The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-25 00:00:00

,~~,!

IN ENV S PAP E

....--r7,7p0--,-N
IMr. Newdegate, M.P., on the MaltiiitZfli:-72:1?;;;..-.F4.--
. - t.,,:-
~,
. ii4nlte .V\,,,... \t,,',,t;':
gli A county meeting, convened by the h ~O, - :....,19-5,/,,1"--4,
Mr. C. M. Caltlicott, of Holbrook Grang ,::'r . 4::` ,,,,ri.*
pliance with a numerously-signed nquisite&i, ,:.,: . • As!-4.
k'AilW
held at the Shire Hall, Warwick, on Saturday IM, a S
to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament
for the repeal of the malt tax. The chair was taken
by the high sheriff, and the spacious hall was filled
by the leading agriculturists of Warwickshire. The
meeting was addressed by the Hon. C. L. Butler, of •
Rugby ; Mr. S. Umbers, of Wappenbury ; Mr.
Councillor Baldwin, of Birmingham ; Mr. J. IL
Burberry, of Kenilworth ; Mr. King, of Park Ha .' i ;
Mr. Gustavus Smith, of Goldsborough; Mr. H. C.
Wise, of Woodcote; and Mr. T. Henley, of R.:d-
ford, who moved and seconded a series of resolu-
tions, all of which were unanimously adopted by
the meeting, to the effect that the malt tax is incon-
sistent with the principles of free trade; that far-
txn are pr::.ctical,y pr,cluded by the high duties
.tnd excise regu!atic.p, from msatir.g inferior bariey
for the purpcs:.,s of feeding stock; that the con-
sumers of bLer in Er.ghnd are plwed in unequal
competition with foreigners, on account of the
duties levied upon it; and that the tax was unjust
toward the labouring classes, by imposing a Leavy
duty upon a beverage necessary for their support
in the discharge of their arduous duties. A petition
to Parliament, embodying the above resolutions,
was also adopted, and that the members for War-
wickshire be requested to support it was also
unanimously adopted.
Mr. J. N. NEWDEGATE, M.P., then rose, and said

—As the only county member present,perhaps you
will allow me to say a few words in undertaking
a duty which is always a pleasure—the duty of
presenting a petition from this county to the
Hovse of Commons. I concur with you com-
pletely in this—that the imposition of the malt
tax, as an excise duty, upon one of the princi-
pal articles of agricultural produce, now stands
in a position that renders it indefensible, because
the other excessive duties which affected trade and
commerce have been removed, whilst the malt tax,
with all its restrictive prohibitions, preeses unfairly
upon the agricultural interests. I think you are
perfectly right in coming forward and representing
to Parliament that, since the excise duties upon
trade and commerce have been repealed, it is unfair
that agriculture should continue longer subject to
the restrictions which the malt tax imposes upon
it. (Cheers.) Mr. Brindsley, whose position in
Birmingham gives weight in the country to his
remarks, in order to justify the abolition of the tax
went so far as to say that the revenue ought to be
reduced £10,000,000, and if any deficiency was the
result it should be supplied by increasing the pro-
perty and income tax. You will not expect me to
enter into all those questions which might arise if
a redaction of £6,000,000 of income, or £10,000,000
of expenditure, were to take place ; but I may call
your attention to the fact that you pay a tax upon
Schedule B which is not assessed upon your profits,
but in proportion to the rent which you pay. I
remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
adverted to this in 1860, and said there is an appa-
rent increase in the property assessed under Schedule
B, of 19 per cent., whilst under Shedule A the in-
crease is only 11 per cent., and under Schedule A
9 per cent. Then it is obvious, if the tax under
Schedule B was increased you would have to pay,
no upon your profits, but upon your rents—upon
your outgoings, and not upon your incomings.
This might become a very serious matter. lam
aware the malt tax restrictions press heavily upon
you ; but it becomes a question of profit and loss if
its removal should be compensated for by the in-
crease of taxes under Schedule B. I should be
happy, however, to think that increased rent signi-
fied increased profits to farmers; but I am inclined
to think it is not always so. If you were to test
the incomes of farmers during the last four or five
years you would find in reality not an increase, but
a very considerable reduction. It would not, there
fore, be prudent of me to go into Parliament and
say " I come here to abolish six millions of revenue,"
and shut my eyes to the means which may be re-
sorted to to make up the loss, because it is quite
possible, inster.d of serving the agricultural inte-
rests, I might be the means of inducing the House
of Commons to substitute other taxes which you
might find equally
,onerous. I have been called a
very obstinate man in public life, and a very obsti.
nate man I have been in one particular—in bolding-
that the agricultural interest is the primary interest
of this country—(cheers) —and because I hare never
lost sight of that fact in my public conduct, I have
been called obstinate. (Cheers.) During the last
15 years many taxes have been removed which, in
my opinicn—and experience proves it to be correct
—were far less objectionable than the malt tax. In
1860 a millon of customs dutiee were cast aside that
were not affected by the French treaty, iu defer-
ence to a theory which is not reciprocated by
foreign nations. After showing that, from the
position of European affairs, a reduction of
£10,000,000 in the army and navy estimates would
be impolitic, the hon. gentleman alluded to the fact
of the manufacturing as wed as the agricultural
community supporting the repeal of the malt tax,
and pledged himself to do all that he consistently
could to secure A repeal of the malt tax, if it could
be accomplished without necessitating the substitu-
tion of any more objectionable impost.
Sir Charles More aunt, M.P., addressed a letter
to the chairman, regretting that he was unable,
owing to a prior engagement, to be present, and
stating—" I concur with the promoters of the meet-
ing in their object, and I think it should be a total
and not a partial repeal. I will gladly present the
memorial to the House of Commons ; and it is my
intention to support a bill, which will be introduced
this session by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, in favour of the
total repeal of the malt tax."
The proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to
he high sheriff for presiding.