The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-29 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 1349.

Idea whit provides. Loo be seat oat by tbs authorities to
Leaman itssad early is the MIMIC

REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.
_ _ MEETING AT CAMBRIDGE.

Oa eetrube, a autnerses nest* of taratsss took plans
at Cambridge, to discus the roped et the malt tax and aid-
sultana prespects generally. The chair was taken by Mr.
P. Chainr nod an eats-tweeds !sedation having been
beserald Word by Mr. Lynn red ampetted by Mr. Hide
OM et whoa cusplaised bb ei the present an-
dittos et serieulnaral affairs is this esealley),
Mr. JOMXBOI4 said it was an the pour suit that the
sails tan, ia thus tromaade tima,peemsd with double bus
lbeessmaint kadAdesed the sty ardis tbe poor =an bad to
aspen 64 via., bis labor, in sesapeddea with the labour of
the imperatively untaxed teniignsr ; and it was dear it any
art*, produeed by labour were Mosul ene-tkird is value,
the labour by which it was produsod must aesseurily be re-
duced in value also. It was abe absurd be suppose that the
who was the producer of ears endel pay the awns
with
_wheat at 40s. as ha aali with wheat at 60s.

_ -- --
therefore NO NNW, to t pew am, that or gave tit-
hed gives aim low it shosii also give hiss sheep
(Rear.) Be rosolabia s—
toat tin tea oa welt rezioesi his= and tsmiinkkg, w
ft t a now easombo am on the of law pow ma's
lownwo. wt.*, boo bb abotabbol woes erweesomee of Ow re-
tamed vibe of oplookomal prolwo la amble to pews kas lien.

ldr. T. ORANGES seconded the motion. The melt-tax
was is bad • tax es any minister could propose. It war now
a period of free trade, and as the farmers' produce was
subject to, it was only air that they should have the bene-
fits of, it as well as others. It was monstrous in a time of
free trade that any tax should be suffered to remain on
the people to the amount of between 60 and 80 per cent.
This tax also prevented the potpie from luta' wane
barley • if the poor man could use opine barley to make
beer, lid they not suppose that a rut part of the popu-
lation world have beer made of grinding barley ? The
ream why it was not used was the enormous tax en
malt. He would ask what they thought beer wee now made
el ? t(nustites.) He read some statistical statement to show
that is 1730, with • duty of lits. • bushel, and a population of
five or mix millions, about twenty-eight million bat) ale of .
malt were consumed; wbereasia 1846, when the population
wan trebled, the consumption was increased only abut two
million bushels, or one.lithientli. What was the reason of
this small increase ? Perhaps it might be said that brewers
had become mse selentiflo. (Loud might
He had no
desire to detract from the ability of the brewer; all be
wanted was, that the labourers might be in • position to
show their ingenuity in the brewing of their own beer. Tory
had met to get rid of an obnoxious, unjust, and intolerable
tax. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer try to impose an
additional income-tax, and he would be met as he was be-
' fore ; the country would not have it. (.:luon.)
Mr. JONAS said they must have untaxed malt foe the
labourer's beer, sad untaxed malt to feed their cattle with.
They were justified in oall.ng for a repeal of the salt-tax,
They must have Increased production, or they could aut
employ the labourers. They must have more manure to in-
crease the fertility a the soil. What could he do, firming
so he did some of the thin skinned lands of Cambridneshire

He wee obliged to keep a hundred bullocks, and they were
fed on oil Wu, brought at immense expense and trouble
from Cincinnati, while, it he could use the produce of his
own farm, he would sustain no lose, while now he would be
glad to give three hundred pounds to get rid of the lees on
those bullocks. (Hear.) They gave a large quantity of
beer to their labourers. The manufacturers bad no tax ;
but he could not use the produce of his own farm till he had
paid this obnoxious tax. Would they etaud this t (No.)
No! they were made of sterner stuff. As the greut captain
of the age scii, tip, boys, end at them." Never raga,
never cease to demand the justice to which they were fully
entitled—either • ratorati n of the protection so unjustly
taken from them, or a reduction of taxation to enable them
to compete with the untaxed of other lands. (Lund chars.)
He moved— . . .

-----
That the tax an malt, at the present prices, is particularly unjust
towards the ageiculturist, aa it taxes one or the priumpal articles o
his produation at the enormous rats of 60 or to per cent. thereby
mat materially iemening its consumption and demand, and &venat-
ion its use is Wilds( cattle.
Mr. BALL said—ls it not monstrous that he could not
nee that rodeos is his own family without paying a tax
nearly equal to its origicial cost—could not 1114 it to recruit
the bodily strength of his labourers whose services were so
important ? It seemed extraordinary that, when such emi-
nent a2riculturists said there was a saccharine support in
barley, that they could not use it to feed cattle, while the
foreigner could grow barley, malt it, feed his cattle, and
then bring them into our market. Then, with the high
duty, the master would take nothing but the
finest and best-coloured barleys, while the farmer could
net use the produce so rejected for his cattle or for his house-
hold purpose The repeal would give a market for the in-
feri.ir qualities, and open all opportunities for its use. Then
the to was irregular, and all irregular taxes were unjust.
Malt was aot used in the eider countries, and a portion if
the country supported their labourers with a taxed, and part
with an untaxed article. (Cheers.) Was that justice ?
Milt had net advanced with the population, but leas was
made now than 100 years ago. Nothing could show the in-
justice and hepatic, of the tax more than that the people had
quadrupled and the melt had decreased. (Cheers.) When
untaxed, every large farm had a malting, ante the malt was
equivalent for money wages to the labourer, and it was used
is the sustenance of the laboarers' families, at half the oast
to the farmer now incurred. What should they Nair
of thaw who would not come out thoroughly with them.?
who said it was a bad tax, but it must not be abo-
lished for fear of iocenveniencing the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think
how the farmer was to meet his liabilities when he abolished
protection ? They were not Chancellors of Exchequer : did
they ever know a chancellor abate the taxation tall he was
obliged, and the reapplies were denied? They must have a
reduction in the expenditure, and mutt sat be so nice as to
the means by which they got it. (L read cheers.) They mast
not step for fmr of Incommoding the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer.
Mr SMITH advocated union for repeal of the malt tax—
petitions from every town and every village—the farmers
and labourers were all of one mind, and they would eventu-
ally bring out the landlords, and then the repeal was carried.
Let union and perseverancebe their motto, their cause was
righta:us, and must ultimately prevail.—The motion was
I seconded by several parties simultaneously.
A petition to parliament having been brought forward and
multitudinously signed, the meeting diapered.—Abridged
frogs Cosibrido CAratick.