The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-26 00:00:00

benefit that they would receive from the repeal now
asked for would very likely be in the same degree.
As for the farmer, if the landlord chose to raise his
rent, as he would be very likely to do in case of the
repeal of the malt tax, it would not be much gain
to him to have the privilege of doing what he likes
-with his own barley. Good unadulterated and
and cheap malt liquor would unquestionably be a
great gain. Many hard-working men and women
would be able to obtain fr3m it the nourish-
ment and stimulant which their exhansted
energies and over-taxed strength really require,
and, in spite of the Teetotallers, it would in reality
be a powerful counteractive to intemperance. Of
course, it would be certain that many would drink
too much of it as they do now of the wretched stuff
which they pay a high a price for, but the intoxicating
and stupifying powers of the pure malt would be
very much less than those of extraordinary com-
pounds which the publicans now pass off upon their
customers. A working man may easily find a very
little of such mixtures too much for his sobriety ;
while, if the liquor were really pure malt, it would
be as wholesome as it is now injurious. The farmer's
friends, or those who profess to be so, have for
some time been agitating for the repeal of this tax,
supported, of course, by the farmers, who naturally
believe their advocates, and by the landlords, whose
interest, as we have said, is in favour of the repeal.
Last year a powerful movement to obtain the re-
duction was set on foot, and some hope was enter-
tained by the agitators of carrying their point.
This year they have a more powerful argument in
their favour, which, strange to say, does not
seem to have been employed the other day
at Ipswich. The agriculturist interest has
undoubtedly suffered very heavily this year
through the visitation of the cattle plague, and the
public sympathies have been largely called forth in

their favour. All classes have been made to pay
pretty heavily for the infliction by the exorbitant
price of meat; but the farmer has certainly borne
the brunt, especially as the danger is unfortunately
increasing instead of diminishing. Generally
speaking, when any particular class is affected by
an exceptional disaster, the public expresses its
interest by sending contributions towards its relief.
Unluckily the butcher has received the benefit as
yet, and the brewer is likely to do so should the
malt tax be removed. At the same time, the experi-
ment might fairly be tried in a degree which would
not seriously disarrange the finances of the country,
and which would be more likely to relieve the farmer
than an extensive alteration, because it would allow
no ground for others to claim the benefit. If the
malt tax were reduced by one quarter, the farmer
might very possibly gain more than from a larger
reduction, and we might learn from the success or
failure of that experiment how far we might subse-
quently proceed with safety. Such a concession
may very well be made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and we hope that he will give the pro-
posal due consideration. A wholesale alteration
would be neither wise nor expedient, but such a
change as this would be both advisable and just.

LEE SUN, LONDON, TUESDA