The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-06 00:00:00

takes ihe, cia

publicly and to
question aff•stieg the apioulsesal laterals. As an adore-
oats of 20 years standing for the repeal of the melt tax, he
rejoiced to me so large sued influential a neettins. (The
great hall was about two-thirds fall.) They had formerly
failed for want of untie, bat sow he hoped the
farmers sad egricultazists of Reglad were untrue
mous in demanding from a reluctant parliament the repeal
of this obnoxious impost. (Cheers.) At a time like the
present, when all dames were suffering is one way or
another from the effects of the cattle disease it was their
deity to use every effort to remove the restr.ctions upon the
food of the people. This question of the malt tax wee not
only a social, but a moral one. The effect of the tax upon
the price of beer wee to euhanos the cost of this neces-
sary one third generally, and one half to the labourer. Thus
it drove the poor man to the publ c-house, where
instead of a pure beverage, be was supplied with an @dol.
terated article, which increased his thirst and excited his
mind, leading him to improper indulgence, debt, and often
ultimately to 'time ; whereas formerly every agricultural
labourer was furnished, as part of his wages, with a bushel
of malt, which he brewed himself, and from which he and
his family gathered health end strength. He quoted Mr.
Hasidism's opinion against the tax, observing that that
statesman estimated it at 60 to 70 per cent. on the value of
the barley, and the restriction upon trade which it ooea-
sioeet to at least 30 per cast. more. Sir J. Graham, Mr.
Cobden, and others, before the restrictions upon the corn
laws were done away with, met the farmers by the area-
-1 meet that so long as the corn laws remained uarspealed it
would be unjust to take up the malt tax, but that when
they untaxed bread they were bound to untax beer also.
Mr. Villiers and Lord John Russell also acknowledged
that as soon as the corn laws were repealed the
malt tax must follow. (Hest) That, too, was the opinion of
all the free traders of that day. Again, in 1831, Sir R. Peel
eared to give the repeal of the malt tax if the agricultu-
rists would accept the repeal of the oorn law,. Or coming
down to more recent times—in 1852, Mr. Disraeli, in his
budget, proposed that one half the malt-tax should be
taken off on the ground that every impediment should be
taken away front free consumption of malt, quoting as an
authority Sir H. Parnell, who declared that so soon as a
aufloient supply of barley was secured to the country, so
soon should the malt tex be reduced oesehalf. He advised
the farmers and agriculturists present to press the matter
epee their neighbours and friends, but more especially to
bring their influence to hear upon their representer Fires is
parliament, telling them that they required no exclusive
privileges, but ware determined to have that which in right
and justices the atricultural interest were warranted is
demanding.
Mr. PetresTr, of Seat, moved the first resolution as
follows :—" That this meeting is of opinion that the excite
duty upos malt confine:este inflict great and serious is jsstica
upon the growers of barley, which, after wheat, is the chief
product of our native soil ; that it is a grievous burden upon
the consumers of oar national home beverage, especially
the working classes, by whom beer is so largely used as a
portion of their diet—and is wholly at variance with the
tree trade policy of the country." The tax was wrong in
principle, had always been so, end they did sot mesa to
pat up with it any longer. This meeting was a combined
demeestratio• of a number of associations for the repeal of
the melt-tax, to dodoes that they would not submit to the
injustice which that impost inflicted upon all classes. It
WY intended t, go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on
Monday seat, and enforce their arguments is detaiL The
right hon. gentleman had asked that the deputation should
sot be so numerous as that of last year, when he could not
go into the question as fully as he had otherwise
rotended to do, therefore he had Finite.' the number to 50—
(hear, and laughter)— a number merely sulliciett for business.
He thought they had a much better chance is the new par-
liament than in the lest, as members would better remem-
ber the pledgee they had made at the hustings than they
did at the close of the hurt parliament. They should go to
the government and ask them to weigh the question as a
fiscal as well as a social question. Let them demand that
the axioms of free trade should be honestly applied to the
ease of the malt tax, and they (the agriculturists) need
not fear the result. (Hear, hear.) He could not believe
that all the principles of free trade had disappeared from
the minds of free-traders with the death of their great
leader, Richard Cobden. Then they should go to the repre-
sentatives of the landed interest and remind them of their
duty to those by whose votes they had been returned, and
also intimate to them that is the lost parliament they had
sot (with same noble exceptioes) shown that united front
and determination which was doe to the interest whose
cause they were returned to uphold and defend. He be-
lieved if they all held fast to the object they had in view,
they would succeed, rot perhaps this year or the next, but
succeed ultimately they must. (Cheers.)

Mr. C. S. READ, M.P., who was received with loud
cheers, seconded the motion, observing that twelve months
ego they held their first anti.tosit.tax meeting in Nor-
wich, when about 100 farmers, two or three landowoers,
and a few other perecns were present. On Saturday week
they held their second county meeting, when 1,500 people
ware present, and the four county members each moved
resolutions. On leaving that meeting he met a scaltoter,
who said to him, " If you carry this repeal I shall have to
veil my malt, for which I now get Be. a bushel, for 4s. &L"
In that little statement rested the whole question. The
legislation of late years bad been to benefit all classes but
the farmers. All other classes were growing richer and
richer, while the farming interest woe, if out growing
=sited poorer, at least remaining stationary. Yet the
were taxed at least as highly as the other clams.
Free trade had benefited all but the farmer. After charging
free trade with being the cause of introducing the cattle
plague, he proceeded, as a tenant-farmer, to show that
malt might be advantegeously used for feeding sattle,
and contended, on the part of the labourers, that hoer
should be as free from taxation as bread and cheese. Why,
he asked, should not the same principle of reduced
duty, conducing to increased consumption and increased
revenue, be applied to beer as well as to tea and other
articles of every day consumpttiioonn,, in reference to which
that principle had been so snooedwlly applied? For one, if
the tax were necessary, he would prefer that it was imposed
upon beer rather than upon melt. (Hear, and "No, no.")
If the malt tax was the first tax that Earl Russell repealed
be hoped it would be the last. (Cheers and laughter.)
He hoped they would at lent succeed in obtaining a redac-
tion of half the tax. ("No, no;" " All, all.") Well, all
of come if they could get it, but at all events half.

_ .
Sir F. Re:me, M.P.' who also spoke in support of the
resolution expressed his fear that they would have again
to press Mils question upon the attention of an adverse
majority in the House of Commons. Though not treat rag
it as • party question, he could not but remind them that
the only attempt made to relieve the agriculturists from
this tax during the last half century had come
free' Lord Derby. (Cheers.) He could not under-
stand how this tax could possibly be maintained
oonsiateutly with free-trade principles, which were
now generally admitted as the basis of the financial
and commercial policy of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was
upon those principles that they demanded the repents Upon
every other article which constituted the necessaries of life
the taxes had either been repealed or largely reduced—
(beer)—and how the retention of a tax could be justified
opoo an article which entered most largely into the con-
sumption of the lower portion of the middle and the whole
of the labouring classes he could not understand. The duties
on corn, tea, sugar, and even epee foreign wises (the
luxury of the rich), had been either repealed or largely
reduced, while the tax on malt and beer,which was necessary
to the great bulk of the people, had not only been main-
tained but actually increased. While the repreesatatives
of the agriculturists were supported by the feeling of their
constituents and the great body of the farmers and land-
owners they would do their beet to impress upon a reluctant
government the j ustice and necessity of the demand they were
then met to enforce. Hitherto they bad been met by no
arguments either on the part of their opponents in the
government or the legislature. Last year the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer opened his case on the malt tax after
his four hours' budget speech. when he knew that it was
impossible to answer him, and then, and then only, did be
stteept to give what be supposed be meant as • reasoo for
not taking off the malt tax. Free trade had no doubt
effected great good to the community at large, but that free
trade which was advocated by Mr. Huskieroe, and brought
into practical effect by the late Sir R. Peel, demanded the
repeal of the malt tax ; and this had been admitted by Sir
R. Peel himself, who said, " If you take away the duty on
corn, I cannot commies on what ptinciPle you can maintain
the duty on malt." And Lord Russell, on one occasion,
eaidt supposing the corn laws repailed, and he were Prime
Miaister, the first tax he would call on parliament to re-
peal was the malt tax. (Hear, hear.) Lord Russell was
now Prime Minister, and he called upon him and Mr.
Oladstone to redeem that pledge now that they had the
power. (Cheers.) He could only account for the tea
having remained so long by the fact that in
parliament there was a preponderating majority of
the representatives of the commercial and manu-
facturing interests, who, taking a wrong view of their
own real interests, prevented the principles of free trade,
which they advocated in other articles, being applied to
malt. He could not conceive how our government, while
impressing free-trade principles upon other oountriee, could
continue an impost so fundamentally opposed to them.
All they asked wag that the surpluses arising from the
applications of free trade should be fairly applied to the
relief of the agricultural and labouring populations. (Hear,
hear.) They bad to meet the opposition of the temperance
bodies at well as the government. He wished to souk
with all respect of those bodies who had laboured so hard
to improve the habits and morels of the people, but be did
not think, except in the matter of spirits perhaps, it was
the duty of the state to interfere for the purpose of
enforcing sobriety by means of taxation. (Hear, hear.)
But if they did not so interfere in the matter of
foreign wises, the luxury of the rich, how could they
do so in order to limit the supply to the
labouring classes of that which was really to
them • necessary of life I Upon what principle of justice
could they say to 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of people we will
make beer so dear that you shall n'.t get se much se is good
for you, because if we do not some few hundreds of ill con-
ducted people will abuse the advantage which they might
obtain from cheap beer by drinking to excess? (Hear, bear.)
He maintained that at least one-third of the price paid for
beer by the consumer arose from the malt tax, and that
third amounted to 20,000,0004 ; for he maintaieed that
the effect of tke malt duty direct end indirect was to im-