The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-18 00:00:00

ad change had occurred for the last twenty-one years.—
(Izr, and laughter.) There were many reasons fit the
juility at the price of that article which did not exist in
etrades. When barley was very high the brewers had
tre:posed raising the price of small liquor, but the publicans
Zeeme to them and said they could not carry out the
67, and that the beer should sell at the same rate—the
th ra should balance a good year with a bad year ; but
ite price of beer could not be raised by the publicans, sell-
as they did by retail and in sin quanthies. He
.._40:1 ask the Hon. Member opposite ( Mr. Frewen) not to
,
riv"3-his motion, as it was nut likely a continued change
Ike that he proposed would be acceptable, when a much
refer
troublesome one was rejected. He would, then, briefly
t: to the case of articles on which reduction; in duty had
I,„e`n nude. On coffee the duty had been 16d., and the re-
',`Lne had then been a million; but when it had been re-
-I,`!eed to 4d. it had produced a revenue of 3,000,0001. In
:gar they had received a revenue of 5,000,0007., yet, although
;reduction of one-half in the amount of duty had been made
4,loBritish plantation sugar, the revenue had reached
000/., and he had no doubt would bring more.
a,, tin on the article of brandy, in 1846 the duty had been re-
v:44d from 225. to 15s. ; and yet for the two successive years
Ahad derived a larger revenue; and in 1849 the revenue
e.lsrendy had increased by 400,0001., but he admitted that
tee" owing to the cholera. He thought there were as many
rsene drank beer as drank tea and coffee and those other
a Irrages, and he could not but think the same rule would
fee
to it if the duty were reduced. They had reduced
fa_tltity on bread; and without giving any opinion upon the
rstion he might state that the consumption of corn of all
Lorts had increased by 10,000,000 of quarters. The Noble
jaci (Lord Naas) who had introduced the motion relative
bogie-made spirits, had said that he would improve the
;?rel condition of his countrymen by giving them more
Without
to consume, but having it of a better quality. Now,
out pretending to advocate that proposition, he would
at'
Y that if the facilities for increased consumption of malt
scene of good quality and of moderate strength, rather as
article of diet than of intoxication, were afforded the
arPie of this country, it would tend much to improve their
41041 and social position. He would then conclude by !now-
jogt,that one-half of the malt-tax should be repealed on the
of October, 1552, with a view to the relief of the pro-
leiter of barley and the consumer of beer, without a material
"88 to the revenue.—(Hear, hear.) •
„oilir. CAMPBELL, in opposing the motion, would endea-
ler, in the few remarks which he would submit to the
Q:use, to let fall nothing disrespectful either to the Hen.
atlernan who had brought forward the motion or to the
perage which had had the advantage of his advocacy.—
eZeae ie and laughter.) The Hon Gentleman did not reckon
ene brewers or multsters as friends of his; but however
en' interests might be concerned, their opposition would be-
:, teound for condemning a measure for which larger or
ere important public reasons could be urged. A very few
Reeks ago it had been settled by that House that the abro-
ultion of the malt-tax was not to be carried. Now, after all
at had been urged on that occasion on the subject of what
could be a great fiscal revolution, he did not see how it
that be proved to be a beneficial matter to do away with
tax. There was one argument in favour of the malt-
:" which he would state. It was this, that the farmer
Zuld have recourse to that manufacture ithout encroach-
'll,l ~such upon his other resources, the grain from which it
.as Made being one which would be least required in any
duty
emergency or necessity. It was said that a fixed
Sty of le. 6d. would fully indemnify the agriculturist for
m 7 -loss. It appeared to him that to reduce the malt-tax
by
But a half would be more desirable than to abrogate it.
he would ask, had they no other duties to consider the
Unction of? Were there not the tea duties to deal with?
,se confessed he would rather see a duty of 2s. on the im-
Zrtetion of corn than the abolition of the malt tax, however
setirnposition of that duty might be productive of agitation
confusion.—(Hear.)
FREWEN begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site Whether he would be disposed to vote for that for which
the majority of the agriculturists were anxious, namely,
total repeal of the malt tax ? He wished to know
Whether his present motion was to be looked upon merely
as an instalment of justice, and as one step towards total re-
."4l?—( Hear.)
Mr. BASS thought it would have been hardly necessary
?for him to answer that question, as he had already voted
more than once for the total repeal.—(Hear.)
1,.411r. FREWEN then said, that under the cirumstances
Would not press the amendment of which heck ad given
notice-- (Hear. )
ALe()Cli said the agricultural classes had reason to
be grateful to the Hon. Member for having brought forward
:net motion. There was so much justice in the proposition
that if it were not for the difficulty, as a matter of finance,
lie believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be
,tr.t ePPY if he could see his way to grant that which was asked
He would take the liberty of suggesting one thing,
iernich he thought might be as good for the agricultural in-
rests as the repeal of the malt-tax, and that was to
threaten to put on a duty of 101. a ton on Peruvianguano,
Wes,
would tend to make that article cheaper than it now
ils, owing to the monopoly of the Peruvian Government.
ete had no hesitation iu saying that it entirely depended on
Could pay a farthing on their 3,700,000/. of bonds.
Sir W. JOLLIFt E said that the farmers of England
'WoZuld, no doubt, be glad to obtain guano at 5/. a ton ; but he
Zevnid not understand how that result was to be obtained. He
erould, however, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
tnder our altered commercial system it would be impossible
jfiele longer to continue to raise our revenue in the mode in
eenich it had been hitherto raised. For his part, he should
re glad to see that tax entirely repealed. He believed that
Zrewing had become a monopoly through the agency of the
cold
; and he said that they could not go on blowing hot and
eeld with the same breath, raising a revenue of 5,000,0001.
tinder a system of protection, while they carried out their
"e-trade theories in articles of agricultural produce. In
C.olieltision, he should observe that he would only support
that motion as an instalment for the total repeal of that most
unjust and objectionable 'impost.
Mr. HEY WORTH said he quite concurred in the state-
bent of the Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, that
With free trade it would be impossible to maintain that tax,
because the direct object of free trade was to increase con-
'amption by diminishing the prices of co mmoditiee.
FRESHFIELD said he readily admitted that, at the
moment they had abolished protection and had adopted free
trade, they had condemned the malt-tax, and that it would
be impossible to carry out the two systems together. But he
Ras not prepared to vote, either immediately or gradually,
for a repeal of the malt-tax. It appeared to him they ought
not to lose sight of that very important consideration—how
the lose of the revenue derived from the' malt-tax could be
itiPlelied. In his opinion that was a matter of so much im-
portance, that it was the duty of any g entleman who pro-
Posed a repeal or a reduction of the tax to state how he
Would raise an amount of revenue equat to that which he
Would repeal. He should further observe that he did not
think the repeal of the malt-tax would afford any very
general relief to the agricultural interest., although he ad-
ratted that it would be productive of some partial benefit
to that interest. He should also say it was a matter of the
utmost importance to the agricultural interest, in consider-
ing that question, to know what tax they were to have as
% substitute for the malt-tax ; for it was quite possible that
the substitute might be worse than the tax itself.
Mr. SANDARS said he believed that the brewers were
the only parties who would derive any benefit from the
repeal of that tax. He should feel it his duty to oppose
the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
that motion resembled so much in spirit, if not in substance,
motion for a total repeal of the malt-tax, which the House
had not long since negatived by a majority of about two to
one, that he should not think it necessary then to repeat
the arguments he had used Upon that former occasion. But
the motion then before the House was liable to special ob-
jections. If that °motion was agreed to, and if half of the
tax were removed, it would still be necessary to maintain
the Excise restrictions, and the same expense would be in-
curred in collecting a sum of 2,500,0001., which was at pre-
sent incurred in collecting a sum of 5,000,0001. He knew
no tax' of the same amount which was raised so easily as
the present malt-tax ; and the House ought not to consent
to its repeal or its diminution without having seriously
considered what was the substitute which they would
adopt in place of it, for no one would be sanguine
enough to suppose that so large an amount of taxation
could be remitted. without having recourse to some other
expedient for replenishing the Exchequer. The Honour-
able Member for Buckiughamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had,
on the preceding night, announced his intention of taking
the sense of the House on the question, whether in the exist-
ing state of the finances of the country there should be any
remission whatever of taxation. And surely those Hon.
Gentlemen who had the other day voted for the repeal of
5,000,0001. of income-tax as the most valuable measure of
financial reform, could not at present be guilty of the incon-
sistency of voting for the repeal of another tax producing an
equal amount of revenue. By pursuing that course they
would not only render it necessary to maintain the income-
tax, but they would probably render it necessary to double it.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had
suggested that he should impose a duty to the amount of 101.
per ton on guano manure; but as that was at present the
whole cost of the article in this country, he confessed that he
could not think such a measure would be of the slightest ad-
vantage to the revenue, for it would amount to a prohibition
of the article, while it would be productive of considerablo
disadvantage to the farmer. He entirely agreed with the
Honourable Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sanders), that the
probability was that the repeal of the malt-tax would be
beneficial not so much to the consumer of beer or to the pro-
ducer of barley, as to the maltster and the brewer. He
would remind the Hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that
although the price of malt had of late years considerably de-
clined, the price of beer had not been in the slightest de-
gree reduced to the consumer. A most strenuous advocate
for a repeal of the malt-tax, Mr. Baker, of Writtle, having
been asked before the Committee of the House of Lords on
the burdens on land, what had been the effect of the reduc-
tion of the duties on malt and barley from 70s. to 505., which
had formerly been effected, had candidly confessed that the
8,000,000/. of duty which had been so removed had neither
led to an increase in the price of barley, nor to a reduction in
the price of beer.—( Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances
he confidently hoped that the House would not accede to the
motion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he hoped the Hon. Member for
Derby would not divide the House upon that occasion. e
He
had always voted for a total repeal of the malt-tax but
could not vote for a measure of partial repeal, which would
not in any way diminish the Excise restrictions created by
the tax, or the coast of its collection. He should also beg the
Hon. Member to recollect that those who might vote with
him had no prospect of a substitute for the amount of revenue
which. they would sacrifice. For his part, he should much
rather support the partial reduction of a custom duty, than o
an excise duty, because a reduction in the former case would
lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting the customs,
while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial re-
peal of an excise tax.
Mr. BROTeIERTON said he wished to remind the Hon.
Member fsr Darby that there was every reason to apprehend
that an increase in the consumption of beer in this country
would only lead to an increase of public immorality. He be-
lieved that half the crime committed in England and in Scot-
land was owing to the use of intoxicating drinks ; and he was
certain that there was more real nutriment in twopenny worth
of bread than a shilling's worth of beer.
Mr. H. DRUSIMOND said that the Hon. Member who
preceded him did not seem to know the difference between
whiskey and beer. Ha (Mr. Drummond) admitted that the
use of whiskey was productive of much evil, but he also be-
lieved' that' beer was nourishing and refreshing. The effect
of retaining the malt-tax was to drive the people out of their
own homes to the beer-houses, and in that way there was
produced an incalculable amount of public mischief.
Mr. HUME said, he was prepared to vote for a total re-
peal of the malt-tax; and he would tell the country gentle-
men how they could render the attainment of that object per-
fectly practicable. Let them instead of maintaining an army
of 100,000 men, have only 60,000 • and let them, instead of
maintaining a naval force of 40,000 men, have only 25,000.
They might then remove the malt-tax without any difficulty
whatever; and he firmly believed that to that we were com-
ing. He would, however, advise his Hon. Friend not to press
his motion to a division.
Colonel SIBTHORP said, he could not, like the Hon.
Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), live on cabbage
water.--(A laugh.) He believed that the adoption of that
motion would confer an essential benefit ell the agricultural
body.