The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-13 00:00:00

around that it was only so far as raising stock was con-
cerned that the duty was to be taken off. The question
then arose whether malt could be extensively used for
raising cattle with greater profit to the farmer than he
could obtain by the employment of other food. Even
about the year 1845 an hon. member introduced a bill for
the purpose of permitting farmers to use malt for the
purpose of feeding stock. In consequence of this inquiries
were instituted at Glasgow, under the superintendence of
Dr. Playfair and two other scientific men of eminence.
Two cows and two bullocks were operated upon under cir-
cumstances precisely similar, except that one pair were fed
with barley and the other with malt exclusively. The result
ASS that the two which were fed upon the latter did not by
any means thrive like the former pair. So much, then,for
the experiment of these gentlemen. But research showed to
him what experiment proved. They stated in their evi-
dence before the committee of the House of Lords, which
sat in 1846, that upon an examination of the constituent
elements of barley and malt respectively, it appeared that
a very considerable quantity of substances of a nutritious
character, which entered into the constitution of barley,
disappeared from it on its conversion into malt. The only
thing in which malt had the advantage was, that it was
easy of digestion. Now, if hon. members opposite were
about to make an entire revolution in the feeding of cattle
by substituting malt for barley, then that would be some
argument in the case for taking off these duties. But
when the fact was that malt entered into the food of cattle
.only in a very small quantity, then the argument fell to
the ground. The house could not repeal taxes upon mere
trifling objections. If that were done, then it would be
impossible to raise a revenue. Indeed, the house had
always refused to interfere with large branches
then of taxation
except upon conclusive grounds. Was this, , a small
and trifling objection ? If it were admitted that malt only
entered in a small degree into the food of cattle, then this
question must be upon its face answered affirmatively ; if,
however, this fact were denied, he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had only to refer hon. members to the report
of the committee of the Lords—a committee in every way
favourable to the farmer—to show that this denial was
without foundation. The right hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the report of the Scientific Commission of 1846,
at the head of which was Dr. Lyon Playfair, which inves-
tigated the question of the value of malt as a fattenin
ts
g
stock for cattle, and the result of their elaborate experimen
and analysis was, that barley was superior to malt as a stoc
of
k
for feeding cattle. The benefit which the proposal
the hon. gentleman would therefore confer on the farmers
was therefore minute and contracted. Now what would
be the mischief on the other hand if it werethat agree it
d
to ? The house had repeatedly declared
would not interfere with the great and leading branches
of public revenue, or permit them to be under-
mined. He did not believe that the object of the honour-
able gentleman was to interfere with the public
revenue, but his proposition, if carried, would have the
effect of undermining a vital and important branch of re-
venue. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman would probably as-
sent to a provision for preventing barley from being steeped
where the excise officers suspected it might he converted
into malt for fraudulent purposes. But even this would
require great vigilance on the part of the revenue officers,
for it would be necessary to have a general supervision on
the part of the excise. But far greater supervision would
be required if permission were given not only to steep
barley, but to make malt for the purpose of converting, it
into stock. In fact, unless they entirely abandoned
revenue to fraudulent persons, they must carry the excise
regulations into every farmstead in the country, and even
then they could not prev‘nt malt from being made for
fraudulent purposes. This might not be the object of the
hon. gentleman, but it would. be the infallible result of his
motion, and on the part of the revenue he could not con-
sent to the probable, nay. almost the certain, a-1)11,11(1°n-
ment of between 4:000,000/. and 5,000,000. He must,
therefore, resist a motion which at best would only give a
partial and minute relief to the farmer. (Hear, hear.) It
might be said, " Well, then, will you keep the tax on malt
for ever ?" He would only say that he did not think there
was much chance that any person who then heard him
would see the duty removed. If, indeed, they could levy
the dray on beer instead of malt, he admitted that much
of the difficulty would he removed, and that a great bene-
fit would be conferred on the agricultural interest. (Hear.)
But he did not understand that the hon. gentleman had
any plan of that kind. How could they levy the tax on
breweries for the manufacture of beer to be sold to the
public, without also taxing the beer which was made in
private houses. He believed it was the feeling of this
difficulty which led the Government of 1830 to abandon
the duty on beer and retain the duty on malt. He was
ready to admit that there were objections to the continu-
ance of the malt tax, and he should be extremely glad
if the honourable gentleman would show him the
way of getting rid of the tax, or even modifying it,
without entailing a large and serious loss upon the revenue.
He believed that the proposition of the hon. gentleman
would lead to fraud and demoralisation, and would entail
enormous loss on the revenue, without conferring any pro-
portionate good ; and ox these grounds he must ask the
house to unite with him in resisting the motion.

The house divided—
For the motion ti 9
Against it 73
hiajority —4
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers by the Ministerialists, the tactics of the Opposition
evidently being to press to a division, in anticipation of a
successful result, which the apparent strength of their
benches would seem to justify.
POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF.