening to him to furnish illustrations of the disastrous consequences of habitual drunkenness. Every workhouse, gaol, and lunatic asylum was a standing memorial of this terrible scourge and curse. He had been charged with overrating the power of Parliament to deal with this matter, and with being more intent upon airing a crotchet than remedying a grievance. He maintained, however, that legislation on this subject was within the power of Parliament, and that the Legislature ought to endeavour to mitigate the sum of human misery caused by habitual drunkenness. He was no believer in the efficacy of penal laws to put down drunkenness, which would never cease out of the land until its moral wickedness was generally recognized, nor did he propose to deal with ordinary cases of intemperance. He did not seek to interfere with the convivial proclivities or social enjoyments of anyone. It was with the abuse and not the use of stimulants that he proposed to grapple. There were some things which the law could not do. It could not prevent the production of alcohol, or the thirst of the human stomach for stimulants, or the craving of the human brain for excitement. But he regarded habitual drunkenness as not only a bad habit and a vice, but also a disease, which took hold of the vital powers, got possession of the nervous centres, and was capable of being transferred from the parents to the off spring. There was a passage in Aristotle to this effect—"Drunken women do produce children like unto themselves." Habitual drunkenness was a disease which was curable in as large a proportion as those diseases for which Parliament made provision. Provision was made for the insane, the idiotic, the deaf and dumb, and the blind, but no provision was yet made for the victims of intemperance, who were larger in number than all these classes. It was said that the cure was not complete, and that the relapses were frequent. He could bury the House with statistics to the contrary, but he would only quote one fact—namely, that in one establishment in the city of Boston, where 2,000 cases of habitual drunkenness were treated, no less than half of them had been perfectly cured. In other establishments from 30 to 50 per cent of the patients were permanently and happily restored to their families. His idea was that an establishment or reformatory should be set up, to which individuals might be sent, and whore they night be kept a sufficient time to obtain the requisite control and mastery over themselves. There was no such passion as the craving for drink. Everything sacred and holy was prostituted to the love of drink, until mind, body, and soul were ruined irredeemably by this one absorbing passion. He believed that if the law were to interfere in giving this power which he asked, and which did not exist at present, it would be a step in the right direction. A man or woman who had become mad from excessive drinking might now be placed in an asylum, and could be kept there as long as that insanity continued; but the moment the person became sane, he or she was released. The cause being removed the effect ceased; and just when they had taken the first and most important step the drunkard was set at liberty. He proposed that there should be a reformatory for habitual drunkards whether they were mad or otherwise, and to which persons might go on their own application. Many would do so, for there was nothing more remarkable than the intense longing which the victims of this craving often manifested to be saved from the effects of their own folly. Drinking to excess was no offence in the eye of the law, provided that public decency was not outraged and the public peace preserved. A man night drink at home to the ruin of his own health and of his family and all belonging to him without making himself legally responsible. He (Mr. D. Dalrymple) proposed that it should be in the power of an individual to place himself in the reformatory, or he might be placed there by those nearest and dearest to him, of course under proper regulations and safeguards. Three benefits would be gained by such a law. In the first place, the individual would be stopped from getting worse; in a large proportion of cases the victims of this passion would be thoroughly and effectually cured. In the next place, a man's family would be saved from ruin, disgrace, and public dishonour. Lastly, society would be protected from the evil consequences of drunkenness. Power should also be given under the Act to place the property of the drunkard under trustees appointed by a proper authority. One of the great difficulties in the way of reform was that the drunkard now had the control over his own property, which enabled him, so long as it lasted, to indulge the craving for drink. He had hitherto referred only to the upper stratum and well-to-do portion of society, who would be able to pay for the maintenance of the drunkard in a reformatory without any burden upon the public. It would, however, also be necessary to legislate for that numerous class of drunkards who might be said to reel between the gutter, the gin-shop, and the gaol. From a political as well as a social point of view he maintained that the law had a perfect right to step in and interfere with the freedom of the drunkard, so long as the undue exorcise of that freedom was prejudicial to the interests of society. Mr. Mill had defined this right with great precision—namely—

"Though ordinary drunkenness was not sufficient reason for legislative interference, yet, when it became an incentive to crime in others, it demanded interference."

He (Mr. D. Dalrymple) proposed to give the magistrates power to commit an habitual drunkard to the reformatory ward of the workhouse or to a reformatory to be established expressly for this purpose; and that the period of detention should endure until the person so confined could procure a medical certificate to show that he had obtained control over himself, or until his disease took the form, as it frequently did, of hopeless imbecility. He further proposed that those reformatories should be self-supporting, as they were in the United States. Those who were able should earn their living whilst in confinement, and in the event of a cure being effected the individual on his discharge should receive all he had earned above the bare sum expended for his maintenance, in order that he should have the means of obtaining a new start in life. It might be objected—"What is to become of the drunkard's family during the time he is in the reformatory?" But to this he answered that, if the thing were but half as successful as he hoped and believed it would be, they would have money in their pockets by lessening gaol expenses, which, could be used in supporting his family. There would be so large a saving by emptying the wards of gaols and workhouses that the measure would be an absolute financial gain to the ratepayers. Between pawning for liquor, wife-beating, and crime-inciting, the home of the habitual drunkard was a perfect hell upon earth; and the honest and industrious would be better able to maintain a roof above their heads when the dissipated husband or wife returned from the reformatory in his or her right mind, instead of coming back sour, vicious, and gin-craving from twenty-one days in gaol. The drunkard, except in rare instances, was unable to reform himself, and therefore some interference was necessary. He thought that the subject, however, was too big for a private Member to undertake; and, therefore, he should be glad to hear from his right hon. Friend below him (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) that the Government would take it up at some convenient opportunity. The hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which they had listened to him.

said, he was glad that the subject of drunkenness, which was one of the crying evils of the day, had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple). He had presented a petition yesterday, signed by forty-five of the loading physicians of Edinburgh and Leith, praying t hat some legislative steps might be taken to subject persons afflicted with the disease of drunkenness to certain restrictions. The petitioners complained very much that although they often saw the necessity of placing drunkards under restraint, they had no power to do so for a sufficient length of time. As long as drunkards were in a state of perfect mad- ness, they might be confined until they came to their senses again, but that was not enough. They ought to be subjected to restraint until the unnatural craving for drink had left them. He trusted the House would take the question into serious consideration, and that the result would be to provide a remedy for this monstrous evil, which was destroying the drunkards themselves, and was bringing destitution upon their families.

said, that whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the practicability of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple), nobody would question that the speech in which he brought them before the House did credit to his intellect and heart. He wished his hon. Friend, instead of submitting this subject to the House by way of general Resolution, had attempted to give effect to his opinions by putting them into the form of a Bill, and then would have been made manifest to himself and the House the enormous difficulty of the subject with which he proposed to deal. It seemed to him (Mr. Bruce) that in the first instance some voluntary effort should have been made for the purpose of providing such a reformatory as that which the hon. Gentleman described. True it was that provision had already been made for lunatics, and for the deaf, the dumb, and the blind; but he must remind the hon. Member that it was only in the case of violent and dangerous lunatics that the State had the power to interfere to cause their compulsory incarceration. He could understand that an institution such as that at Boston, where people voluntarily engaged to submit to a certain discipline for a certain time, might be productive of advantage; but he thought it impossible to call upon Parliament to pass a law by which persons affected with drunkenness should be kept in a sort of gaol till, in the opinion of physicians who had charge of them, they were sufficiently masters of themselves to be liberated. In the case of the lunatic the physician observed the disease, and was able to certify when the patient was cured; but it would not be possible for him to give a certificate that a drunkard who had been kept from stimulants was sufficiently master of himself to be trusted not to get drunk again. This was an entirely new step, and though that was no reason why it should not be considered, he believed it was one of a most dangerous character. He could well understand that with respect, not only to drunkards, but to various other persons it would, in the opinion of the great majority of mankind, be of advantage if we had such institutions as that which formerly existed in France under the name of lettres de cachet. It might be convenient to shut nip many an erring wife and many a young man ruining the fortunes of himself and his family. It might be ft great advantage to society to detain those men who lived upon the follies of youth; and, in fact, there were many other pests of society and of themselves who might, no doubt, advantageously be immured and kept in confinement for ever; but, as yet, Parliament had not thought fit to pass an Act to render such a proceeding legal. With respect to this experiment, it seemed to him that it was one that could hardly be tried till its success was almost hopeless. What was wanted was to stop the young man at the commencement of Ids career of drunkenness; but what his hon. Friend proposed would only apply to the case of confirmed drunkards. It was difficult to define in what class, and under what circumstances, they were to be dealt with, and, once laid hold of, how long they were to be detained. He was afraid he must consider this proposition as rather the dream of a benevolent mind than a practical measure. The cure must be found by other means. The greatest of all, no doubt, was the moral conviction that the habit was disgraceful. That feeling had operated most advantageously among various classes of society; and, notwithstanding what was said to the contrary, he believed it was spreading among all classes. The Government had prepared two measures which would, he trusted, have a marked effect in checking the abuse of intoxicating liquors. By the Spirituous Liquors Licensing Bill, which he would have to introduce, they hoped to place mechanical difficulties in the way of indulgence in intoxicating drinks; but he trusted that far greater effects would result from the Education Bill that had been brought in by the Vice President of the Privy Council, which would spread throughout the country sounder opinions and sounder knowledge, and which was, therefore, directed to the root of the evil. It was not by expedients such as the hon. Gentleman had proposed that this evil, which was almost a national curse, was to be remedied. He had listened with respect and sympathy to all his hon. Friend had said; but, after careful consideration, he failed to discover in the plan proposed anything to which a practical form should be given, even with the greatest desire on the part of the Government to attain the object which the hon. Gentleman had at heart.

said, he had heard with regret the decision of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that there was no example for such a measure as that proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple); but if he (Mr. Downing) were rightly informed a law of this character had worked beneficially in America and had saved many families from distress. He understood that in America a confirmed drunkard might, with the assent of the next friend, be committed for a certain time to an asylum where all the best influences were brought to bear upon him. In a great many instances these individuals left the asylum after a few months, and never recurred to drunkenness. He should be glad to see this question pressed to a division.

said, that after the intimation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would withdraw his Motion; but he would bring the proposition forward on a future occasion in the form of a Bill.

, in bringing before the House the case of Lieutenant Cheyne, said, he wished to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty in a case of individual hardship, consequent, upon the recent reductions in the Navy. Lieutenant Cheyne, who had done very good service, was the son of Admiral, Cheyne, an old and distinguished officer in the late war, and from the time he entered the service in 1844 until he became a lieutenant in 1851, had received commendation from all under whom he served. In 1857 he was appointed first lieutenant of the Simoom, and at the same time was given to understand that if he continued doing good service in the ship, he might fairly hope for promotion. In 1861 while discharging his duty in that vessel he saw a man in a position of great danger, and in saving him he risked his own life, and received severe injuries from which he was still suffering. When he came to England he communicated with the then First Lord of the Admiralty—the Duke of Somerset—and sought for promotion, but he was informed that, as he had received injuries which incapacitated him for foreign service, that could not be granted, but that everything that could should be done for him. Lieutenant Cheyne's object was promotion, but he (Sir John Hay) quite agreed that under the circumstances it was expedient not to promote Lieutenant Cheyne; and perhaps he was well compensated on being appointed one of the lieutenants of Plymouth Hospital. The advantages of that appointment were that his half-pay of £150 per annum was increased by £200, with a house partially furnished and certain other emoluments worth about £80 per annum, mating an income of £430 per annum, as he thought for life. There he did his duty extremely well. But in the course of the changes that had been considered necessary by the present Board of Admiralty Lieutenant Cheyne had lost his appointment. He had his £150 a year, but instead of £200 a year compensation for life, that sum was only given him until he was fifty-five years of age. As soon as he was discharged from the office Lieutenant Cheyne again asked for promotion, and wrote to the Duke of Somerset, who forwarded him the following reply:—

"Tuesday, Oct. 20, 1869.

"Sir,—I have received your letter. I should be very glad to hear that you had obtained promotion to the rank of commander, so that you may not suffer from having accepted the situation at the naval hospital. The injury which you incurred whilst on duty incapacitated you at that time for service in trying climates, and I did not then foresee the abolition of the place to which you were appointed.

This is, therefore, a case where the First Lord of the Admiralty may mitigate the hardship of your present position, and I hope he may be enabled to accede to your application.

"I am not in town and cannot, therefore, see you, indeed I see no advantage in an interview, as I have no power except to express an opinion.—I am, your obedient servant, "SOMERSET."

On the 8th December, 1869, his Grace wrote—

"Sir,—I have received your letter, and am sorry that a feeling, partaking somewhat of a professional prejudice, should obstruct your prospect of promotion. I do not, however, see that I can properly interfere in the matter.—1 am, your obedient servant, "SOMERSET.

"Lieutenant P. Cheyne."

And, again, on the 2nd January, 1870, to the following effect:—

"Sir,—I have received your letter. I have already expressed my regret for the view taken by the Board of Admiralty of your claims and your position. I cannot, however, interfere in a matter where I have no authority.—Your obedient servant, "SOMERSET."

Inasmuch as a former Lord of the Admiralty who gave the appointment was of opinion that this officer had been hardly used, he (Sir John Hay) considered it his duty to bring the matter before the House. All he contended was that Lieutenant Cheyne ought not to be placed in a worse or in a better position; and if his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty could see his way to giving Lieutenant Cheyne the £200 per annum for life with some £80 a year for the loss of his house and other official advantages, he should be satisfied. He had not the honour of Lieutenant Cheyne's personal acquaintance; he knew him only by repute; and he had brought the matter forward purely as an act of justice towards a public officer.

said, he would state the exact facts of the case, and then the House would be able to see how far this gentleman, and others similarly placed, had been illused by the present Board of Admiralty. Mr. Cheyne was an officer who had served for eight or nine years as lieutenant, and against whom he had nothing whatever to say. He was an officer of good character, and who had done good service, but in 1861 he met with a very serious accident which incapacitated him for active service at sea, and for a short time he was in a home ship. Mr. Cheyne then applied strongly, to the Duke of Somerset and other members of the Admiralty Board for promotion; but the Duke, with perfect wisdom, declined to promote him, and appointed him, very much against his will, to be lieutenant at one of the hospitals. The office to which Mr. Cheyne was appointed was one which, without using a nickname, he might say did not give the holder much to do. Last year, accordingly, on looking into the appointments held in connection with the hospital, it was deemed desirable to put an end to the office, and Lieutenant Cheyne was informed that after a certain time the office would cease to be. It was necessary to consider what compensation it was reasonable to give. Now, the office was a civil office, with a salary of £200 a year, besides the occupation of a house, and the result had been that, whereas while he was at the hospital. Lieutenant Cheyne received altogether in salary and pay £327 15s. a year, together with the use of a house, he now received £355 2s. 6d. a year, without a house, and as he had now no duties to discharge, this House would probably think that the Admiralty was not open to a charge of undue parsimony. Lieutenant Cheyne, instead of being treated unfairly, had been treated in an exceedingly liberal manner. He should never think of promotion in a case of this kind, for there was nothing whatever to justify Lieutenant Cheyne's promotion. Indeed, his hon. Friend had stated that he did not raise the question of promotion, and consequently the only remaining point to be considered was whether it was reasonable to ask Parliament and the Admiralty to grant a larger amount of compensation than £230 a year, without a house. He was of opinion that that was sufficient, and it was not the intention of the Admiralty to give him more. His hon. Friend had stated that Lieutenant Cheyne did not know at the time he was appointed that he would not be permitted to retain his office after he had reached the age of, fifty-five. As to that, he would simply remark that the rule in question was of universal application to all permanent appointments of this kind, and that if he were to make the present case an exception to it he should be bombarded by applications from officers who had occupied similar situations. He might add that Lieutenant Cheyne would come off, very well under the new retiring arrangements. Under the circumstances, he was unable to accede to the wish expressed, by his hon. Friend.

said, he had listened with some interest to what had been said, although he knew nothing of Lieutenant Cheyne except what he had heard with respect to that gentleman's services. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) had fairly stated the facts of the case. The Government had not given £230 to Lieutenant Cheyne at all. In the ordinary course of remaining on the list his half-pay had increased by £30, but he had got no addition for being deprived of his situation. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had given him £230 as compensation, that did not appear to be in accordance with the real facts of the, case. This gentleman had had £200 a year, with a house and a certain portion of furniture, equivalent to £80 a year, Now, the peculiar circumstances of the case were such as must naturally excite the sympathy of Members of the House. Here was a gentleman, actively employed in the service of the Crown, who had distinguished himself on several occasions, and never more so than on the occasion when he received the injuries which resulted in his retirement from the office he then held. Seeing a man in danger of his life he put his own in peril, and though he succeeded in saving the man's life, he received an injury which disqualified him from remaining on board his ship, and serving his country in all climates. He came home, and the Duke of Somerset, with great kindness, seeing that he could not properly promote him, gave him an appointment, which it was understood at that time both by Lieutenant Cheyne and the Duke of Somerset, would be an appointment for life. It might, perhaps, have been something of a sinecure—into that question he would not enter—but it was an appointment given by way of an equivalent for the loss he had sustained and the sacrifice of his health in attempting to save another person's life. He had now been deprived of that employment, and instead of an equivalent, he was to receive £200 a year only till he was fifty-five years of age. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that Lieutenant Cheyne had been compensated very liberally because he was receiving almost as large an income as before; but, at all events, he had lost his house, had lost his furniture, and had been under the necessity of removing his children from school. His half-pay had been increased by £30 not by any act of the Government. In a case like this, of course the House could not make a grant, and he would, therefore, content himself by appealing to the Government to deal with this gentleman in a kind and considerate manner.

explained that the increase of £30 half-pay was an act of grace on the part of the Government. It was not strictly in accordance with the rule, but, under the circumstance, an exception was made in Lieutenant Cheyne's favour.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Malt Tax which sat in 1867 and 1868, and to move a Resolution on the subject, said the question was a very important one, and although it had often been brought before the House, it had recently assumed a now aspect. A House of Commons elected as the present House had been would not, he believed, reject the Resolution he intended to move unless it involved something contrary to the principles which the House was prepared to endorse. In bringing forward this subject he was acting in accordance with the desire of those whose interests he advocated; and, even on the ground of a Free Trade policy in its broadest sense, he thought he had a right to claim the kind attention of the House. As the representative of an agricultural constituency, he was prepared to say that they had conformed in every respect to the Free Trade policy. The agricultural interest did not wish that policy to be in anyway curtailed, but on the contrary, they wanted to see it extended in every possible way, though he would venture to express his opinion that with regard to the Malt Tax they had some sort of a grievance. They had had to compete with the producers in all parts of the world, and had done their best to show that they could and would compete with them. They had much improved the cultivation of their lands, and had furnished a better supply of meat, and they hoped that as they had accepted a Free Trade policy they deserved on that broad ground alone some little consideration at at the hands of the House of Commons. He had also to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he would first re- fer to the fact that in his Budget of last year the right hon. Gentleman had repealed the shilling duty on corn. Whether the repeal of that duty was wise or not he would not now stop to inquire, but what was its effect? He believed that the effect had been to bring into this country, particularly during the last few months, an enormous additional quantity of foreign wheat and other grain. Now, he did not for a moment object to that, but he wished to point out that as our agriculturists had to contend against the increased quantity of produce now brought into the country, they ought to have the articles they could grow freed from taxation. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the duty on foreign beer, and assimilated it as far as he could to the duty now charged on malt. It might, no doubt, have been quite right to do so, but it ought to be borne in mind that foreign brewers could brew with anything they pleased, while English brewers could only use certain ingredients on which a very heavy duty was imposed. The agriculturists of this country entertained a very strong opinion on this subject, and he might state that next week a deputation from a body of them would make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to it. When, however, he placed the present Motion on the Paper he was under the impression that that deputation was to be received by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday last; but having secured a day for a discussion he might say, without any disrespect to the Central Chamber of Agriculture, that he could not postpone the Motion, considering the amount of business which was awaiting the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had on several occasions during the time he was Chancellor of Exchequer told deputations that the House of Commons was the place where matters of this kind ought to be discussed, and that they must come here if they desired to have their grievances removed. Concurring in that opinion, he had taken the present opportunity of bringing this question forward. There were four great propositions laid down in the Report of the Committee which sat in 1867 and 1868, and which collected a vast quantity of evidence that was on the whole satisfactory. There were several hon. Gentlemen now pre- sent on both, sides of the House who served on that Committee, and he believed they would do him the justice of admitting that he, as Chairman of the Committee, endeavoured to take that evidence impartially and lay the results fairly before the House. Well, the four propositions laid down in the Report of the Committee had reference, first, to the case of the producer; secondly, to the ease of the consumer; thirdly, to the the case of large brewers, and brewers in general; and fourthly, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the revenue. Now, he would at once remark that as it was whispered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very large surplus he saw no reason why the agriculturists should not derive some benefit from it. He might, of course, be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had to consider what he should do with his surplus, and that in due time he would inform the House what his intentions were as to its disposal. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman should give him that answer he must be satisfied with it and wait. He must, however, observe that the proposition which he was about to lay before the House would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be think fit, to do that which would, he believed, be a great boon not only to the producer, but to the consumer. The Committee to which he had already referred examined no less than thirty-seven witnesses, some of whom were connected with the Excise, some practical agriculturists, and some maltsters. They had also examined large and small brewers, a manufacturer, a labourer, a distiller, as well as Sir Charles Pressley; and anybody who would take the trouble of reading that gentleman's evidence would, he thought, find that he was favourable to the view which he was advocating. The case of the producer, which seemed to him to be a very strong one, was simply that, owing to the enormous tax on malt in the state in which it was taken and not on the manufactured article, he was prevented from cultivating his land in the way in which he should wish, because he did not receive a proper value for the second class of, barley, which he thought he would obtain if the present duty were removed. The fact was that the duty tended, to a great extent, to the depreciation of that second class of barley, which, but for it, would be made into beer and used for feeding purposes in a very large degree. It operated to make the agriculturist cultivate his land by growing wheat, and otherwise, when, in the proper rotation of crops, he should grow barley. The First Commissioner of Works, whom he saw in his place, would recollect that he had examined one of the witnesses, who stated that he could not now sprout barley, which, he said, was permitted to be clone in former days, inasmuch as the Excise stepped in to prevent it. Now, anybody at all conversant with such matters must be aware that barley sprouted and put on the couth was, he might say almost the very best food for fattening cattle. It was also good for horses, and it was clear that if a man were able to use his own produce to feed his cattle, instead of laying out money in the purchase of artificial articles, such as oil cake, and other commodities, which now cost the farmer large sums, a great saving would be the result. Upon that point his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent), who sat on the Committee, and who drew up a counter report to that which he himself had presented, expressed a decided opinion as to the propriety of allowing some relaxation of the law in favour of the sprouting of barley for the use of cattle. As the law stood it operated as a great grievance on agriculturists, and if it were altered, meat might be produced at a much cheaper rate than at present; and anything which tended to make meat cheaper must be regarded in the light of a benefit to the whole community. He had in his possession a letter which he had received from the late Mr. Cobden a short time before he died, and which he should most gladly have brought down to the House had he been able to lay his hands on it, in which he said, referring to the Malt Tax—

"If you go on Free Trade principles. I go with you entirely. In my opinion, if it could be done, the duty ought to be taken off altogether. They do not tax wine in France, and why should we tax the national beverage in this country,"

The case was a very hard one on the producer, whose barley was deteriorated in value. We could grow the best barley in the world. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) used the best quality of barley. He had been given a return by that hon. Gentleman which showed the extraordinary high prices which he had paid for the best barley, but they were not anything like the average price paid by maltsters and brewers. The hon. Gentleman required the best barley to make that capital beer which he brewed. Everybody knew that it was a good article; more than that, the hon. Gentleman could make beer out of anything. His hon. Friend would not deny what he was about to say. Some few years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister brought in a Bill that went by the name of "Gladstone's Mixture Bill" his hon. Friend declared that the measure would be a terrible thing for the brewers, and that people would brew from the "mixture." His hon. Friend did brew from the "mixture"; he brewed from good malt as well, and two barrels of beer made by him, the one from "Gladstone's mixture," and the other from ordinary materials having on one occasion being brought into that House, the present Prime Minister having drunk both, could not tell the difference between them. That showed how clever the hon. Member for Derby was in his business. According, he might add, to the Malt and Beer Returns for 1868, moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke)—those for 1869 were not yet completed—the number of bushels of malt charged with duty in England in that year was 44,533,274; in Scotland, 2,275,119; and in Ireland, 2,795,538, while the entire quantity of barley imported into the United Kingdom was only 2,093,343 quarters. That showed that we could compete with the world with regard to barley; and, he might venture, as one humbly calling himself a practical agriculturist, to add that, if the duty were taken off, he should not be in the least afraid to compete with the foreigner. And what, he would ask, had been done for the agriculturists under the circumstances? There was that Bill to which he had already referred, introducing "Gladstone's mixture," which obliged them to grind up linseed with the malt, but it had to be ground up so small that instead of going down the animals' throats it went up their noses. There was also the "Malt by Weight Bill," which was intended to be a relief to the agriculturists, and which had been accepted by them in that spirit, but which had, on the whole, done them very little good, though they some- times availed themselves of it in wet seasons to a considerable extent. He came in the next place to the case of the consumer, and he ventured to say that, looking at the people of England as a nation, he believed they desired to be enabled to drink good beer, and that if they could get such beer as his hon. Friend the Member for Derby would pour down their throats, they would be perfectly satisfied. His hon. Friend, however, knew perfectly well that that was beyond their reach. He was quite ready to do justice to all the large brewers, who were, he believed, on the whole, extremely honest and scrupulous in their dealings, and whose beer was, as a rule, most excellent and wholesome, for he had drunk it often. But, speaking of the lower classes of the population who frequented beer-houses, he could only say that these were for the most part abominable places, in which the customers were served, not with the beer they ought to get for their money, but with a concoction of every sort of bestiality in the shape of drink, which made the poor people feel next morning that they were totally unfit for work. There was one poor fellow who said—"If I know how thirsty I was going to be this morning I would have drunk another quart last night." Now, we ought, he thought, to look to the interests of our poorer friends, and if it could be shown that by taking off the present tax and imposing the burden in any other way which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think best, they could get pure malt and hops, a great benefit would be conferred upon them. The hon. Member for the East Division of the West Hiding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden), who was a large employer of labour, had given very valuable evidence before the Committee as to private brewing, and the effect which, in his opinion, the taking off the tax would have on the poor. He said—

"In the towns there is, I believe, little or no cottage brewing, but it is in the neighbourhood of towns; I found out of 9,822 families visited there were 7,459 who brewed at home. There were 735 who would have brewed, but they could not afford to do so; there were 597 who bought beer, and there were 1,031 who did not drink beer."

This was no party question, and all he asked was that it should be fairly considered in the interest of those who lived in the neighbourhood of large towns as well as the agricultural in- terest, the third point referred to the great brewers, and he believed that if his proposal were adopted it would in no way injure them, and that, on the contrary, they would get rid of the grievance of which they now justly complained—that the commuted hop duty was placed on them, and on them alone, and that by way of substitute for the hop duty of £300,000 a year they paid 3d. per barrel, which amounted to £410,000, and they could not get it out of the general public, because the amount was so small. No doubt the tax was now a small tax, and he proposed it should be a larger tax, but it would be an elastic tax. Two bushels of malt were supposed to go to the barrel of beer. If you took 2s. 8½d. per bushel, which was the amount of the Malt Tax, and doubled that, you would get 5s. 5d. per barrel, which, with the extra 3d. for commuted hop duty, making 5s. 8d. would be charged as brewers' licence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that liberality which was seen beaming in his face, would most likely begin his Financial Statement by saying that, having a large surplus, he could afford to reduce the tax at once, and, instead of 5s. 8d. only charge 3s.; and if that were the view of the right hon. Gentleman, the large brewers would have nothing to complain of. The tax was not an inquisitorial tax like that which used to exist in olden times. The old Beer Tax taken off in 1830, used to do the brewers much mischief, and hampered them in every way. But the levy of the duty he proposed would in no way be onerous. The exciseman did not interfere with the operations of the brewer, and, although he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought no one a man of honour who had to pay him anything, there would be no difficulty in collecting this tax from the general body of public brewers. With regard to private brewers, rather than that there should be any exception, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer charge a licence duty upon them; and the estimate of what would be paid by them was £300,000. The only persons he would exempt were those who brewed half a bushel, or less than half a bushel. Many labourers brewed in such small quantities, and more would do so but for the exorbitant prices they had to pay for their malt. His opinion was that if the duty were reduced to the point he had named, the revenue would be in- creased. Well, then, if the great brewers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not suffer, would the maltsters complain? The only people who might complain would, he believed, be the large maltsters, who now had almost a monopoly of the business: smaller ones had to wait too long before they were paid, and could not stand the short credit given by the Government which their larger rivals were able to do. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to look at the whole question broadly, and fairly to consider his proposal. It was an honest one; and, in his opinion, would benefit both the producer and the consumer, and would not hurt the Exchequer; and it was in that spirit that he moved the Resolution of which he had given notice.

said, the advocates of the repeal of the Malt Tax had never sought to place a burden on other people's shoulders, and had never asked for this remission unless there was a surplus revenue, which they were told would this year be considerable. During the discussion reference would no doubt be made to the fact that the Report of the Committee was only carried by the casting vote of the chairman, but it should be borne in mind that three Members who were favourable to the Report were absent through accident or illness. The fact that barley had of late years commanded so good a price only proved that the soil and climate of England were peculiary adapted for its growth. The farmers could successfully compete against the whole world in producing barley, and they ought not to be hindered in the cultivation of so valuable a crop. Whereas Australia sent wheat to England, we exported a considerable quantity of barley to Australia, and he believed that if they really had Free Trade the best barley would average a higher price than wheat. It was said that Free Trade had not hurt the English farmers, but, at any rate, it has done this—their rents were raised, rates were constantly increasing, they had to pay more for labour; notwithstanding nil the appliances of science to implements and machinery, the farmers now paid more per acre for manual labour than ever they did, and oilcake and guano were becoming dearer every year. With regard to stock, the profit they derived from high, prices was not so great as that they would derive if they had lower prices and healthier cattle. After all, had not the grass farmers benefited from Free Trade rather than the tillers of the soil? Meat, butter, and cheese are dearer than they used to be, but tillage employed more money and more labour. It was constantly said that they ought not to put so much country into grass, but should keep it to tillage; but statistics proved that with the most heavy expenses the quantity of arable land was constantly diminishing. It had been proved that the Malt Tax considerably hindered the cultivation of the soil, and even in Norfolk, the best barley growing county in England, there were not so many acres of barley as of wheat, simply for the reason that with very high farming it was impossible to produce first-class barley. The evidence given before the Select Committee dispelled the delusion that the Malt Tax was any protection or advantage to even the very best class of barley. If wheat was taxed to the amount of 22s. per quarter—which would be 2d. on a 4lb. loaf—would it not limit the consumption of bread and act very prejudicially against the grower of wheat? The Malt Tax amounted to between £5 and £6 on every acre of malting barley, and it had been proved many times that when the tax was increased the consumption diminished and the price of barley became lower. That farmers were exempt from taxation might have been an argument in times gone by, but last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed the principal exemption from taxation, which farmers had previously enjoyed. He did not complain of that, because he advocated the abolition of all taxation that was not shared by all. Excepting the tax on horses, he did not know any tax which farmers escaped that was paid by the rest of the community, and as to that matter he desired the abolition of the, duty on all horses used for trade purposes. He cordially agreed with the abolition of the tax on fire insurances, and he offered no opposition to the repeal of the shilling duty on corn, but he contended that consumers of bread had not been benefited by that remission, for before that £1,000,000 of taxes was given up he never knew wheat to be sold for 38s. per quarter and bread at 5½d. and 6d. the 4lb. loaf. It had been said that fanners would have fair play when the Corn Laws were repealed. The late Sir Robert Peel said the repeal of the Malt Tax must follow that of the Corn Laws. Lord Russell said if he were Prime Minister when the Corn Laws were repealed, the next tax he would abolish would be the duly on malt—a promise which he feared the noble Lord had forgotten. Mr. Cobden said it would be impossible, and unjust if it were possible, to retain the Malt Tax after the repeal of the Corn Laws. Why should malt be the only article excepted from the general remission of taxation which Mr. Cobden proposed? Now, what advantage could it be to the fanner to substitute a brewers' licence for the duty on malt? From what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the brewers' deputation a few days ago, he had some hope that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the suggestion of the farmers and free the maltster from the exciseman. Last Saturday he was told by a maltster, who was entirely engaged in making malt for exportation to Belgium, that the forms and ceremonies he had to go through were so galling and annoying that if he had to begin again he would build his malting premises in Belgium and export his coals and barley. The abolition of the Malt Tax would also set free malt for the purpose of stock feeding. When he was a boy it was a common practice in Norfolk to germinate grain for feeding purposes, but during the last few years farmers had been debarred from doing so, and had had to sell all the appliances which they used for that purpose. But the abolition of the tax would also tend very greatly to check the adulteration of beer, for the simple reason that untaxed malt would be so cheap as to exclude sugar and the drugs which were now used. As to pri- vate brewing, it was very common among the cottagers of Norfolk and Suffolk, during haytime and harvest. Close to his residence lived a poor widow, who brewed as little as a quarter of a peck of malt and two ounces of hops at a time, and he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that last Sunday she gave him a bottle of beer which was infinitely preferable to the table beer supplied in the dining-room of this House. It need not be difficult to put a tax on private brewers, for it might be paid according to the number of quarters of malt which they consumed, and it would be quite as easy to make a return of the quantity of malt brewed as of the amount of profit under Schedule D. In fact, he believed it was now the practice of the Excise to accept the brewers' returns of the sugar used in brewing, and not to take any steps to ascertain whether those returns were true. There should, however, be a small licence duly imposed upon the maltster, in order that he might furnish proper delivery notes to the Excise, which would be useful for the prevention of fraud, and for statistical purposes. As to the particular benefit which the growers of barley would derive, he could only argue from the repeal of the hop duty, since which time his hon. Friend the Member for Derby had said the hop-growers had not only pocketed the whole amount of duty that would have been imposed, but had also received 20 per cent more for their hops than before. He did not suppose that the growers of barley would derive as great an advantage, but they would receive some substantial benefit. The brewers objected to the imposition upon them of the hop duty in the shape of a licence, because the amount was so small that they could not recover if from their customers: but he had previously suggested to the House that a charge of 1d. per gallon would be quite sufficient for revenue purposes. Last year, the brewers' licence brought in £410,000; but, if they laid on a duty of 3s. per barrel, they would get £4,920,000, and if there was to be any allowance whatever for increased consumption, as there ought to be, they might easily extract £5,500,000 from beer, which was all that ought to come from the beverage that was the labourers' chief luxury. He believed, also, that the proposed change would very much improve the habits of the people. It was ridiculous to suppose that, because wine or beer might be cheap, people were therefore drunkards. The very contrary was the case. Mr. Samuelson, not the hon. Member for Banbury, but a still higher literary authority, he believed the editor of the Westminster Review, published a very interesting article the other day on the German artizan and the English artizan, and made a strange comparison, that, whereas the German artizan could get wholesome beer at 1d. per quart, the English artizan had to pay 5d. for what was very much adulterated, and readily made him drunk. He did not go entirely with the teetotallers, who believed there was no virtue in beer. He believed that, for the labouring man, now that butchers' meat was so dear, and milk so scarce, beer was a necessary, and that it was better than so much tea, though he could hardly go as far as the old lady, who said that London porter was victuals, drink, and clothing. He had found that the man who drank his beer at home was the best agricultural labourer, and he had been told that the artizan who drank his beer with his family was not the man who, as a rule, frequented public houses. He was aware that there was a certain class who were very angry because they could not got drunk for 1s., and those were the men who liked the drugged stuff they got at public-houses; but that was no reason why cheap and wholesome beer should not be given to the labourers of this country, to whom it would be a great and inestimable blessing. During the last twenty years no less than £200,000,000 of taxation had been repealed, most of which should have gone into the pockets of the consumers, while nothing what ever had been done to better the condition of the producers of this country. After so many dishes of remission had been served to the trading, the commercial, and the manufacturing interests, he did hope that the time was come when they, the agricultural dogs, should be allowed to gather up a few crumbs from an overflowing Exchequer.

said, he wished to bear his testimony to the fact that no Committee was ever presided over more fairly or had the evidence brought before it in a more impartial manner than the Committee on the Malt Tax. When we had an increasing expenditure and a declining revenue, he did not think it prudent to deal with so important a duty, because hon. Gentlemen should bear in mind that last year it reached very nearly £7,000,000, or about one-tenth of the whole revenue of the country. They must also recollect that they were dealing with the same class of taxes as their duties on wine and spirits, which brought in something like £22,000,000 of revenue. Therefore though he would be glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to dealing with this question as his hon. Friends desired, yet, with all the surplus the right hon. Gentleman might have in hand, he should fear very much any such meddling with taxation derived from a source like spirit. He did not go quite so far as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) in believing in the extreme value of beer for the working classes. A great deal of evidence had been brought before the Committee as to the taxation laid on the fanner for the beer that he gave to his labourers, but he was glad that the hon. Member did not; endorse that view of the case. Evidence had been also brought before the Committee to show that beer was not given by fanners to their labourers in lieu of wages, but anyone who looked into the question must come to the conclusion that the cry for the repeal of the Malt Tax came very much from those counties where beer was given to some extent in lieu of wages. It was also remarkable that in the blue book recently published upon the employment of women and children in agriculture, Mr. Culley, an Assistant Commissioner from the North, stated that in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Hertford, where the average wage was 12s. a week, beer was given in lieu of wages to the amount of 4s. or 5s. per week during hay and harvest, and to an average of 2s. per week throughout the year, and that the labour-cost per acre in those districts to the farmer was 30s. per acre, while in the Northern counties, where the labourers' wages were much higher, the average labour-cost did not exceed 23s. per acre; and he attributed the difference to the fact that in the North beer was almost unknown to the agricultural labourer, whereas it was drunk to excess in the Midland counties. As to the dearness of butchers' meat and the scarcity of milk, he would be glad if by any means they could put it in the power of the agricultural labourer to get milk, which would be a much better thing for him than beer. He did not think his hon. Friend would disagree with him in that, because he stated, and very truly, that if anything out of the routine on a farm was to be done a drop of beer was wanted, and this miserable infatuation produced wretchedness, poverty and crime. In his own neighbourhood the agricultural labourers were not a drunken class, but when they did get drunk it was when beer was given them on thrashing days and such occasions. He could not help thinking that the Malt Tax was rather overrated as a check on agriculture. He put the question to Mr. Moore the late Earl of Radnor's land agent, and he said he did not think it interfered at all with the due rotation of crops. He quite agreed with his hon. Friends that the farmer ought to have a privilege with regard to feeding his own stock. Anything that might tend to cheapen butchers' meat or counteract adulteration ought to be encouraged. He should be exceedingly happy if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hold out any prospect of putting this tax on those gentlemen who were well able to bear it, and if he could transfer it from the early to the latter stage of production.

said, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the agricultural interests the benefit of some portion of the surplus which, according to common rumour, he had at his disposal. The last speaker had stated that £7,000,000, or nearly one-tenth of the whole revenue of the country, was derived from the Malt Tax. That might be true, but the argument that because the produce of this one tax—drawn from one article and from one class—was so large, so therefore it ought to be left untouched and undiminished, was an argument that really told the other way; because it was obviously unjust that so disproportionate a sum should be levied from a single class. He maintained that the demand for the remission of this tax came from the counties where barley was grown rather than from the counties where beer was given in lieu of wages. Still, he would ask whether those farmers who gave good wholesome beer to their labourers did not better serve the cause of morality than those who gave to their men extra wages to spend in the beer house. They must remember that in the busy summer season, when the men were working from three in the morning till ten at night, they really required refreshment. He did not intend I to argue the case as between the brewers and the agriculturists, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably find but little difficulty in reconciling the brewers to the payment of the extra impost if he would but use that eloquence and adroitness by the aid of which he had succeeded in I persuading so many that they would be gainers by some of his other proposals last year, even though the adoption of this change of levying the tax might involve their paying more than they did before.

said, that as one of those miserable and infatuated creatures, alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent), who liked an occasional glass of beer, and as one who took an interest in questions connected with the land, he was heartily glad that his hon. Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had brought this question under the consideration of the House, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would devote his attention to the taxes upon beer. His right hon. Friend would find the history of those taxes very instructive and profitable, be cause it afforded examples in abundance of almost every financial blunder that could be committed. In the time of the Civil War the King imposed an Excise duty on beer, and the Parliament, determined not to be behind-hand, placed a duty upon each of the ingredients employed in the making of beer. Constitutional Governments subsequently, profiting by the example both of the Royalist and of the Parliamentary party, taxed at once the manufactured article and the ingredients—a policy about as reasonable as the levying by a water company of one rate upon oxygen, another; upon hydrogen, and a third upon water.; Then, as if that was not enough, there were heaped up a licence duty upon the maltster, another upon the brewer, another upon the publican, and Customs duties upon foreign hops, foreign malt, and foreign beer. No less than nine taxes had been imposed upon a single article; and, as if the temporal power had not done enough, the Church stepped in to establish its claim to an extra tithe upon hops. In 1830 the duty upon beer was repealed. Eight years ago the duties upon hops were removed, and amalgamated with the re-constructed brewers' licence; and at present the main tax upon beer was that which was levied upon malt. Such a tax was, of course, open to the objection that it was levied upon the raw material in the earlier stage of manufacture, and, consequently, the beer came to the consumer increased in price, not only by the actual amount of the duty but by the interest which each successive dealer would have to receive upon the money he had so expended. How much was thus added to the actual price was a matter which had been variously estimated. It must certainly be something-considerable, for the duty upon malt was 70 per cent, and the cost of the malt amounted, speaking roundly, to half the the price of the beer. No doubt it might be urged in defence of this mode of collecting the duty that the revenue was more cheaply collected from 6,000 maltsters than it would be from six or seven times that number of public brewers, besides an indefinite number of private ones. That might be a fair argument if the malt duty was really a duty only upon beer. As far as the Exchequer was concerned no doubt it was so, because the Exchequer derived no revenue from any malt except that which was used in the manufacture of beer; but the tax was practically also one upon food. It would not be easy to conceive a more powerful argument against this tax than this—that, while professing to be a tax upon beer alone, it became also a tax upon beef and mutton; and that while it did great injury to the public in that respect, it did not in that shape eon-tribute a fraction to the revenue. He was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government passed a few years ago a Malt Cattle Feeding Act, but from a variety of circumstances, into which he need not now enter, that Act had remained practically inoperative. It might be said, too, that the utility of malt for the purpose of feeding had been very much exaggerated. It was possible that that might be the case, but he denied that its merits as an article of food for cattle had been fairly tested, nor did he believe that its merits could be fairly tested, because the duty prevented that test being applied. Of course it was possible to try any number of experiments, and by certain farmers, chemists, philosophers, and excisemen experiments had been tried, the result being-invariably in accordance with the theory which the experiment was intended to uphold. But farmers' operations were of such a nature as to extend widely both over space and time. If a farmer was to employ malt in the feeding of his cattle with any benefit to himself, he must not be limited to its employment at any particular season or subject to particular conditions. He should be at liberty to use it when he had a large quantity of malt, when his malt proved unsuitable for the manufacture of beer, or when other crops failed; in fact, to be of advantage, he should be able to fall back upon it whenever it suited his circumstances. So long, therefore, as a duty was levied upon malt, farmers, he believed, could not employ it in a manner that would really be useful to them. Perhaps it might be urged that the grievance was a sentimental one—one that was purely imaginary. But an imaginary grievance—assuming it to be imaginary—if it was not the imaginary grievance of a few crotchety and sentimental individuals, but the imaginary grievance very seriously entertained by a very large, practical, and hard-headed portion of the community, became a very real grievance indeed, and was entitled to fair and careful consideration from a popular Government, even if they could not remove it. Assuming, as the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend did, that beer must, at all events for the present, continue to be taxed, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not devise some means by which the duty upon beer might be levied, not upon the raw material, but somewhere nearer to the point of consumption, and in such a manner as should make it fall only upon the article it was intended to tax. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex, had pointed to a licence duty for that purpose. He confessed, however, that there appeared to him to be a considerable difficulty in the way of levying any very large amounts by means of a licence duty, because, as he apprehended, a licence duty implied the payment of a considerable expenditure in advance by the trader who took it out—a payment made before the trader had any means of ascertaining whether it would be profitable or not. He (Mr. Dodson) was, therefore, disposed to think that it would be difficult to raise any very large amount by means of a licence duty. A beer duty levied as a licence duty would be a licence duty only in name. But if a tax must be levied upon beer he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it could not be levied upon the manufactured article beer itself. The old duty on beer was levied in an awkward and cumbersome manner upon strong beer and small beer. In the case of beer that was exported, no difficulty was found in testing its quality very accurately by ascertaining the amount of malt that it contained. It was possible, he believed, to ascertain to within one-fifth of a bushel the quantity with which the cask had been brewed. In such cases the quantity of malt was often more accurately ascertained than when the exciseman paid his visit of inspection with a view to the charging of the malt duty. It deserved consideration, in his opinion, whether the duty might not in future be charged upon the beer instead of on the malt, the quality of the beer being ascertained by gauging or in some other manner. This was a point on which the exciseman and the brewer might usefully compare notes and ascertain how far such a system was capable of introduction, without unduly interfering with freedom of the brewer's operations. In all the beer-drinking countries, East and West, a duty was in some form, levied upon beer. In Holland, in Belgium, in France, in Austria, and Hanover, and possibly in some other countries in Germany with which he was not acquainted, duty was levied upon the manufactured article. How this was done in other cases he was not prepared to say, but he knew that in Holland and Belgium the duty was assessed by examining the beer in the brewer's vats. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—always supposing that in the course of the next few weeks he was not about to give them an agreeable surprise by doing away with the malt duty altogether—whether it would not be desirable, if he and the Board of Inland Revenue could devise no plan for levying the duty upon the manufactured article, to ascertain what was the practice of foreign countries in this respect. Every year reports were received from Her Majesty's Secretaries of Legation I relating to the countries in which they resided, their trade, manufactures, and i finance. Would it not be a very simple and beneficial proceeding if the Government were to invite those gentlemen to direct their inquiries to this point, and to furnish the Government with precise details and information as to the manner in which the duty on beer was assessed and collected in those countries? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would really direct his attention to the subject, for of this he felt assured, that whether the injury done to the consumers of beer, or to the producers of barley, was or was not much exaggerated by the persons whom the duty primarily affected, there undoubtedly existed a very strong feeling on the part of such persons that successive Governments had been inclined to treat their complaints rather lightly. The Government, in their opinion, were satisfied with finding that the revenue derived from malt was a very large and a very safe revenue, and being in possession of that large and safe revenue, they had shown themselves indifferent to the feelings and condition of those upon whom the tax pressed most heavily.

said, that as one of those whom the discussion represented in the light of a culprit standing at the bar of public opinion, he wished to offer a few remarks. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) would agree with him that this was not a question between brewers and formers, but as to what was best for the interests of agriculturists and of the country at large. He did not stand up as the advocate of any special interest, for he believed that brewers, like other men, were capable of taking-care of themselves. The proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) was that the duty should be transferred from malt to beer. He (Mr. Greene) had a vivid recollection of the period—forty years ago—when the duty was collected upon beer, and at that time trade was interfered with and trammelled in a manner that none but persons who were engaged in the trade could have any idea of. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had suggested that the quality of the beer should be ascertained from the vat. But a great deal of the beer never entered the vat at all, but went direct from the brewer to the consumer; it would, therefore, amount to an impossibility to levy the tax in that way. As a brewer, he should have no objection to the proposal to place the duty upon beer instead of malt, provided they could show him how the duty could be collected fairly, and the dishonest man prevented from underselling the fair trader. It was inaccurate to say that the present duty on malt did not enhance the price of fine barley. There was a difference of certainly 10 to 15 per cent in the extract value from barley, and consequently a man, paying no more duty for 90 per cent than for 80 per cent, could afford to give several shillings more for fine barley. As to brewing at home, he left that branch of the subject to others; his business lay with supplying the public. No man desired more than he did to see men sober, for in the long run the drunkard was not the brewer's best customer. The curse of drinking he attributed to spirits. The only way in which brewers could recoup themselves for heavy taxation was by supplying a weaker article; and during; the Crimean War, when grain was scarce, the brewers had been obliged to brew weak beer, and that he believed had induced the people to take to spirits. But if the burdens on the brewers were reduced, enabling them to supply a stronger article, spirits would be driven out of the field. He thought it only just to the farmer that he should be allowed to sprout his own barley, and use it for his cattle. But, as a brewer, he was of opinion that if the malt duties were touched at all they ought all to be put an end to, otherwise the trade would be thrown into inextricable confusion.

said, that many years ago his attention was drawn to this subject. He had given his calm and serious attention to the consideration of it. He was, perhaps, the only manufacturer in the North of England who had done so, and the conclusion to which he had come was, that this was a most unjust, unfair, and impolitic tax. What were the facts with regard to it? The farmers of England were now subjected to open competition with the whole world, and yet a tax was levied upon them, amounting to 70 per cent, and it was levied in such a way that they could not crop their land to the best advantage; while it also prevented their using a product of their land for feeding their cattle. The foreigner had not to pay the tax as it was remitted when malt or beer was exported. The evidence taken before the Malt Tax Committee clearly showed that malt was a valuable condiment in the feeding of cattle, and that if the farmers could malt their barley whenever they pleased without the excisemen coming in to supervise the operation—if they could in wet seasons, when barley was sprouting use it for feeding their cattle—the privilege would be of inestimable value to them. There could be no doubt that the tax was levied in such a way as to cause a serious addition to the price of meat, for farmers, instead of using the produce of their own land to feed their cattle were driven to buy other materials which cost more than malt without the tax could cost, and which were not nearly so good. So far as the farmers were concerned, therefore, the tax was a most unjust one. He looked at the subject, however, more with regard to the consumers of beer than the producers of beef and mutton. Being a large employer of labour—his firm employing, when their mills were at full work, 2,000 people—he knew something of the wants of workpeople, and of the evils inflicted upon them by that tax. He was glad to hear the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Dodson) announce that it was a tax of 70 per cent. When he (Mr. Fielden) first took tip that question he found that the advocates of the Malt Tax only made it out to be 30 per cent, whilst other persons in high positions, men occupying responsible posts in the Government, made it out to be 12½ per cent. He had gone very carefully into the matter, and he came to the conclusion that it was a tax of 70 per cent; and if that were so it was a tax that pressed more heavily on a necessary of life than any other tax, and one which they might therefore fairly call upon the Government to remit or to reduce. The Malt Tax was a tax on a raw material. It was levied upon barley on its conversion into malt. The operation of the tax necessarily enhanced the price of barley; for, in order to conform to the regulations of the Excise the maltster had to select a certain class of barley which would produce the result within a certain number of hours. In 1864 he had written a pamphlet upon the subject, in which he took the price of barley to be 31s. per quarter, and if they took this as the average price they would not be far from the mark. The tax upon barley on its conversion into malt was 21s. 8d., and any schoolboy could tell them that 21s. 8d. on 31s. was as near 70 per cent as possible. Mr. Milner Gibson, who was President of the Board of Trade several years ago, stated in that House, on the 14th of April, 1864, that the tax was only 12½ per cent, and he was subsequently confirmed in making that statement by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government. The same statement with respect to the 12½ per cent was repeated by the newspapers—the so-called "cheap instructors" of the people. First among these, The Times, the influential journal, as it was called, took up the statement that the tax on malt was only 12½ per cent, and sent it all over the world but to show the reliance to be placed on such statements and the candour of the leading journal, although he wrote to The Times and placed the simple calculation, showing that the tax was 70 per cent, on a sheet of note-paper, and signed his name to it, The Times would not insert it. The statement of Mr. Milner Gibson was altogether fallacious, and it was unfair and unmanly—if they might speak of such a thing as manliness in the editor of a newspaper—to reject the communication. The statement was used to compare the duties levied on the imports of foreign products into this country and to show that they were taxed higher than malt. When he saw that statement he was completely astonished, and felt that his honour was at stake, for he had been, about that time, addressing public meetings, and had stated what he believed to be the pressure of the tax; and when a man, in a public position, found that he had made a false statement it concerned his honour toprove his figures. He went more carefully through the figures, and came to the conclusion that he was; right and that Mr. Milner Gibson was vastly wrong. At first he did not well know how to get at the figures, but he applied to his brother-in-law, Mr. Cobbett, who was then a Member of the House, to get them for him. Mr. Cobbett applied to Mr. Hutt, who was then Vice President of the Board of Trade, and he said he would get them in a day or two. In a day or two Mr. Cobbett applied again, when Mr. Hutt said—"I don't know where Gibson got his figures, but they are not at the Board of Trade." Mr. Cobbott then gave Mr. Hutt a paper, which he (Mr. Hutt) subsequently handed to Mr. Milner Gibson with the various articles of which that gentleman had spoken written on it, and opposite to them columns for the price in bond, the amount of duty, and the percentage. Mr. Hutt said that when he did so, Mr. Milnor Gibson looked at the paper and said—"Oh, I can fill these up in a moment," and began filling up the columns with his pencil; but suddenly he stopped—he (Mr. Fielden) supposed he had smelt a rat—paused in his work, and said—"Oh, I must see to this by-and-by." But that by-and-by never came. With the permission of the House he would read the figures as he had arrived at them from other sources, because it was important that the impression should be removed which the statement of Mr. Milner Gibson had made: particularly as the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister had characterized Mr. Gibson's calculation as rigidly just. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Where, and when?] He would inform the right hon. Gentleman where, and when. He would find the words in his Budget speech of 1865. He confessed he was astonished when he read that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had had an interview with him shortly before, when the right hon. Gentleman admitted the principle that a tax levied on the raw material took of necessity more from the pockets of the people than went into the Exchequer. To return to his figures. When he found he could not get them from Mr. Milner Gibson, he applied to the first merchants of the City of London to tell him the price of the various foreign products in bond, and the duty upon them; he extracted the percentages for himself. He would only take the principal articles. He found that the price of tea in bond was then 2s. a pound; the duty was 1s., and the per centage was therefore 50 per cent. Mr. Gibson said it was 80. The per centage on sugar varied from 50 to 55 per cent. Mr. Gibson said it was 60. The duty on Ceylon coffee was 36 per cent. Mr. Gibson was hero under the mark, and said it was 33. The duty on French wines Mr. Gibson said was as high as 122 per cent, while he (Mr. Fielden) found that the duty on claret was only 12 per cent, and the duty on champagne 11 per cent. The duty on port wine Mr. Gibson put at 32; it was really 30. On sherry he said it was 29; it was 19. All these calculations were made by Mr. Gibson to show that malt was less heavily taxed than foreign products, while the fact was that the foreign product then; most heavily taxed was sugar, which was; 55 per cent, while malt was 70. Since then the duties on foreign products had been lowered—the duty on tea was now 25 per cent, sugar 33, coffee 36, claret 12, and champagne, the rich man's beverage, which ought to be taxed most heavily of all beverages, was only 5 per; cent. If they held that a tax on intoxicating drinks was a proper mode of procuring revenue, let them act honestly and begin by taxing the beverages which the Members of that House indulged in, and tax them at least as heavily as the poor man's drink. But that was not all. The tax on malt was a tax on the raw material, and, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government admitted, it was a tax that went on increasing, and the consumer paid more than went into the Exchequer. The maltster paid the tax in the first instance, but he charged for it, upon the sale of his commodity, interest and profit. The tax, for instance, was 21s. 8d. per bushel. But as the maltster paid the tax, he had to charge interest and profit upon this advance of capital, as he did on other capital invested in his trade. If they took the interest on capital at 5 per cent, and profit at 10 per cent, they would not be very wide of the mark, and the account would be as follows:—

	s.	d.
Amount of tax	21	8
Maltster's charge on the tax, for interest and profit, 15 per cent	3	3
Tax charged by the maltster	24	11
Brewer's charges on the tax, 15 per cent	3	9
Tax charged by the public brewer	28	8
Retailer's charge on the tax, 10 per cent	2	10
Tax charged to the consumer by the retailer	31	6

The House would see that he only allowed 10 per cent to the retailer for profit, as he generally worked with the brewer's capital, receiving payment over the counter before he paid the brewer. While, therefore, the revenue received 21s. 8d. on every quarter of malt, the consumer had to pay, in consequence of the way in which the tax was levied and fur the interest and profits on the tax charged by the three great monopolists, the maltsters, public brewers, and retailers of beer, 31s. 6d. as the cost of the tax on every quarter of malt consumed. If that was not a bad tax he did not know what was. He would quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the impolicy of levying a tax on a raw material. On April 8, 1869, the right hon. Gentleman said, in that louse—

"Then it (the duty on corn) is a tax levied on the raw material in its rawest state, and this shilling has to bear its profit through the hands of the corn-dealer and the retailer, and in the loaf of the baker. In every way, in fact, it violates the principle of political economy."

He wished now to say a few words on the past history of this tax. It had come with a cruel pressure upon those honest, hardworking people who brewed, or would brew, their own beer. He should be told that there was no such thing as cottage brewing now-a-days. Perhaps the statement he had to make would take the House by surprise. But, at all events, home brewing did, prevail at one time all over England, and the result of the discontinuance of that practice had been to create much of the wretchedness and misery and drunkenness existing in this country. Cobbett tells us that—

"Mr. Ellman stated to a Committee of the House of Commons in 1821 that forty-five years before that, when he became a farmer, every labourer in his parish of Glynde, where he lived,

TOWNSHIP.	PARISH.	Total Families.	Brew at Home.	Would brew, but cannot afford.	Buy Beer	Do not drink Beer.
Elland	Halifax	1419	1237	51	73	58
Hipper-holme-cum-Brighouse	Ditto	1737	1301	141	157	138
Quarmby-cum-Linley	Huddersfield	987	784	84	71	48
Idle	Calverly	2231	1643	220	106	262
Langfield	Halifax	876	610	46	48	172
Middle Third of Stansfield	Ditto	798	591	54	49	104
Todmorden and Walsden	Rochdale	1774	1293	139	93	249
		9822	7459	735	597	1031

brewed his own beer, and drank it by his own fireside. Forty-five years back from 1821 takes us to 1776. At that time there was no tax on malt if made by persons for their own consumption. In the year 1783 this permission ceased."—[Political Register, vol. 87, p. 720.]

The effect of the change might be seen by the following figures:—In 1713, when the population of England and Wales was 5,000,000, and the duty 6d. a bushel, with the above exception, the number of bushels on which duty was paid was 30,000,000. That was 6 bushels per head. In 1864, when the population of the United Kingdom was 30,000,000, and the duty 2s. 8d. a bushel, the consumption was 45,000,000 bushels, or at the rate of 1½ bushels per head. So that while on every hand we were discussing the drunkenness of the labouring population, it appeared that the consumption of malt was not nearly so large per head as in 1713. The explanation was, that the high price of beer, caused by the Malt Tax, led to adulteration and to the drinking of ardent spirits, also vilely adulterated, and this it was which led to the curse of drunkenness. If the Malt Tax were repealed a glass of pure beer could be bought for a penny. This would be a great boon to the labouring people, and especially the agricultural labourers, and the consumption of ardent spirits would decrease. But he wished to show the House that the practice of cottage brewing still existed in the North of England. In the years 1865 and 1866 he had employed a person, in whom he had every confidence, to make a regular house to house visitation in several townships in the neighbourhood of the towns of Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Bradford, and in the vale of Todmorden. He visited 9,822 families; and the following statement showed the extent to which private brewing is practised in the following townships:— Therefore, so far as the inquiry went, the tax operated with hardship upon 84 per cent of the population, and those the best class of working men; for the House might depend upon it that the man who got his wife to brew at home would not go I to the pot-house to drink the vile concoctions sold there. Those who could not afford to brew at home were induced to frequent the public-house, where one glass led to two, and more. If we could resuscitate the practice of cottage brewing we should do more to cure drunkenness than all the efforts of temperance associations. The quantity of malt brewed by these cottagers was remark ably small. It seldom exceeded one-eighth of a bushel, or five pounds. It was brewed every week or fortnight, as the case might be, and the housewife attended to it as she went about her other domestic duties. The process of cottage brewing was a most simple one, and its cost was literally nothing but the price of the malt and hops, because the cottager's fire would have to be kept up in any ease, and any extra fuel that might be required in brewing was paid for by the sale of the grains. That was the way in which the operation of cottage brewing was performed. It was most beneficial in its results, and a wholesome and refreshing beverage was produced. He would now come to the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) as to a substitute for the Malt Tax. He approached the question reluctantly, because he believed that pure beer was the natural beverage of the country, sent by a wise and beneficiate Creator for their use, and that the Malt Tax was a bad tax, and one that ought to be altogether abolished. But he knew the difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed—that the right; hon. Gentleman would have calls upon whatever surplus he had from various interests in the country, each thinking its claims paramount; under these circumstances he (Mr. Fielden) had turned his attention to the question of a substitute for the tax. There could be no worse tax than a tax on the raw material, and if they could get rid of the interest and profit paid by the taxpayer to the maltster and brewer it would be a great benefit to the consumer. What suggested itself to his mind was to increase the amount of licence duty now paid by the public brewers and sweep away the Malt Tax altogether. Such a change would remove the injustice now felt by the farmer, who, while he had to compete with all the world was prevented from carrying on his business as he thought best. It would, moreover, reduce the price of beer very considerably, because it would get rid of those charges which were the necessary result of a tax laid upon the raw material. He could not tell at what rate the brewers could sell their beer after the repeal of the Malt Tax, because he did not know the cost of brewing by public brewers; but he thought a pretty correct conclusion could be arrived at in this manner—In the Committee on the Malt Tax, Mr. Allsopp was asked this question—3346. "You think the public brewer can deliver beer cheaper than the private brewer or the cottage brewer can brew for himself? The reply was—"I am sure we can; and we do, and send it all over Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland, and England. Our trade is enormously increasing. That is the best roof of it." Now, let them see what the cottage brewers could brew for. They brewed an eighth part of a bushel at a time. The Malt Tax increased the price of malt fully 100 per; cent, for it was proved before the Malt Tax Committee that if the tax were repealed malt could be sold at the same price as barley, as the cost of malting was paid by the increase in bulk. They now paid 8s. a bushel for malt. One-eighth of that was 1s. They used one ounce of hops, and the total cost was 1s. 1d. From this they could brew seven quarts of beer, being at the rate of 2d. per quart. Now, if there were no Malt Tax, malt would be sold at £1 12s. a bushel, and the eighth of a bushel of malt would come to 6d., the ounce of hops to 1d., and thus for 7d. they could get seven quarts of beer, or at the rate of 1d. per quart. That was, perhaps, weaker beer than would be ordinarily brewed; but he had had brewed at his own home beer as good as that of either Bass or Allsopp, which would cost, if there were no tax, 1½d. per quart. If therefore Mr. Allsopp was correct in saying he could brew cheaper than the private brewer, it was clear Mr. Allsopp could deliver to him beer of equal quality to that at 1½d. per quart. Mr. Allsopp told the Committee that he allowed 40 per cent for retailing; but, allowing ¾d. per quart for retailing, they would get 2d. per quart as the cost at which beer could be sold over the counter if there were no Malt Tax. Mr. Milner Gibson said the Malt Tax was only ½d. per quart. If, then, they substituted a brewer's licence for the Malt Tax they would have beer sold over the counter, according to the statement of Mr. Allsopp, for 2½d. per quart. But what was the price now? The price of the vilest stuff in the lowest pot-house was 6d. per quart. In a refreshment room 3d. per glass was charged, which was at the rate of 1s. per quart. But faking it at 6d. per quart, there was according to the statements of Mr. Allsopp and Mr. Milner Gibson, a charge of 3½d. a quart on the consumer, in consequence of the mode in which the tax was levied, over and above what went into the Exchequer. He would now come to the question as to the result of the change upon the revenue. He did not agree with the hon. Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) in his suggestion to tax private brewers, because he thought the habit of cottage brewing ought to be encouraged. The quantity of bushels of malt consumed by the public brewers in the year ending 1868 was 48,000,000 bushels—that was the quantity on which, they paid the licence duty instead of the hop duty. If they took that at 6s. a barrel, and included the licence duty paid in lieu of the hop duly, it would bring in a revenue of £7,200,000. The revenue this year was not equal to that amount, and therefore the Exchequer would not suffer at all by the change. But, more than that, they ought to take into account the enormous increase in consumption that would take place from a reduction in price. He now came to the argument of certain persons that it would be a bad tiling to increase the consumption of beer in this country, It was laid down by them that beer and all intoxicating liquors were injurious. Now, he believed that good beer was necessary for the vigorous life of the healthy labourer. He invited the teetotaller, who certainly could never succeed in inducing the people to adopt his impracticable views, to join him in the object they had both at heart—namely, to make the people a sober and industrious people. He believed that could be done to a great extent by reducing the price of beer, so as to bring it within the reach of every labourer. But care must be taken to have the beer pure. We found that in other countries labourers drank intoxicating drinks, and that there was none of that drunkenness and misery there which we saw in this country. He would take the case of Bavaria, where beer was consumed in enormous quantities; but there no one ever saw what might be called "a beastly drunken fellow." The Government of that country was a paternal one, and it would be better if the Government of this country became in this respect an equally paternal one. The beer brewed in Bavaria was of one uniform quality, the price was fixed by the Government according to the price of hops, and official beer-tasters went round to prevent adulteration. If they found any beer that was not pure and wholesome they pulled the plug out of the vessel and let the beer flow away. That was the penalty on the person who had adulterated it. He had received a letter from a friend, a Manchester merchant, who was travelling in Bavaria, informing him that although he was not a beer drinker in this country, he scarcely drank anything else in Bavaria, the beverage being so deliriously pure and cool. The tax there amounted to only 10d. on sixteen gallons, or ¾d. per gallon, and the beer was sold at 2d. per quart in summer, and 1½d. in winter. In conclusion he believed that if the Malt Tax was taken off, and the labourer could procure pure, wholesome, and cheap beer, an immense amount of comfort, contentment, and happiness would be brought home to many a hearth.

Sir, I do not propose to detain the House by entering at all into the merits of the Malt Tax. It has been my duty on former occasions; to state my views on the subject, and I have seen no reason to change them; but I am desirous of correcting an error into which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has twice fallen. The hon. Gentleman told the House that Mr. Milner Gibson having stated that the result of the malt duty was to impose upon beer a tax of 12½ per cent, that statement was adopted by me. I took no notice of the allegation when the hon. Gentleman first made it; but when he spoke about the honour of a man being pledged to calculations made by him, and recreated that my honour was pledged, was obliged to ask him when and where I made the statement he attributed to me. On referring to the speech from which the hon. Gentleman made his quotation, I found that the source of his error was that he had adopted the dangerous practice of stopping in the middle of a sentence. What I said was this—

"My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated that the Malt Duty imposed upon beer a tax of 12½ per cent, and I am able to say two things—first of all, that I believe that that statement of my right hon. Friend was a rigidly just one in every sense of the word for the purpose with a view to which he used it—namely, for the purpose of comparison with the duty now imposed by law upon tea; and, secondly, that very high authorities connected with the trade—men intimately conversant with the brewing trade—have, upon being applied to, given the very figure that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend."—[3 Hansard, clxxxviii. 1111.]

I then proceeded to say it might be more proper that I should "take it on the barrel of beer." that being the fairway, as it appeared to me, for the purpose of comparing the burden of this duty with the burden of the tea duty on the chest and half-chest of tea. I afterwards said—

"I am prepared to allow that the taxation upon beer as sold in barrel, of which all but 1, or perhaps 2 per cent, is the Malt Duty, may, for the sake of argument, be taken on a liberal estimate as high as 20 per cent."

The hon. Gentleman who has laid down such rigid rules about our honour will see, therefore, that my estimate was not 12½, but 18 or 19 per cent. The hon. Member ought not, binding a Minister to statements made five years ago, to have quoted thorn inaccurately. But I protest against the idea that our honour is involved in the accuracy of calculations such as these. A man's honour is in volved in the good faith of his calculations, but not in their result. I think the hon. Gentleman himself should give his ready acquiescence to the sound doctrine I have just laid down, for what I was his calculation? His deduction was that the Malt Tax was 100 per cent, and he arrived at it in this way. The price of barley is 32s. and the price of malt 64s., and 64 being twice 32, ergo the I Malt Tax is half the whole price—allowing nothing whatever for the cost of converting barley into malt. The hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech showed that the cost of the Malt Tax was ½d. on the quart of beer, or 1s. 2d. a gallon; and running up that computation on the number of gallons consumed, I find that the cost of the Malt Tax to the consumer, according to the calculation of the hon. Gentleman, which he says has been made so carefully, is £52,500,000. The hon. Gentleman certainly has a rival in those rather singular statements, for I recollect that the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Barttelot) was preceded by a learned Gentleman on former occasions who estimated that the tax to the consumer was £60,000,000 a year. I do not wish, in the slightest degree, to interfere with the hon. Member's elaborate computations, whatever result he may arive at. I do not mean to impeach the good faith of the hon. Gentleman, of which I have no doubt; but I would advise him to quote with accuracy, and not to hold to a doctrine that the honour of Gentlemen is involved in the calculations they may make.

I shall detain the House for only a short time. I think that those of us who are familiar with the oratory and literature of the Malt Tax must feel pleased at the fairness and moderation with which this discussion has been conducted. Comparing the arguments used this evening with those which we heard on former occasions, we have every reason to congratulate ourselves. No case could be more fairly stated than this has been by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot). I have the agreeable feeling of being-able to agree with many of the arguments which have been adduced by those who support the hon. and gallant Member; and I do not mean to use the arguments which some Gentlemen have supposed I would use. I do not mean to strain matters. I quite agree with Gentlemen opposite in this general principle—that to tax a commodity in the early stage of its manufacture is wasteful, because there must be interest on the capital advanced, and probably a profit charged upon it too, so that much more is taken out of the pockets of the taxpayer than ever reaches the coffers of the Government. There is also another objection to taxing a half-raw material—namely, that you assume that it will be manufactured in a particular way. This, of course, has a tendency to fetter persons in their efforts to bring about improvements in the manufacture. That is quite manifest, and it is no part of my duty to deny it; but the process in the case of the Malt Tax has not been adopted from more love of a certain course which is not in accordance with the principles of political economy. There are other considerations to which we must have regard when dealing with a matter of this kind. We know that at one time there was a beer tax as well as a malt tax; but the former was found to be so inconvenient and unfair, that by almost unanimous consent it was abolished in 1830. The Malt Tax remained, and such a tax has this great advantage—that when you deal with a commodity before it is fully made—when you take it at an early stage of its manufacture—you can calculate the tax with greater case and with less danger of fraud. The process is something like what is done when a bridge is thrown across a stream before it divides itself into many channels. To deal with 9,000 maltsters is more convenient than to deal with 30,000 or 40,000 brewers. I will not go into the question of the reduction of the tax. The question before us to-night, and to which I will scrupulously confine myself, is the manner of its collection. We have had throe suggestions made to us to-night, and I will take them in their order. The present way of collecting the tax begins at the earliest moment with the manufacture of malt. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene) has suggested that instead of taking the tax on the manufacture in the hands of the maltster, we should go a step further, and take it when it passes into the hands of the brewer. With submission to the hon. Gentleman, who has a great practical knowledge of the subject, it appears to me that this would be no improvement whatever, because it would still have the evil of taxing the raw material, and all the difference would be that, instead of taking the tax on malt in the hands of 9,000 maltsters, you will tax it in the hands of 33,000 brewers, and by that means increase very much the labour, and, consequently, the expense of collection, without, as I understand, any corresponding advantage to the public. The next suggestion is that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson), and anything coming from him is entitled to great attention. He suggests something not very far from a return to the beer tax which was done away in 1830, and recommends that we should tax beer instead of malt in the hands of the brewers, and apply tests to it to ascertain its specific gravity, and that, then the beer should, be taxed according to the strength it might possess. Such a method of taxation would be immensely laborious, and you would have the same difficulty as before. You would have got rid of the objection that you are taxing the raw material, which would be an advantage; but, on the other hand, you would not only have to tax it in the hands of the brewers, a more numerous class—and there are many of them in a small way, and making small quantities—but you would have besides to tax it by a course of experimental investigation, which would be infinitely vexatious, expensive, and laborious. Instead of going to the fountain head, and finding how much malt goes out to the brewer, you will omit to ascertain the amount when it is in the hands of the maltsters, and you will wait until it gets into the hands of the brewer and into the form of beer, and then, by a sort of analytical test, you are to ascertain by some chemical or other process how much malt might have gone into the hands of the brewer in order to make that beer. I think it would be better to go to the maltster at once. The third plan is that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), who has brought the question forward. That plan has, in some degree, the merit of novelty. I am not aware that such a plan has ever been proposed before; and I cannot help thinking that it has its origin in something that was said at a deputation of some gentlemen who honoured me by bringing the matter before me the other day. Perhaps it was something said by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), who objected, as he was very well entitled to do, to the licence duty levied on brewers at this moment. When it was suggested by me that he could recoup himself from the consumer, the hon. Gentleman said, "No, the duty is too small—only 3d. a barrel." It seems that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, much meditating upon that answer, might have said to himself—"If that be the only fault, that the duty is too small, we can soon remove that objection." In fact, it seems to me that the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite have taken the two well-known lines of the parody, the hon. Member for Derby saying the first, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the second. The first line was—

"The tax is great because it is so small,"

—to which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex would answer—

"Increase it and it will not hurt at all."

That is a very original way of treating the case, and I am bound to say it is totally new to me, and as being new I am quite willing to give it my best consideration. It is quite true that the grievance complained of by the hon. Member for Derby, that it is only 3d. a barrel, is a remediable one. It could be removed to any extent whatever by the sum of 5s. 8d., or any other sum that would be a proper amount. I have made a calculation in my own mind that, if the grievance were thoroughly remedied according to the plan suggested by the hon. Member for West Sussex, the hon. Member for Derby would probably have to pay about £170,000 a year. Speaking seriously, of course this question, as raised by the hon. Gentleman with his great knowledge of the subject, is one which I cannot refuse to consider. At the same time, it strikes me that there are difficulties to be got over besides the very large sum to be collected from individuals. One of these is, as it seems to me, that we must put aside the view taken by the hon. Member for East Sussex, and leave out of the ease altogether the question of the quality of the beer. I do not see how you can levy this tax on the beer in the hands of the brewer, and no one but the brewer to bear it. It would be impossible to go into a test of every barrel, and there would be this inconvenience among others, that you would have to tax the lowest quality of beer above table-beer and the highest quality at exactly the same amount. The question, I admit, is not one to be dismissed without consideration, and I will undertake most carefully to consider it, and when I come to make my Financial Statement I will either accede to it or give very good reasons for not doing so. That is only due to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the moderation and fairness with which he has brought the question forward, and I hope that, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion. The time is not very remote when I must make a clean breast of it.

said, he wished to remark, with reference to the observation of the First Lord of the Treasury, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Fielden) had said the tax was 70 per cent on the price of barley, and 100 per cent to the consumer. A tax of 21s. upon 32s., the price of barley, was match nearer 70 than 20 per cent. The tax created a monopoly, for it was notorious that its operation was to render the employment of large capital necessary in brewing, and large capitals were confined to few hands.

said, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) should state the tax at so high an amount. It was very high, indeed, and he had for more than twenty years endeavoured to reduce it; but to place it at 100 per cent was so extravagant that it placed anyone who made that statement in the wrong. The hon. Member had just now spoken of the brewing trade as a monopoly; but how could it be a monopoly when there were 33,000 competitors? Taking a personal view, he only wished there was some little monopoly in the trade. On public grounds, however, he was averse from monopoly. He wanted free trade, pure and simple. Twenty-one years ago he asked leave to introduce a Bill to reduce the Malt Tax by one-half. That measure then met with very little support from hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with the agricultural interest. He still thought the malt duty ought to be reduced, and he should be glad to see it altogether abolished; but, looking to the fact that £22,000,000 or £23,000,000 a year were raised by the taxes on beer, wines, and spirits, he did not see how it could be spared, because, if they reduced the impost on beer, they must reduce the taxes on wines and spirits. The hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to increase his licence duty from £9,000 or £10,000 to £190,000 or £200,000 a year. Well, he believed he should have no difficulty in distributing that among his customers. No doubt there were grave and serious objections to the collection of the tax on beer, and the pre-; sent plan of taxing it in the first instance; on malt was the truest and most practical mode of taxation. A great deal had been said about the brewing of beer by labourers. Now, he had lived a good deal in the country, and had never known a single instance of cottage brewing; and why? The labourers in his neighbourhood, in consequence of the great extent of brewing operations, were very largely employed in brewing, and they were well aware that brewing in a tea-pot with a pint of water, as had been described, was the most wasteful outlay that could be conceived. It would be an utter waste of time and money for cottagers to brew their own beer, because in nineteen cases out of twenty it would be quite unfit to drink. Some notice had been taken of brewers licences, and he hoped that he should be allowed to make a few remarks upon that subject. He regarded those licences as most unjust, because no other trade was subject to them. It was most unfair to select a certain body of traders, and to impose upon them a licence duty of from £10 to £10,000 per annum, more especially when that very body already contributed to the revenue by way of duties from £3,000,000 to £6,000,000 per annum. He was sure that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget he would be able to find no argument in favour of retaining those licences. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, first instituted them, he told the House that he only desired to obtain by their means a sum equivalent to the £300,000 per annum that he had up to that time received from the hop duties. The private brewers were exempt. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, obtained £410,000 from these licences, and therefore plundered the brewers of a sum amounting to 30 per cent on the sum which it was originally intended they should pay.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the answer he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, it was a more courteous answer than he ever got before. He would therefore withdraw his Amendment upon the Motion for going into Supply.

said, he rose to call attention "to certain occurrences which took place at Louth at the last General Election, and to the manner in which recommendations for Peerages were made by the Ministry then in Office." he applauded the determination which appeared to exist on both sides of the House to grapple with the great difficulty of the age and do justice to Ireland, and was emboldened in consequence to ask the House to condemn some occurrences which had caused a strong feeling of irritation in the county of Louth, and had tended to weaken the respect due to the discharge: of a high prerogative of the Crown. He had wooed the constituency of his native county with the devotion of a lover who would not be denied; he shrank from no labour, and spared himself no sacrifices, to gain the object of his ambition; he might say to his constituency, as the minstrel knight in the old legend—

"The blood that I shed for this daughter of thine

I have poured forth as freely as flask gives its wine."

But a gentleman employed in the house hold of the Lord Lieutenant of that; time, allured by the promise of an English Peerage to his paternal relative on; condition that he would oppose him (Mr. Dease) before a constituency with which he had no more connection than with the moon, addressed the constituency, canvassed, the county, but dared not appear at the poll. The whole proceeding was calculated to bring nobility into disrepute, and depreciate the respect I due to the authority of the Crown. He was rejoiced to say that the gentlemen of the county, who were almost all Conservatives, although he believed they; entertained strong feelings of dislike towards himself and his Colleague, yet I were men of honour, and refused to countenance any such proceedings. The promise made was however faithfully kept, and the new Peer was enabled to use his fire-new stamp of honour, by voting in Ids novel capacity of a Roman Catholic Peer against the Irish Church Bill of last Session.

, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Act twenty-third and twenty-fourth Victoria, chapter fifty, intituled "An Act to abolish the Annuity Tax in Edinburgh and Montrose, and to make provision in regard to the Stipends of the Ministers in that City and Burgh, and also to make provision for the Patronage of the Church of North Leith," said: Sir, I do not, at this period of the evening, intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I have stated at great length the other day the views generally which I entertain upon this subject, and I shall state the import of the Bill which I then announced in a very few sentences. The great object is to effect a settlement of the question in regard to the fund for providing for the payment of the ministers of the parishes of the city, which may be satisfactory to the Churches of Edinburgh on the one hand, and fair and equitable to the citizens of Edinburgh on the other. At this moment it stands upon this footing—that under the Act of 1860 the Magistrates and Town Council, as representing the community, are the debtors in a perpetual bond of annuity for £4,200, payable to a body called the Edinburgh Ecclesiastical Commissioners, instituted by the Act for the purposes of paying their debt and the stipends of the clergy. That is not the only fund provided for the payment of these stipends, there being £2,000 payable to the Commissioners by the Docks and Harbour Board of Leith; and there is also paid to them the produce of the pew-rents. But so far as the Magistrates are concerned, with the exception of these pew-rents, the contribution consists of the sum of £4,200 a year, payable in the form of an annuity; and the chief end and object of the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce is to provide that this perpetual bond of annuity shall be redeemable upon payment of a sum which I propose shall be fixed at £60,000. That is to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and that payment being made, and the receipt thereof being duly recorded in the register, the bond shall be held to be discharged—so that as soon as this takes place there will be a settlement between the parochial clergy and Town Council, and there will be no money transactions between them in future. But it is necessary to make some provisions with a view to enable the Magistrates and Town Council to raise the money necessary for that purpose. I understand that at present there is in hand, the produce of the power of assessment given to them by the Act of 1860—a sum of £15,000 or £16,000; but it is not my purpose to give thorn borrowing power beyond what may be necessary to enable them to complete the sum of £60,000 which the Bill provides for, and I therefore propose by the Bill to give them borrowing power to the extent of £45,000; but if it should be found upon inquiry that either, on the one hand, they require more, or, on the other, they require less, the amount may be taken. They have, at present, under the Act of 1860, upon which the settlement to the matter stands, a power of increased assessment to the extent of 3d. in the pound. I propose that this power should be continued for the period of ten years; but with this proviso, that they shall, out of the produce of that assessment, accumulate annually a sum—I suggest, but, of course, that is subject to modification, of not less than £3,000 a year—in order to pay off the debt contracted by the borrowing power under the statute. By availing themselves of the provisions of the Act, they will save the difference between £4,200 and the interest on the £60,000, or about £1,800 a year. At this moment the parish of Canongate, which is really a part of Edinburgh, stands upon a different footing in regard to ecclesiastical arrangements from the rest of the city. The provision for religion in that parish is an assessment imposed on the inhabitants—I forget at what rate, but I believe 1d. in the pound, producing £250 a year. It is proposed by this Bill to abolish that assessment altogether, and to put the ministers of Canongate on the same footing as the other ministers of the city. At present the church-door collections are entirely devoted to extraordinary charitable purposes; but, following a provision in the Bill submitted to this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, I propose to give half the produce of these collections to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. With regard to the patronage of the churches within the city, the patronage is at presented vested in the Magistrates and Town Council; but I propose also availing myself of a clause, which deals with this subject in the Bill of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, to transfer the patronage from the Magistrates and Town Council to the kirk-sessions of the several churches. These are the provisions of the Bill which I now wish to introduce; and I hope, having some reason to believe that the Bill will be satisfactory to the Church, that it will effect a settlement of this long-vexed question.