repeal of the corn laws. Having recapitulated his
objections to the tax upon the ground of the burden it cast
upon the landlord, the farmer, and the consumer, Mr.
Cayley expatiated upon its mischievous effects in a
moral point of view.—The amendment was seconded by
Mr. STANHOPE, who objected to the additional malt-
tax, because it was excessive in amount, and was
levied unfairly upon one class, and because there was
no real necessity for raising this particular tax in
the exigency of the war, it being required only to
remedy the financial errors of the last session.—
Lord MONCK and Mr. WARNER opposed the amendment
and defended the financial measures of the government.
—The Marquis of GRANBY said, the opposition
his party gave to this tax was not directed against the
war, though he believed it to be neither a just nor a
necessary war; being now engaged in it, no one would
desire to deprive the government of the means of carrying
it on with vigour; but he was bound to consider
whether the means proposed were the least oppressive
to the country, and it was because this additional tax
fell upon one portion of the community already more
heavily taxed than any other that he resisted it.—Mr.
CROSSLEY should vote for the second reading of the
bill. As the country was now at war he would not
stand in the way of its prosecution with vigour; and of
all indirect taxes, he thought there was not one which
with less hardship to the tax-payer—the consumer,—
was more beneficial to the revenue than a tax upon
malt.—Mr. BENTINCK protested against a tax which,
he said, was at variance with justice, honesty of purpose,
and consistency of principle.—Mr. NEWDEGATE said,
the increasing of excise duties, which had been peculiarly
odious from the beginning, and especially upon a
commodity which was so heavily burdened that the addition
was sure to raise opposition, suggested doubts whether
the ministers were sincere in their desire to carry the
people with them in the war.—Mr. J. WILSON observed,
that as the house had approved the policy of the war,
what it had to consider was, the means by which it
should be carried on. The house had assented to the
principle, that, at the commencement of the war, it was
unworthy of parliament to resort to loans in the way
our forefathers did; that, at least, our first effort should
be to pay the expenses of the war as far as possible out
of the income of the year. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had provided for a large amount of the
necessary supplies by direct taxation, and the question
now was, as £2,500,000 was to be raised by indirect
taxation, what was the least prejudicial mode in which
it could be done? Experiments made by increasing the
customs' duties had always failed, whereas an increase
of the malt-tax had never hitherto failed. The argument
that the additional duty fell upon the producer,
not the consumer, was refuted by the fact that there
had been no reduction in the price of barley, and that
the brewers had announced their intention to raise the
price of beer a little beyond the amount of the duty.
The subject had engaged the earnest consideration of
the government, and they had resolved to levy a tax
upon the whole community of consumers in the way
least injurious to the trade and general industry of the
country.—Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment,
insisting upon the injustice and inequality of the tax.—
Mr. SANDARS supported the second reading of the bill.
—Sir E. B. LYTTON, after a general criticism of the
budget, said it was true that the malt-tax fell upon the
consumer; but did it for that reason less indirectly
affect the home producer? He cited the authority of
Mr. McCulloch, who said that this tax, "indirectly, if
not directly, is especially injurious to the agriculturists."
The mercantile and manufacturing interests had been
largely benefited by the remission of taxation, and
might be supposed to be ready to assist in furnishing
means for carrying on the war; but it was not to either
of these classes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
resorted; he selected that class which had had the
slightest share of financial relief, and subjected it to a
new humiliation, which would revive and exasperate
angry feelings, and damp the ardour with which the
war should be carried on. Sir Bulwer then entered, at
considerable length, upon a review, sometimes serious,
sometimes satirical, of the policy and measures of the
present government.—Mr. DRUMMOND said, he had
always opposed the malt-tax from a firm conviction that
the depriving the labourer of his beer was productive of
more immorality than all our reformatory schools could
cure. He agreed with Mr. Cayley in his opinion of
that tax, but the government had been on all sides
cheered on to the war, and now, when, for the first
time, the house was brought to grapple with its realities,
it wanted to shrink from them. Was it possible to
propose a single tax which the stupidest man in the
house could not find an objection to? Were they going
to raise the money for the war or not? If they were,
the only question was from whose pocket it was to come.
As to getting rid of the malt-tax, the country would be
lucky if that and the income-tax were not doubled.—
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose principally, he said, to express
his astonishment that a government which had asked
the house for £2,500,000 of taxes did not condescend to
rise to vindicate their measure. He felt the painful
position in which his party were placed in being
compelled to object to any proposal for meeting the expenses
of a war in the justice of which they had concurred;
but the blame rested with the government. Such a
measure, he said, ought to be laid equally upon all
classes, and should be so devised that there was a fair
and reasonable prospect that the tax would realise
the amount required, and he believed that the
increase of the malt-tax was deficient in both respects.—
Lord J. RUSSELL said, the question before the house
was much wider than the one argued by Sir J. Pakington
and other members; it was whether, when a formidable
military power threatened to swallow up one of our
allies, 1s. 3d. a bushel upon malt was too great a sacrifice.
Unless taxes were imposed upon articles of general
consumption, a revenue could not be obtained, and if
they were laid upon articles of necessity, they would
occasion great hardship among the community at large.
The object, therefore, was to levy the taxes upon
articles of general consumption which were not articles
of necessity, and there were none to which this
description so strictly applied as those of spirits and
malt. "Don't tell me," said the noble lord, "that the
tax is so objectionable that you are ready to vote any
other, and that the landed interest will resist this small
addition to the malt duty; tell me, not that this is
really the obstacle which prevents you from supporting
the government, but that, although you are in favour of
the war, you are not ready to vote the necessary
supplies."—Mr. DISRAELI said, he had listened with
great regret and some surprise to the extraordinary
doctrine of finance laid down by Lord J. Russell, that the
Opposition, if they approved the war, were bound to
vote for any proposal for a new tax without criticism or
cavil. He supported the policy of the war; but a statesman
ought to think of something more than the amount
of the burden; the principle of the tax must enter into
the contemplation of the House of Commons, and if
neglected by the house, would not escape the reflection
of the people. He opposed this additional tax on malt,
because it was unjust to those who were to pay it, and
because it was unnecessary to have recourse to it. A
single crop of the British farmer supplied one-fourth of
our ordinary revenue; 50 per cent. was now added to
the tax upon it, while, at the same time, a system was
carrying on by which the duty on tea,—an article
competing with beer,—was greatly diminished. But
he objected to the tax not merely because it was unjust
and unnecessary, but because it hampered the industry,
crippled the progress, and in every way injured the agricultural
interest of this country, and because of its grievous
impolicy in irritating a class to whose patriotism the
state was compelled to appeal.—Upon a division, Mr.
Cayley's amendment was negatived by 303 against 195.
The bill was then read a second time.

Lord PALMERSTON brought down a message from
Her Majesty relative to Calling out the Militia.

On Tuesday, May 16, Mr. M. GIBSON called attention
to the present state of the Law Affecting the
Press, and moved a resolution to the effect, that the
laws in reference to the periodical press and newspaper
stamp are ill defined and unequally enforced, and
demand the early consideration of parliament. He
anticipated the objection, that this was an abstract