The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-23 00:00:00

grievances, and the great evils of the malt tax bore so
heavily upon the agricultural community that it called forth
public meetings in Sussex, and some other adjoining
counties. In Suffolk, a division of which he had the hon-
our to represent, it was resolved that the representatives
of that county should be called upon to take some steps to
call the attention of the Government to this subject.
The result of this motion was a deputation, headed
by himself, which waited on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and after stating a very strong case, they en-
treated him to give his immediate and earnest attention to
that very important subject. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the party to which he belongs became aware,
from the language in which he was addressed—moderate as
that language was—that there was a pressure from behind
and from without, through the greater part of this country,
to which they felt compelled, in some degree, to yield.
What was the consequence ? When a few weeks afterwards
he brought forward the first motion which had been made
in the House of Commons—he meant the first specific mo-
tion, intending to carry the object into effect as far as pos-
sible—for the committee of inquiry to look into the position
and operation of the malt tax, the Government gave way,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately informed him
that the question should be considered, with however a due
regard to the interests of the revenue. At the next session
Parliament,anticipating the motion would again be brought
forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself intro-
duced the bill to which allusion had been made by the noble
chairman, and which had been described by the noble lord
and another speaker as of no value at all. He had received
during the last week a communication from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who believed that it was doing some
effective good to the agricultural community. (Cries of
" None at all.") Such, he felt, was the opinion of the com-
munity at large. He mentioned this fact—be its effect good
or bad—in order to call their attention to another act of
concession on the part of the Government, wrung from them
by that indomitable perseverance of the people which their
chairman had so wisely recommended them to pursue.
When the budget was prepared the question of the malt
tax was placed in juxtaposition with the sugar duty, but the
duty on the latter, which was imposed dying the time of the
Russian war, was repealed. They had now come to a time
when all these arguments must be set aside, and when a
special question must and would come before the Legisla-
ture for a gradual and ultimate repeal of the tax. The evils
of that tax were really almost beyond exaggeration. It
was opposed to the very first great principle of that free
trade which had been the basis of the legislation of the
country for the last fifteen years.. (Hear, hear.) He did
not believe that there was any man who felt convinced
that the malt tax ought to be completely repealed. The
whole question was one of time and mode of operation.
The hon. member then compared the question of the malt
tax with that of the repeal of the corn laws, and stated
that when Sir R. Peel introduced that bill into the house
he said when the corn laws were repealed the malt tax
must follow. He also alluded to the advantage to be de-
rived by the labouring classes from the repeal of the tax,
and said it had been ascertained by a careful calculation
that they would be enabled to get good wholesome beer,
instead of the adulterated stuff, at about half the price.
In conclusion, he said the matter was a question of policy
affecting the whole community, and put it next as a ques-
tion of justice affecting the agricultural portion of the
community, and as a question of humanity to the great
bulk of the labouring classes. It was his intention upon
the very first night Parliament assembled to give notice of
motion on this subject, but what would be the precise
terms he could not say at present, but it would be as prac-
ticable as possible, and he hoped he would receive the best
support of members of both shades of politics, and that
they would obtain that justice to which they were entitled.
(Hear, hear.)

The resolution was put and carried unanimously.
Mr. OLDACIIES proposed—" That the excise duty upon
malt is unjust and oppressive ; that it operates most un-
fairly upon the community at large ; that it is an impost
which presses heavily upon the agriculturists, and greatly
increases the cost to all classes of society of one of the
chief necessaries of life."

Seconded by Mr. WRIGHT, and supported by Mr.
FnEwEN, who took credit for being the first to fight, and
that single-handed, against the hop duty in the House of
Commons.

Mr. BUSFIELD FERRAND, M.P., addressed the meeting,
denouncing free trade as a mockery, a delusion, and a snare,
and contending that, had the tax then under consideration
been one upon cotton or worsted goods, it would not so long
have remained unrepealed. Not one pledge that had been
made to the farmers on the repeal of the corn laws, and
among them the abolition of the malt tax, had been re-
deemed ; and, therefore, he should personally exert his pri-
vileges in Parliament to obtain justice, in that respect, for
the British farmer.

The resolution having been adopted,
Captain KNIGHT moved, " That the passing of the Malt
for Cattle Bill is a recognition of the claims of the agricul-
turist to some relaxation of the present law ; that this re-
laxation is rendered nugatory by the stringent requirements
of the act; that this meeting is of opinion that only so far
as the total repeal of the duties on malt is approached will
any real benefit be conferred upon the agriculturists or the
community at large by reducing the cost of fattening animals
and rendering cheaper and more wholesome the beverage so
essential to the comfort of all, especially the labouring
classes ; that in any remission of taxation the interests of
the agriculturist as affected by the malt tax have the first
claim for the. consideration of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer."

Seconded by Mr. SIMKIN, and supported by Mr. DEVON-
PORT BROMLEY, M.P. for North. Warwickshire.

Lord Jous MANNERS, M.P„ upon rising was received
with loud cheering. He said the injustice of this tax, as
it affected the land, was so universally admitted that he
believed that although the farmers, as a class, were not
the most powerful section of the political community, and
although those now in power might not be very favourably
disposed towards them, he was still of opinion that were
it not for the large amount at stake justice would before
now have been rendered them. If, instead of a question of
several millions a-year, it had only been a few thousands,
as in the
th case duty, the malt tax would have
shared
duty. It was not the cause of
efate of
of the
the hopop
the country gentlemen, but the cause of the powerful re-
prese:afatives of the more powerful and urban community
which opposed the taking off of these millions of taxation.
They considered the tail would have to be replaced in
some way more onerous to themselves. That was the rea-
son why they were burdened with the malt tax, and it was
no use members of committees being pledged to do this,
that, or the other so long as the great body of the urban
population were• individually convinced that the malt tax
benefitted them. It was to that point their practical labours
should be addressed, and when they had convinced the
urban population that their interests were really consulted
by the repeal of the malt duty, they would then find suffi-
cient support from the county members to make that tax
no liinger a burthen upon them. He would call their at-
tention, in brief to the debate which took place in the
House of Commons upon the subject of the Malt tax.
Last session they had a very reasonable and a very mode-
rate proposition made by a county member. The House
divided, and there were 176 votes against it, and 128 for it.
How did they suppose that majority and that minority to
be composed ? Of the 176 who voted against the repeal
of the malt tax, 139 were borough members, and only 37
representing English, Scotch, Irish, or Welsh counties ;
and of the minority of 128, only 44 represented boroughs,
and 82 represented county constituencies. It, therefore,
rested mainly with the representatives of the boroughs
to say whether or not this tax should be diminished
or ultimately repealed. He should not occupy any
of their time by enlarging upon the mischief and injustice
of the tax, as that was thoroughly understood, but he
would simply reply to the observations of several of the
previous speakers, who were desirous of knowing what
course of action their members intended to take upon this
very important question. He rejoiced at being able to take
part in that public consultation. He was looking at the
figures which he had laid before them in order to see what
really was the position of this question in the House of
Commons. The position he took it to be in was as follows:
—They had at the present time an income tax of 6d. in the
pound, a tax, be it remembered, continued from time to
time upon what many people regarded as false pretences ;
a tax which had been made use of for the purpose of re-
pealing many taxes which were far less onerous than the
malt tax, which had been mentioned that day ; but if they
let it be supposed that it was proposed to keep the income
tax for the repeal of the malt duty, they would at once raise
the opposition of that important body to which he had
alluded. With the exception of the duty upon fire and life
assurances, he did not know that there was any other tax
in existence which could be compared for an instant with
the malt tax ; and he believed that if the line pursued last
session by Mr. Morritt were strengthened and supported
and persevered in, they would arrive, at no very distant
period, at a successful issue upon this question. There
was only one point upon which ho should wish to say
another word. An allusion had been made to the position
of the working classes, to the actual tiller of the soil, as
affected by this tax. He believed that were the malt tax
repealed the actual cultivation of the soil would be set free
from that worst of all thraldoms, the thraldom of the beer-
shop and the publichm4e, and in this sense the repeal of
the malt tax meant the freedom of the tiller of the soil
from the thraldom of the public-house, and freedom from
the beer-shop meant increased money for the wife to
spend at home, which meant better education for his
children, which meant increased health and comfort to the
labouring man himself, and which meant an increase in the
morality, sobriety,and the happiness of every Englishman.
It was that public morals were affected in the repeal of the
malt tax to a degree and extent to which they were not
affected by any of those great remissions of taxation
which the increased revenue of the country permitted that
they sought for this reduction. If they wished to acquire
that end they must keep the matter prominently before the
public, and endeavour to persuade those who represented
cities and boroughs that the repeal of the malt tax was to
benefit the great communities which they represented. If
it were pressed strenuously upon public consideration the
enormous boon which cheap and wholesome beer, brewed
at home by the working man, must confer upon the rural
population of the country they would then have every reason
to hope they would get rid of this obnoxious tax. It had
been stated that however long this tax remained the griev-