The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-16 00:00:00

MALT DUTY BILL.

On the motion for the going into committee on this bill,
Mr. CAIRD said he quite approved of the bill, as it
would remove a grievance under which the growers of
barley had long laboured. He held that any impediment
to the cultivation of barley growing was most injurious to
British agriculture. The hon. member then went on to
prove that barley was the least exhausting of all the crops
at the disposal of the farmer, and that its more extended
cultivation must have a material effect in checking the
rise in the price of butcher's meat. The growers of malt
did not ask for any protection, or any system of encourage-
ment of any kind ; but they did ask that no exceptional
tax should be laid upon the article they produced. (Hear,
hear.) It was true that barley had risen in price more
than any other description of corn, but he contended that
it would rise still higher if it were not hampered by the
tax imposed upon it. In each succeeding year it was be-
coming more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient supply
of milk, but he might remark that beer had been found an
excellent substitute for milk. He was anxious to impress
upon the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer the great advantage that would result from the
removal of any impediments which the malt tax might
MUM to the cultivation of barley in this country, and he
hoped that whenever in future the right hon. gentleman
might have a surplus at his disposal, he would give this
tax his most attentive consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY expressed his satisfaction that a gen-
tleman so eminently qualified to deal with this question,
as the last speaker undoubtedly was, had turned his
attention to the effect which the malt tax had upon the
price of meat through the feeding of cattle. All who
had any practical experience of the subject were perfectly
satisfied that it was one bearing directly upon the in-
terests of the•entire community, and more especially of
the poor, many of whom at the present time only tasted
butcher's meat once or twice a week. He hoped the at-
tention of Parliament would be so drawn to the fact that
this was in reality a labourer's question rather than one
affecting the upper classes. Whenever the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would grant him a committee on this sub-
ject, he would pledge himself to show to demonstration,
that while the revenue derived from' the malt duties was
five Jr six millions, the sum paid by the consumers of beer
was one third of the entire price. Thus, assuming the price
of the beer drunk in the three kingdoms to amount to
£60,000,000, he would demonstrate that £20,000,000 per
annum was paid by the consumer for the £5,000,000 or
£6,000,000 of duty which passed into the exchequer. He
hoped that at the ensuing election hon. gentlemen who
stood forward as the protectors and advocates of the in-
terests of the labouring classes would candidly place this
subject before them, and explain to them that one-third of
the price paid for the only article of luxury they indulged
in was levied in the form of a tax which was inconsistent
with the principles of free trade, opposed to their own
interests, and totally destructive to the principles of taxa-
tion upon which the House of Commons had acted during
the last twenty years. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PUGH said that last year they had had a Malt-for-
Cattle Bill, and he had hoped that this yearn Malt-for-Man
Bill would be intoduced, or, in other words, a Malt-for-
Home Consumption Bill. ,In country districts it was still
a common practice for labourers to brew their own ale, and
they objected to the intervention of penal legislation. In
every age and country it had been held to be the inalien-
able birthright of the tiller of the soil to gather its fruits
free from the visits of the tax collector, and without even
the intervention of the tradesman. "Dapibus mensas
onerabat inemptis." (Laughter.) The poet was never
weary of painting the amiable picture :
" Quod si pudica mulier in partem juvet
Domurn aique dulces liberos
Sacrum et Netustis extruat lignis locum
Lassi sub adventum viri :
Et horna dulci vina promens delis
Dapes inemptas apparet."
(Loud Laughter.) He could not shut his eyes to the fact
that the malt tax pressed rather exceptionally upon the
agriculturist, and he had hoped it would have been re-
served to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove some
part of this auoiraily, for he believed it was the ambition
of the right lion. gentleman to be the finance Minister,
not of a party, but of the whole country, and his ardent
admirers would willingly have seen him reviving old sym-
pathies and old amities, and effecting a reconciliation with
his former friends, who once adored him with so much
devotion. That opportunity, however, had for the moment
been either omitted or foregone. The financial harvest
was passed, the financial summer was ended, and they, the
farmers, were not saved.
Invidisse Deos, patris ut redditus aris
Conjugium optatum, et pulchram Calydona videret !
(Loud laughter.) But he would not despair of him yet, for
ho hoped the day would come when the right hon. gentle-
man would do something which would send a thrill of
satisfaction and exultation through the honest and manly.
hearts of the agricultural constituencies of the empire.
(Hear, hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
speech of his hon. and learned friend bore the marks of the
most careful abstinence from the imputation of hostile
motives and the most liberal appreciation of any attempt
which had been made to mitigate the pressure of the _malt
tax. In the case of the Malt Feeding Bill the hon. and
learned gentleman attributed the limited operation of that
measure to the cumbrous restrictions of the Excise and the
disparaging report of an officer of the Government ; but he
apprehended that neither the maltsters nor any other class
were made of such materials as to be prevented from pur-
suing a profitable trade by a disparaging report. With
respect to the statement that the cumbrous restrictions of
the Excise had interfered with the operation of the bill, he
could assert that not one single person conversant with
the working of the bill had expressed any such opinion.
On the contrary, he had in his possession letters from cer-
tain gentlemen, testifying, from their practical experience,
that the restrictions of the Excise had not impeded the
operation of the bill. The hon. and learned member had
stated that the challenge he had thrown out had not been
accepted. He could not admit the truth cf that proposi-
tion ; but he might remind the hon. and learned gentle-
man of a challenge which he had made. The hon. and
learned gentleman had stated that the malt tax, which
only brought £6,000,000 to the revenue, cost the con-
sumers £20,000,000. With regard to the challenge, he
forgot that the Government offered him all the facilities
of proof he required by the renewal of the committee which
had sat upon the subject ; but,the non-renewal of that com-
mittee was owing to the circumstance that the hon. and
learned gentleman did not do what the committee recom-
mended—move for its re-appointment. He would now re-
mind the hon. and learned member of a challenge he had
thrown out. The hon. and learned member had stated that
the sum laid out by the people of this country on beer
amounted to £60,000,000. What a deplorably depressed
trade that must be in which Englishmen were forbidden to
invest more than 60 millions !—whilst, according to the
best estimate that could be formed, the outlay for all other
purposes, physical, material, political, moral, social, intel-
lectual, and spiritual, was 600 millions ; so that a full tithe
of the whole expenditure of the country found its way to
that oppressed article. The hon. and learned member said
the present Government was formed upon the principle of
supporting the malt tax ; and that he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had asserted that the repeal of the malt tax
would be the death warrant of indirect taxation. What h•
did say was that the repeal of the malt tax, without the
imposition of another tax on beer, would be the death war-
rant of- indirect taxation. It was as far as possible from
the truth that the Government were responsible for the
maintenance of the malt tax. Taxes wore imposed to meet
the expenses of the country, and those were the true oppo-
nents of taxation who endeavoured to promote the econo-
mical expenditure of the public money, and that wise legis-
lation which enlarged the public means. He need not dwell
upon the interesting speech of the hon. member (Mr. Pugh)
with all the refreshing recollections which it revived. of
those happy periods when their rural and domestic images
were more fa►ailiar to their minds than at present. The
hon. gentleman laid down the principle that beer should
not only be untaxed, but unbought. He must have meant
that the beer should be taken from the stores of the brewer
without payment, or that, by means of some agrarian
law, the land should be so distributed that every man
should be able to grow his own portion of barley. But
he did not think this pleasing vision of the hon. member
would be realised. The challenge which he gave to the
hon. and learned member was this, that if ho was so
anxious for the reduction of the malt tax, he might have
set about it in the present year. Why did he not set up his
plant. against the proposal of the Government for the reduc-
aino(ut
learned
therne
d income
member ta
hxaadnndotthde tneea
sduty t ?
wasß uvtaina S t toh hon.expect
that the people of England couldo believe in the. earnest-
ness of the advocates of the malt tax when did not pit it against the proposals of the Government.
Mr. PUGH wished to explain that he had not hinted at

SUN, LO

agrarian laws. All he wanted was that the farmer should
have unbought beer—unbought, because home-brewed.

Mr. BARROW wished to defend himself from the re-
proach thrown by the right hon. gentleman upon the advo-
cates of the malt tax. He for one did not wish for the re-
duction of the income tax and the tea duty in competition
with the malt duty.
Mr. BASS thought the right hon. gentleman went too
far in stating that the repeal of the malt duty would be the
death warrant of indirect taxation, because the reduction
of one-half that duty had only been asked for. He wished
to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the
mode in which the malt tax was levied, and to the fact that
in one instance, within the last six months, £3,500 was paid
to the revenue more than could be legally collected. All
that was intended to be obtained by law was the amount
of duty on dry barley when put into steep.
Mr. GRIFFITH was willing to give the Chandellor of
the Exchequer credit for all the financial measures he had
proposed in the present year ; but he hoped that on a future
occasion he would give effect to the mos timportant admis-
sion he had made, that it was possible to solve the question
of the repeal of the malt tax by substituting a tax on beer.
Mr. HENLEY protested against the taunt cast by the
right hon. gentleman upon those who supported the repeal
of the malt tax He considered the observations of the
right hon. gentleman uncalled for, and not calculated to
promote the amicable spirit in which the business of the
house ought to be conducted.
Mr. MALINS said he represented a borough in which
there was a great diversity of opinion with regard to the
malt duty. What occured to him was that, inasmuch as
no one expected the reduction of the tea duty, while a
large body in the country desired the repeal or the reduc-
tion of the malt duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would have exercised a sounder discretion if he had ap-
plied a portion of his surplus to the reduction of the malt
tax instead of the tea duty. He hoped, therefore, that next
session, if the right hon. gentleman retained his post and
had a surplus, he would give malt the primary claim, and
adopt the principle of the resolution of the hon. and
learned gentleman below (Sir F. Belly.)
The house then went into committee on the bill, and
clauses to 6 inclusive were agreed to.

On clause 7,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
as this was the material clause of the bill, he would state
what the practical operation of the bill would be. It was
well understood that the aim and intention of the measure
was, as far as possible, to apportion the weight of the malt
tax in every instance to the real malting value of the bar-
ley. There were many qualities of barley which gave it
value for malting purposes, which he feared the bill would
not touch ; such as colour, texture of the skin, friable qua-
lity of the farina, and other matters which went to deter-
mine the price. Those must remain as they were, but there
was one great quality which ran through all barley, which
was of immense importance to determine its value, other
things being equal—he meant weight. So far as weight
was concerned, what the bill aimed at, and what he hoped
it in a gloat degree would effect, was to place light barley
upon a fair and equitable footing, so far as the tax was con-
cerned with heavy barley. The important point in the
clause was making the pivot weight of barley 531bs. He
had ascertained from the best authorities what were really
to be considered aslight barleys, and what was the weight
that ought to be taken as marking the point of division
between those and heavy barleys for malting purposes.
The defect which he aimed at curing in the operation of
the present law was a defect incident to the fact that
the malt duty was charged by measure. The problem of
the maltster was therefore to get out of a given measure
of barley as much virtual power as he could. In order to
do that, he looked to the quality of the barley. The
better the' barley was, the more extract it gave for a
given bulk. The bulk of malted barleys did not differ in
any great degree, but the amount and value of the extract
differed very greatly, though it was subject to nearly the
same tax. He believed that to a certain limited extent the
better barley did give a greater bulk of malt than the light.
It was that quality in the value of this malting product of
barley that ho sought to deal with in the bill. If they
took two parcels of barley equal in all other respects, but
differing in weight, when these parcels were malted the
difference in bulk would be very small, but the difference
in value would be very great. The lighter barley would
give a malt of very much less value than the heavier bar-
ley. Consequently he wished to put the holder of the
lighter barley on a footing on which he should be less sub-
ject to the disadvantages of the operation of the present
law, and more on an equality with the holder of the best
malting barleys. The mode of effecting that object was
as follows :—He took the standard weight of barley at 531 b.,
and ho would show the operation of that standard or pivot
weight in relation to light barleys used for malting. He'
would take a light barley weighing 501 b. A quarter of that
malt he would suppose put into steep. The process would
then go on precisely in the same way as at present, the only
alteration being that the top of the cistern would have to
be covered in such a way that, though the process of steep-
ing could be watched, the barley could not be changed for
a heavier barley. It was gauged then as it is now, before
it quitted the cistern to be put upon the couch, and also
after it was put into the couch. That was the period when
it was supposed to have attained the maximum swell or
increase of bulk. Suppose in the present case that the in-
crease was from 8 bushels to 10 bushels. Then a process
was applied for the purpose of rectifying that increase,
which was said to be insufficient, of allowing 18k per cent.
That allowance, which was reckoned to two places of deci-
mals, would reduce the 10 bushels to 815 bushels. But in
practice the second place of decimals was struck off, so that
the bulk would be made 815 bushels. That was the
operation as the law now stood, and that parcel of
barley would be charged for the malt duty as 81 bushels.
By the operation of the present bill what would be done
was, that 81 bushels would be multiplied by the weight
per bushel of the barley, and divided by the standard weight
of 531bs. The operation in this case would be-84 multi-
plied by 50 and divided by 53 would be equal to 7.6 bushels.
The quotient would represent the amount on which the
malt duty would be charged. In this instance, instead of
being charged on 84 bushels, or a relief of 6 to 7 per cent.,
and varying in proportion as the weight of the barley
differed more or less from the standard weight.
Mr. BARROW thought that it would have been better if
the standard weight had been fixed at 541bs. instead Of
531bs.
Mr. BASS and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER both pointed out that this would have the effect of
leading to poor foreign barleys being malted and receiving
the main portion of the proposed benefit.

The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill passed
through committee.
SUGAR DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill
was for the purpose of giving effect to a treaty not yet
ratified, and which could not be presented in the usual form
by command of her Majesty. This was an attempt to esta-
blish a practical economy in the sugar duties of four Euro-
pean countries, which amongst them combined a large por-
tion of the trade of refining sugar, viz., France, England,
Belgium, and Holland. For a length of time it had been a
matter of complaint in each of these countries that the legis-
lation of the 'other countries was so regulated on the draw-
backs as to operate unfairly upon the refiners. Those in
this country particularly had complained of the large bounty
that was granted to Holland under the name of a drawback.
He believed that in this country the drawbacks were fair,
but complaints had been made that they included in them
an element of bounty. The French Government desired to
arrive at a practical and uniform system. Her Majesty's
Government.replied that it would be impossible to enter
into a treaty to remove from Parliament the power of
raising or lowering the duty on sugar. They were, how-
ever, content to agree that the relative duties on the article
should be so adjusted that all sugars going out of the
country should receive back neither more nor less than was
paid on them on their coming into the country. They
went into an examination of the subject with the French
Government, and the result was the treaty that was laid
on the table, the effect of which was that elaborate experi-
ments should be carried on in behalf of the four Powers in
common, and subject to the approval of every one of those
Powers. It was required that the tax on miledo, or cane
juice, which was neither sugar nor molasses, but partook
of the composition of both, should be altogether left out,
and that this article should be charged the same duty as
the lowest class of sugar. Therefore the question was
whether was it to the interest of trade to abolish the duty
on miledo or not. The Government had no doubt that,
under the circumstances, it was expedient to abolish the
duty. These, then, were the changes they proposed to
make. There was nothing to prevent Parliament taking
what steps it thought fit with regard to what was called
sugar refined in bond; and with regard to miledo, as it
had been represented that some hardship might be inflicted
on those who had quantities of that article in preparation.
for or on the way to this country, the Government had
applied for a relaxation on this part of the operation of the
treaty until September next. With these explanations the
right hon. gentleman proposed the clause.

Mr. C. EWING highly approved of the treaty, but was
sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his
way to avoid altering the duty on cane juice from 6s. 7d.
to Bs. 2d.

The clause was then agreed to, as was also the remain-
ing clause, and. the bill passed through committee.

COMPTROLLER OF THE EXCHEQUER AND
PUBLIC AUDIT BILL.

The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the measure provided for uniting the head of the Board
of Audit and the Comptrollership of the Exchequer in the
same person. The duties of the two offices were certainly
varied and important, but could well be discharged by one
individual, and the consolidation of the offices would effect
a saving to the public of the salary paid to Lord Monteagle,
the present controller. It was intended, however, that the
noble lord should retire upon a pension of £5OO a year, to
which the Government considered he was entitled, by rea-
son of his being a distinguished civil servant and his long
and valuable political services.
Lord R. MONTAGU objected to passing a measure for
the abolition of an important and ancient office at a moment
when they were at the last gasp of a moribund Parliament.
To the principle of the bill he was not opposed, but it
ought to be carefully considered, and more time and oppor-