The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

Le malt tax, it trusted entirely to the chapter of acci-
Now he, for one, refused to be led into that line

lents,

of recklessness. He was satisfied that if in such a year
as the present—a year of unexampled and glorious pros-
perity beyond all imagination—the nation was not honest
enough to meet its obligations, it was not likely to meet
them in harder times. If they began by borrowing
money—for the proposition with regard to the Exchequer
loan amounted to this—they would set an example to
future Parliaments of reducing taxes like the malt tax,
although the people were never so well able to bear
them ; and that example future Parliaments would either
follow or they would not. If they followed it they would
in a very short time wreck and ruin the finances of the
country, shipwreck its credit, and reduce us to the level
of a third-rate power, contemptible in the eyes of the
world. If they did follow it, then they would hold them
up to scorn and disgrace as the most reckless and im-
provident stewards of th,t public money that ever dis-
honoured the name of a Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ARTHUR MILLS hardly thought it fair to
impute to those who advocated the repeal of the malt tax
woe awaited us when men spoke well of us.
a desire to enrich any particular class. We were told
olthe heavy
converse of that held good, certainly the Chancellor
fhfatthe Exchequer ought to be the happiest of men. (A
laugh.) His object in rising, however, was to state the .

strong feeling which his constituents entertained to some
of the propositions of the right honourable gentleman.
He (Mr Mills) had the misfortune, on this occasion, to
differ from many of those with whom he ordinarily
agreed. He thought it infelicitous that while the Govern-
ment should have proposed to extend the house tax and
the income tax to classes who had hitherto been exempted
from them—an extension in itself which he considered
wise and just—they should simultaneously have also pro-
posed to double the former tax, and that too for the sake
of remitting the malt tax—a burden with regard to which
very great diversity of opinion existed amongst the agri-
cultural interest itself. He thought the reduction of the
malt tax would cause a serious and uncalled-for sacrifice
to the revenue ; and certainly, when it could only be
accomplished by the reduplication of the house tax,
which must press very severely on certain classes, he
hoped that the Government would consent to reconsider
their proposals. It had been said that the proposed
alteration in the house tax would lead to an extensive
I disfranchisement, because voters would get houses at
91. 19s. 6d. rent, instead of 101., in order to evade the
tax. He could not believe that Englishmen would be
foind prepared, for such paltry consideration, to barter
their birthright, but if they should, what then became
of that ardent longing for political power among the
masses which it was so often said was the characteristic
of, our age. He believed that two of the classes who
were now to be asked for the first -time to contribute to
the house tax and the income tax—he meant persons
occupying houses at 101. rent, and persons having in-
comes of 1001. a year—could no longer be denied the
elective franchise; so that instead of being a disfranchis-
ing measure, he rather believed that th extension of
direct taxation to those classes would widen the consti-
tuency.

Mr. BASS—There was no monopoly in brewing—all
that was wanted was industry, and superior skill in the
application of large sums of money. Why, they might as
well say tbAt the right hon. gentleman opposite, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, had got a monopoly because he
had more brains than many of them. (Laughter.) The
rut hon. gentleman had most judiciously and wisely de-
f.erred commencing the reduction of the malt duty till the
10th of October, because, if he had reduced it at once, he
would not only have disturbed the whole calculations of
the present year, but have thrown the whole malting and
brewing trade into confusion. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe) evidently did not understand either malting or
brewing ; and when he talked of brewing fresh beer with
fresh malt, he could only say that the hon. gentleman was
much better acquainted with other matters than with that
part of his (Mr. Bass's) trade. (A laugh.) He would
inform him, before he made another speech on this subject,
that there was a malting season, which began about the
let of October. and ended about the let of May ; and
from the let of May to the Ist of October there was a
complete cessation in the process of malting. A brewer
must begin brewing with a stock of malt very nearly amount-
ing to one-third of his annual consumption ; and how
could he do that unless he was allowed to have a stock of
malt on hand ? He could assure the hon. member, there-
fine, that as to brewing fresh beer with fresh malt, it was
altogether out of the question and impossible. (A laugh.)
But turning to the general question of the removal of the
malt tax, he (Mr. Bass) had last year had the honour of
submitting this very proposition to remit half the tax to
the house, believing that it would be, as he still believed,
most advantageous to the country, that it would be of con-
siderable benefit to the producer of barley, of much advan-
tage to the consumer of beer ; and that it would entail
very little loss, ultimately, to the revenue. On that occa-
sion, however, his proposition did not receive the support
of more than thirty-one honourable members, and among
its friends he did not find the right honourable gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any of his present
colleagues. Let them look at the reason of the thing.
Were they to say, "We must remit every duty on
foreign articles ; but we shall obstinately retain every
tax upon our own produce ?" But it was said that the
malt tax involved five millions of our revenue ; and that
that was too large a sum to deal with in the way of re-
duction. (Hear.) Well, he admitted the force of that
argument ; and therefore it was that he had thought that
they should begin by degrees, taking off one-half at first,
which would by no means cause a loss of one-half to the
revenue, and then, if the prosperity of the country at some
future time enabled them to repeal the remaining half, it
would be for Parliament in its wisdom to take that step.
But the right hon. baronet, the former Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Sir C. Wood), the other night argued that to
remit the duty would be useless ; for it would not increase
the consumption of malt ; and he said that there had been
no corresponding increase in the consumption when the
beer duty was removed in the year 1830. Now, he (Mr.
Bass) thought the right hon. baronet was mistaken in this.
True there was no immediate increase after the year 1830,
because we had two bad harvests at that period; but in the
year 1836 the quantity had increased prodigiously, HA
lieved that, in round numbers, the consumption, v •
1830 was three millions and a half, had risen to t,
ably more than five millions. (Hear, hear.) He the
that ought to have satisfied the right hon. baronet.
then they were told that Mr. Barclay, the largest brewer
in the world, had stated, in his evidence before a commit-
tee of the House of Lords, that it would be useless to take
off the malt duty ; and it was also. said that Mr. Taylor
—who was Mr. Barclay's maltstor' by bye—had
stated pretty much the same thine v. the hon.
member for Halifax (Mr. Sandars)—himselAn' eminent
maltster—had, the other night, countenanced the idea that
the reduction of the duty would all go into the pockets of
the great brewers ; and still the hon. gentleman said he
would vote for this budget, although he had opposed his
(Mr. Bass's) proposal last year. (A laugh, and a cry of
" no.") But he would ask, what became of the charge of
rapacity against the brewers? It was said that this mea-
sure would distribute two millions and a half of money
among the brewers ; and yet, on the other hand, they were
all to a man against it. Surely the brewers—men who
had made large fortunes—ought to be allowed credit for
some sagacity—or cunning, as honourable gentlemen would
perhaps call it ; and if they were so rapacious as was al-
leged, how was it that they were opposed to a reduction
which it was said would swell their profits so enormously ?
But it was said they had not made reductions in the price
of beer when there had been considerable reductions in the
price of barley. That was perfectly true. For twenty
years, or nearly, since the last adjustment of the prices of
beer, the price of barley had been remarkably uniform ;
and he had once explained to the house before how it
was that, in an article divided so minutely, it was incon-
venient to have frequent alterations in price, and that
it became almost an agreement between the brewers and
publicans that there should not be sudden and frequent
changes (hear, hear, and laughter.) He hoped that they
would be good enough to hear him out. Since the
establishment of free trade, it was true that there had
been a steady and permanent reduction in the price of bar-
ley up to the present year. In the present year the brewers
were paying considerably more than the average prices of
the last thirty years ; but up to the present year there had
been a considerable and an important reduction, and no
corresponding reduction in the price of beer. Now he ex-
plained to the house last year, and he now repeated it, that
it was very difficult to make a reduction in the price of
beer, on account merely of the reduction in the price of bar-
ley. But if they added to the reduction in the price of bar-
ley the reduction of the duty on malt, he said emphatically
not only would the consumer of beer receive the benefit of
the reduction in the malt-tax, but he would get, in addition
thereto, that reduction which had taken place in the price
of barley, which the brewers and the rnaltsters owe to the
public at large(laughter.) He repeated that he believed when-
ever they made this reduction in the malt tax, that the brewers
would not only make commensurate reduction to the
public, but would also make a further handsome reduction
for the reduced price of barley. An honourable gentleman
below him asked, what would the reduction of half the duty
on malt amount to ? He (Mr. Bass) had no hesitation in
stating his computation, and he was sure there were many
who would not refuse to be guided by him. He thought
there ought to be a reduction of 4s. to 6s. a barrel, accord-
ing to the strength of the beer. Gentlemen would under-
stand that light beer would not be capable of as large a
reduction as strong beer—(a laugh)—it would be quite un-
reasonable to expect as large a reduction in pale ale.
(Great laughter.) Still he undertook to give that opinion,
that there ought to be a reduction of from 4s. to 6s. a bar-
rel on the price of beer, according to its strength. Remem-
ber the brewer had, or ought to have, a profit on the capi-
tal which he employed in his trade, and there would be not
only the reduction in the duty, but in the interest of the
capital which would be no longer required to conduct the
business on the same scale. Enabling tho trade to be
conducted with a smaller capital would invite more
competition, and this the brewers must expect. (Hear,
hear, hear.) He might be permitted to say a few words
with respect to the bugbear of foreign malt. Ho would
undertake to say, that if the British manufacturers only
had a fair chance—that was to say, if the foreigners re-
duced their duty, they would supply the foreign market
with malt instead of the foreigner supplying us. What
inducement could our brewers have to take the foreigners'
Malt ? Why, the principal brewers of this country would
not trust the maltsters to make malt for them—they must
make their own malt. He begged his honourable friend to
understand, that in order to be a successful brewer you
must understand the manatees trade too. It was not
every sort of malt that would produce a really valuable
quality of beer ; it was not the foreigner who could supply
an article that could he trusted to produce a desired quality
of beer. What inducement had British manufacturers to
go to the foreigner when they could make their malt
cheaper than he could, and as he (Mr. Bass) undertook to
say, make it better too ? With respect to keeping malt in
the winter, there were very few countries in which it
could be done, and none that he was acquainted with so
favourable to the production of malt as this country.
For that purpose a mild and moist climate was required ;
with a very severe degree of frost they could not make malt
and when that occurred in this country the process was in-
terrupted. Ho could not think that the countries on the
Baltic or on the banks of the Elbe could make an article
equal to that used by the English brewer, and never would
he believe, till he saw it, that a single barrel could be
brought into this country which would injure our manu-
facturers by foreign competition. As to the production of
foreign barley, he believed the difficulties arising on that
head were greatly overrated. Ho knew that at times very
large quantities of foreign barley might be introduced into
this country. As much as 1,600,000 quarters had been
imported in 1849, but of that quantity not one fourth
was malting barley, the rest being used for the pur-
pose of distillation or fattening cattle, as well as for
human food. He had ascertained on careful inquiry
that, going from one end of Purope to the other,
there was the great difficulty : procuring, on all
the large quantity produced, more than 200,000 quar-
ters of fine malting barley. What was that in compari-
son with the 5,000,000 quarters we used ? Evidently it
would have no effect in prices. In 1850 the quantity we
imported fell off to 1,100,000 or 1,200,000 quarters, in the
following year it fell to 800,000, and during the year ending
the 10th October last—for this information he was in-
debted to the kindness of the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade—it was under 600,000 or
thereabouts. The house would not fail to observe that
this decline in the importation of foreign barley—this
diminution of competition with our English barley-growers
had taken place, not with such a reduction of price as
might reasonably account for it, but with a very great and