The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-15 00:00:00

THE MALT TAX.

Yesterday a very influential deputation of members of
Parliament and gentlemen interested in the repeal or re-
duction of the malt tax waited upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to impress upon him the advisability of abolish-
ing, or, at any rate, reducing the tax upon malt.
Sir FITZROY KELLY opened the proceedings by reading
a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the
Central Anti-Malt Taxation Society. It stated that the
anomaly of a high duty on malt surviving the repeal of the
duties on corn and hops, and being almost the only remain-
ing tax upon a production of the British soil, must be ap-
parent to men of every political creed. Next to wheat,
barley is the most important production of our farms, and
yet it is loaded with a duty, when converted into malt, of
upwards of 50 per cent., being 21s. 81d. per quarter. At
present only the finest qualities of barley can be profitably
malted ; but under a reduction of duty the inferior qualities
would also be converted into malt, and the consequent re-
duction in the cost price would induce an enormously in-
creased consumption. Thus, a substantial reduction of duty
would not severely affect the revenue, whilst the farmer
would have a sub: titute equal, if not superior, to oil cake
and other condiments, besides being the produce of his own
soil and industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ad-
milted in 1862 that it would be a powerful argument for the
repeal of the duty if it could be shown that malt is well
adapted for feeding purposes. The heavy duty is a bar to
very extensive experiments, but enough has been done to
answer this question in the affirm,ltive. The malt duty in-
flicts great wrong and injustice upon the public generally.
Beer is a necessary of life to the working man, and he ought
to be able to drink it as free from taxation as the bread he
eats; abandon the high duty, and there will be an end to
adulterations which destroy health, and to the numerous
other evils which accompany high-priced beer, whilst the
general use of untaxed malt for feeding cattle would sensi-
bly lower the cost of producing the food of the people. The
close relation between a high duty and a diminished con-
sumption, and vice versa, is most clearly proved by the statis-
tics of production and consumption during the last 100 y ears.
In 1750 the consumption amounted to 5 bushels per head of
the population, the duty being 4s. per quarter; whereas in
1858, the duty being 21s. Fd., the consumption was only 1
bushel per head.
Sir F. KELLY then said—As there were some gentlemen
present who would venture to address a few words to him
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he would not detain him
but for a moment. He reminded the right hon. gentleman
that the malt duty was a war tax, and when it was imposed
it was under a pledge that it should be repealed when the
war ceased. That pledge had been violated and the tax
continued. It was a tax that fell heavily on the poor, for
it was a tax upon those necessaries which to those people
were at once a comfort and a luxury, The reduction of the
duty would, in his opinion, result in an increased consump-
tion, and if the reduction were extended to 10s. or 12s. the
revenue would not suffer by it. (Hear, hear.)
Col. BARTTELOT said this matter had been warmly taken
up in the country because the people felt they were aggrieved
by the imposition of the tax. If the malt duty were decreased
there would be an increase In the growth of barley. There
was a great deal of land that was not capable of growing
the best barley, but if the duty were decreased they would
be enabled to grow an Inferior quality of barley, which
would do very well for malting, and therefore the revenue
would not suffer by it. They felt that as wheat was at a
low price everything should be done to improve the condi-
tion of the agricultural community, and they called upon
him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to do it. (Hear.)
Mr. DODSON said there was no duty the reduction of
which would injure the revenue less than the malt duty.
It had been found by experience that, whenever the duty
had been increased, the consumption had been checked,
and when it had been decreased the consumption had been
stimulated. If the trade in barley were free, he had no hesi-
tation in saying that there would be an increased produc-
tion of that article.

Mr, BOOTH, from his ovn experience, assured the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer that there was a great difference
between raw and malted barley for feeding purposes. The
latter had been very exteesively used by his father and him-
self in fattening cattle for the various cattle shows, and
they found it was the beat feed they could use, but they
were restricted in the use of it on account of the high duty
upon it. B e could get good barley for £7 per ton and could
malt it for £1 per ton mere, and that would be better for
the cattle and so much cheaper that they need not then use
oilcake.

Mr. ARKELL said the farmers considered themselves in-
jured above other classes in the prevention of the consump-
tion of the article. They felt aggrieved in not being able to
malt the second quality of barley. if the duty were reduced
the consumption would be. increased, as was shown by the
fact that when the duty was 4s. the consumption was five
bushels per head, and now that the duty we s high the con-
sumption was only one bushel per head. There were some
who thought that the duty only affected the barley growers
but he contended that it affected all the agricudural in!
terests.

Mr. ALEXANDER said that he should like to turn some of
his premises into malting premises for his own stock, but
the high duty prevented it. So strongly did it operate
against him that he could not afford to give his men the
beer they ought to have.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that it
was the same price now that it had been 20 years ago.
Mr. ALEXANDER replied that that was true, but he com -
plained of it then and now. (Laughter.) It had been said
by some people that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
succeeded in giving the middle and upper classes the stomach
ache—(laughter)—but he hoped the right hon. gentleman
would give the poor man his beer,
Mr. PUNNETT said he now took up the same position that
he did when he attend el with a deputation on the hop
duties, but unfortunately the malt tax was in a much worse
position than those duties had been, They were in a
peculiar position, for supplies of the raw material had been
increased, while they had the same heavy penalties for
manufacturing it.
Mr. WILLIAMS also supported the memorial.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to ad-
dresses
occasion
innthey
wn
which
had been made to him, said that was not an
could discuss some of the questions
that had been alluded to there, but he would say a few
words on some of the remarks that had been addressed to
him. Mr. Punnett had expressed a hope that he would
deal as fairly with the malt tax as he had with the hop duty;
but he could tell them the reduction of that tax was not so
sure of a favourable consideration in the House of Commons
as it was in that room. In certain quarters of the house
where the malt duties did not bear so heavily as upon the
agriculturists, there were interests involved which pointed
tot other
on malt. to bes takenom ogentlemen
had spoken of reduc-
off before they thought of any re-
duction
and they were both legitimate
tion, and some of repeal,
objects to attain, but there were formidable obstacles in the
way which they must look in the face. If they went for
repeal it was a question of between five and six millions,
and if they went for reduction it involved nearly three
millions. Some people thought that indirect taxation should
be removed, and direct taxation substituted for it; but how-
ever that might be, there were none of them present but
would allow that it was an alteration that might not be
expedient or desirable. There were other articles to be
taken into consideration. They must now examine the
question of the number of beverages which they had at their
command, and consider that when the question was
brought before Parliament those who were interested in
the reduction of other taxes would oppose the relief they
sought, and ho must say that in a comparison with them
malt would not hold a favourable position. There were
tea, coffee, and sugar, on which reductions were being
sought, and they would be pressed upon the attention of
the House of Commons. He would not speak of spirts,
because he thought they ought to be taxed much higher.
These were questions which they would have to consider,
and to work up all the information they could to lay before
Parliament, as it would be on the flour of the House of
Commons that the battle-would have to be fought and won.
With regard to the malt duty, there was an increase in the
amount of it during the Russian war, and he was convinced
that it caused a decrease in the consumption, but he was
convinced that there would be no increased consumption in
it to any extent if they were to reduce the tax, say to one
half, until after the first year at least, and there would,
consequently, be u loss to the revenue of not less than two
millions of money. L would be a strong point for them
if they could show to Parliament that the malt duty pre-
cluded the free use of malt in the feeding of cattle, and
that if they were able to feed cattle with malt it would be
the means of enabling the English agriculturist to feed his
beasts cheaper and better than on the raw grain. That
would be one great point gained, and the next strong
point would be to put the malt tax in competition with
other duties.

Mr. DODSON adred Whether there would be any objection
to making malt duty bee for feeding cattle, the same as the
distillers were allowed to make it for distillation.
The CHANCELLOR c? the EXCHEQUER. said it was his de-
sire to facilitate such aplan, as it would very much relieve
the taxation, but he cotld not give an answer to the sugges•
tion without consulting their experienced officers. He would
however say that in tie case of the distillers making malt
duty free for the purp)ses of distillation it was all done
under the eye of the Excise, but that would not be the
case if the farmers were allowed to make it duty free. He
then recommended thtm to consider the points he had sug•.
gested, and to bring Clem prominently before the House of
Commons.

Sir F. KELLY,
in banking the right hon. gentleman for
his courtesy, also Ihruked him for the promise ho had given
them, slight as it was that the tax would ultimately be re-
duced or repealed.

The CHANCELLOR if the EXCHEQUER begged to say he
had not held out the slightest hope of anything of the sort.
After his experience 0 the promises that had been made
with regard to the ircorne tax he had carefully avoided
holding out any hopesof the kind.
Sir F. KELLY said, then he hoped to have the pleasure
of seeing the right hot. gentleman again, and to storm the
castle until it yielded Et discretion.
The deputation titer withdrew. (Laughter.)

Importing Tea clithout colour on the leaf pre-
vents the Chinese pas;ing off inferior leaves as in the usual
kinds. Horniman's rea is uncoloured, therefore, always
good alike. Sold in Jackets by 2,280 agents.