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

ground 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. 011tain by the employment of other food. Even
about the year 1845 an hon. member introduced a bill for
the siurpose 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
was 'that the two which were fed upon the latter did not by
an3j• means thrive like the former pair. So much, then, for
the experiment of these gentlemen. But research showed to
tkim 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 of taxation
except upon conclusive grounds. Was this, then, 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 fattening
stock for cattle, and the result of their elaborate experiments
and analysis was, that, barley was superior to malt as a stock
for feeding cattle. The benefit which the proposal of
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 were agreed
to? The house had repeatedly declared that it
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 barleyfrom being steeped
where the excise officers suspected it might be converted
into malt for fraudulent purposes. But oven 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 the
revenue to fraudulent persons, they must carry the excise
regulations into every farmstead in the country, and even
then they could not prevent 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, abandon-
ment of between 00,0001. and 5,000,0001. 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 t,ax 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 duty on beer instead of malt, he admitted that much
of the difficulty would be 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 on these grounds he must ask the
house to unite with him in resisting the motion.
The house divided—
For the motion 69
Against it 73
Majority —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.

Mr. MILES proceeded to call the attention of the house
to the system of poor law medical relief at present exist-
ing in England and Wales, with a view to its revision, and
also to the large number of persons who annually became
chargeable to the poor rates from no medical relief being
afforded to them in their sickness unless they became
paupers. The imperfect manner in which medical relief
was administered was one of the few blots defacing an
otherwise admirable system. The number of medical offi-
cers was nearer 4,000 than 3,000, and the average number
of patients was 835,000. The only check upon the improper
treatment of patients was the production of the case-
books at the boards of guardians, but it was evident that
the guardians must be incompetent to decide upon ques-
tions of disease or the proper means to be employed for
its alleviation. The expenditure which took place under
the head of " Extra diet" was the cover for abuse,
and so also was the practice of allowing medical officers
to eke out a scanty provision by the supply of medicine.
To remedy these evils, he suggested the appointment
of a medical inspector, who should have power to send a
sub-inspector, also a professional man, to inquire into any
case of alleged improper treatment of paupers. It was de-
sirable also that in future the boards of guardians should
supply drugs, and then, in cases where it was necessary to
administer expensive medicine, the medical officer would
not bo exposed to the temptation of sparing his pocket
at the cost of his duty. Another object he wished to
accomplish was the extension of the system of medical re-
lief to the sick poor. A vast extent of pauperism was
caaused by neglected sickness, the average wages of working
men leaving them without the means of obtaining medical
assistance. The house, perhaps, was sot aware what was
the average amount of the wages of labouring men in this
country. Some able papers on the subject of the labour-
ing population were published by Mr. H. Mayhew, about a
year and a-half ago, and in them the writer estimated the
labouring population at 4,000,000, and the average wages
of a labourer at 10s. per week. Mr. Mayhew further esti-
mated that the whole of this sum was exhausted in pro-
curing clothes, food, firing, and rent. How was it possible
for a man thus circumstanced to provide medical relief for
himself or for his wife and children ? The Registrar-Gene-
ral called public attention last year to the great mortality
among children, particularly in large towns, which he attri-
buted in some degree to the neglect of their parents. This
was an erroneous conclusion. The poor man had as strong
an affection for his offspring as the rich man had for his ;
but his wages would not allow of his sending for a medical
man, and the consequence was that his children frequently
perished when the administration of two or three doses
of medicine would perhaps have checked the disease
which ultimately proved fatal. He might be told
that if his views were carried out they would annihilate
friendly societies and sick clubs ; but it was very well
known that when the children of a man who was a
member of a club fell sick he frequently found him-
self unable to pay his arrears, and was consequently ex-
pelled. A surgeon of eminence, who was examined before
the committee of 1844, calculated that at that time a
million and a-half of persons would, one way or other, re-
quire medical relief, taking each case at 2s. 6d. That, he
believed, was exaggerated, and he would therefore take
each case at ls. 6d., which would cause an expenditure of
261,0001., or only 53,000/. more than the moderate sum
now pai. Iu i 851 a Medical Relief Act was passed for
Ireland ; and all he now asked was that they should ex-
tend to the poor in England the same general system of
dispensing medical relief which prevailed in Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) He would now sit down, with the convic-
tion that during the coming recess his hon. friend would
turn his attention to the subject, and that they would have
the prospect next session of an amelioration of a law which
acted injuriously to the health of the poor, and which like-
wise prevented the due extension of the Poor Law in
England. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BAINES apologised for his absence during the
earlier part of his hon. friend's speech, and begged to as-
sure him that it only arose from a miscalculation as to the
time at which the discussion would come on. (Hear,
hear.) He agreed with his hon. friend that no subject
more important than the present could be brought under
the attention of the house.
An hon. MEMBER herelmoved that the house be counted,
and the gallery was cleared, when, there being mom than
40 members present,
Mr. BAINES resumed. Ho would make a few observa-
tions to show in what manner the medical relief of the
poor had been cared for by the board over which he had
the honour to preside, and he hoped to show that many of
the imputations which were thrown out against them
were altogether groundless,— that there never was a time
when the duty of providing medical relief for the poor was
so carefully attended to. The hon. gentleman had, first
of all, entered into an examination of the manner in which
the present Poor Law system worked, so far as medical
relief was concerned ; and, in the next place, he had in-
quired whether certain new principles, hitherto unknown
to the law of this country, should not be introduced.
These subjects were totally distinct, and to the former of
the two only he would, reply. He could assure the house
that any improvements in the system of medical relief that
could be shown to be really such would be adopted by the
board, and if he found that he had not the power of adopt-
ing any valuable suggestions that might be made, he would
not hesitate to make application to the Legislature. (Hear,
hear.) Before the Poor Law Act of 1834 there seemed to
be no regular system
of medical relief in this country. In
places there were parishes doctors, but they were usually
appointed under a system of jobbing and favouritism, and
no general plan was in existence. In 1834, however, a
different mode was introduced, and since that time the
amount of medical relief given to' the poor was, to use the
words of an unexceptionable witness before the committee
of 1844, "infinitely greater than before that time."
In 1838 a committee was appointed by that house to consi-
der the subject of relief to the poor, and that committee
finished their labours by making two specific suggestions,
both of which had been acted upon by his predecessors at
the Poor Law Board. These suggestions were—first, that
the system of tender, which up to that time had been com-
monly adopted for the towns in which medical relief would
be contracted for, should be abolished ; and, secondly,
that the medical districts should be abridged. (Hear,hear.)
The result of these recommendations of the committee
was, that a general order was issued by the then Poor
Law Commissioners abolishing the tender and abridg-
ing the districts. (Hear, hear.) Another committee of
that house, presided over by Lord , Ast,ey
ei sat in 1844. A
great deal of evidence was taken of a very conflicting cha-
P without coming to
racter, and the committee broke reed without
any resolution or making any recorem,
house, from which he inferred that
might' be entertained as to still existing defects, therienwons
no special grievance on which the committee could make",
recommendation. (Hear, hear.) But, no doubt, the legi-
timate result of that inquiry was to impress on the thin
Poor Law Commissioners, and on those who succeeded
thew, the neceeeity of koopiug their attention constantly