The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMO.NS, May 8.
REPEAL OF THE MALT-TAX.
(Continued from our Fourth Edition of last night.)
Mr. CAYLEY resumed. He said none of the manu-
facturing interests of the country would be inter-
fered with by the repeal of the malt-tax. In conse-
quence of the credit reauired under the existing law
small maltsters could not find bondsmen; and, therefore.
the malting trade was iu practice a monopoly. It was
the same kith the brewing trade; the consequence of
which was en enormous increase in the cost of beer.
His (Mr. Cayley's) object was not to embarrass the Ex-
chequer, but to relieve the consumer; and he should
propose, if the House went into Committee on his mo-
tion, to repeal the malt-tax as soon as possible, the re-
peal to commence at two different periods—the first half,
for instance, in October, and the second in six months
after. That would not inteafere with the commercial
system ef the country, while it would get rid of a most
oppressive, inquisitorial, and unjust form of taxation.
It was impossible for the producer to compete in this
country unless his hands were free, end the system of
taxation altered, which would euattle the labourer to live
on the reduced wngee as well at least as he did before
their reductic:n. With such a huge taxetiou as existed,
the employment of the labour( r, et remunerative wages,
was impossible for the farmer.— (.:tsar, hear.) At the
present price of wheat it was utterly impossible for the
farmer to carry on.—(Hear.) That was the cause of the
enormous emigration now in progress, and which had
been alluded to by the Hon. Memoer for Derbyshire.
The worst was that this emigration took those who
had &erne means still left, and only the poor remained in
the country. He was satisfied that a stop would be put
in a short time to the present oppressive system of taxa-
tion which produced these lamentable results; it was
impossible it could go on. What effect bad the malt-
tax on the condition of the poor? It had the effect of
increasing the poor man's beer 500 per cent.—(Hear,
hear.) Hon. Gentlemen talked of the consumer, but
here was the 'reducer sacrificed to an abstraction. That
indeed was the tendency of all recent legislation, money
laws, commercial systems, taxation. fest. The pensioners,
tne annuitants, the drones in the hive, were helped sod
sustained at the cost of the best interests of the produc-
tive classes.—(Hear, hear.) Before the present tax
existed the poor man produced as well as consumed his
own beer; for many centuries the poor man's wife was
his brewer, and he had a good and cheap beverage; now
he was driven from the domestic hearth to the beer-shop
and the gin-palace in consequence of this tax. Much
sympathy was affected for the public morals, and the
Legislature was constantly busy in putting for that pur-
pose a check upon beer-shops and gin-palaces, hut if
they wished to improve the morals of the poor they
should go to the root of the evil and repeal the
malt-tax, which drove the poor from their homes to
these places. When the Committee on drunkenness sat
some 17 or 18 years since an Oxfordshire magistrate
deposed before it that in his opinion the repeal of the
malt-tax was the best preventive that could be adopted
for that vice; and last year no fewer than 92 clergymen
of Essex petitioned for its repeal on the ground of public
morality. Between the cost of the beer that could be
Crewed by the labourer if the tax '-yes repealed, and that
purchased by him at present, there was a difference of
500 per cent. With the bushel of malt at 4s. the la-
bourer might for 5a hare 36 gallons of beer.—(Hear,
hesr.) Had Hon, Gentlemen any idea of the amount of
the malt tax as upon land? An average acre of burley
land would produce about five quarters of barley. The
malt tax on that, however, was 51. 10s., while the land-
lord did not receive on the average more than 255., and
the farmer perhaps only 155., or, at present prices, it
might even be less. This, in addition to the malisters'
and brewers' profits, caused by the existing monopoly,
made the price of the produce of an acre of land, to the
consumer, equal to 501. 10s.; whereas, if the malt tax
were repealed, the same quantity could be obtained
for 10/. 14s.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But,
grievous as was the oppression on the poor consumer,
it was still more so on the producer. When the re-
duction of duty took place on tea and coffee, the con-
sumption increased from 300 to 800 per cent. Beer
was the nature! beverage of the country; and, notwith-
standing legislation against it, the taste for it still con-
tinued. If, therefore, the malt-tax was repealed, the
consumption would at once increase, at least to the same
extent as that of tea and ci ffee. The consumption of
malt at this moment was 3,000,000 of quarters. An in-
crease of 300 per cent. alone would create a demand for
10,000,000 of quarters of barley over and above what
was now consumed. The complaint of the agricultural
interest was that the importation of 10,000,000 of foreign
corn was the cause of their present distress; if malt
was set free, therefore, that complaint could no longer
tie made.—(Hear, hear.) It had been stated that the
Inational taste for beer was giving way to a taste for
tea and coffee; but this would imply a corresponding.
decrease in the consumption of all strong drinks, espe-
cially spirits. It, however, ho could show that the con-
sumption of spirits increased with the reduedon of the
duty, while tnat of beer diminished, he telt bound to
infer that it was the malt-tax which was driving beer
out of the market, and nothing else. In Scotland he
found, for example, that in 1792, when the tax was lid.
per bushel on malt, there were 5.000,000 of malt con-
sumed, while in 1821, when it was 3s. 6d. per
bushel, there were only 1,785,000 consumed. Since
that time there had been a reduction of the malt-tax—
within 1822 and 1826—and the consumption of malt rose
300 per cent. In England, unhappily, they had little
experience of the diminution of duty; but in Ireland si-
milar causes produced similar effects. In Ireland, in
1792, the malt-tax was 2s. 6d. the barrel, and 1,280,000
barrels of malt were consumed; in 1801, when it was in-
creased to 6s. 6d. per barrel, the consumption had fallen
co 272,000. But what was going on with regard to spi-
rits in the meanwhile? During the lest 45 years the
consumption had increased twofold in England, fivefold
in Scotland, and sixfold in Ireland; because in that pe-
riod the duty on British manufactured spirits was 7s.
10d. per gallon; on Scotch spirits, 3s. Bd. per gallon;
and on Irish spirits, 2s. Bd. What was the cause of the
low price of agricultural produce at the present moment
but the excess of produce beyond the demand? The
most efficient remedy, then, for them, if they did not re-
trace their steps, was to increase the demand; but then it
was said that this was a barley question, and that oat soils
and bean-growing soils would derive no benefit from it.
He said there was not an acre of land in the country
which would not be benefited as much as the barley lands.
The increase in the demand for barley would raise the
price of barley, then that would lead to an increase in the
number of acres; then that could not occur without in-
ducing an increase in the price of oats and beans. He
pledged his reputation that if the malt-tax were repealed
the benefit would not be confined to the barley lands.—
(Hear.) But then it was said that foreigners would send
malt here. Now, the reason they would not send malt
here, though they did send flour, was this, that a sack
of flour could be sent as cheap as a sack and a half of
wheat. That was the reason that the French sent here
not only the flour of their own country, but also the
flour of other countries, which was ground there. The
dryness of the climate enabled the French to make flour
better than it could be made i n thisthie
respectcountr the y; but then
malt required dampness, and in
malt had in the climate a great advantage. Besides,
malt was an old-established manufacture in this country,
and it was therefore one in which foreigners could not
well compete with the English. It was his belief, that
however great might be the demand for barley, there
would not be mere than 500,000 quarters of good barley
imported into this country. Let them look to what had
been the importation of foreign barley since the repeal
of the corn-laws. In 1847 there had been imported 772,000
quarters, when the price was 42e.; in 1848, 1,051,000
quarters; in 1849, 1,381,000 quarters, when the price was
275. 9d.; and in 1850, when there was a fall in the price to
235. 5d., there was a decline in the importations from
1,381,000 quarters in the previous year to 983,000 quar-
ters. This showed that there was no likelihood of im-
portations on the part of the foreigner interfering with
the home trade in barley.—(Clear.) It was said that
the persons the most distressed in this country were the
hop-grower, Well, if they increased the consumption
of barley threefold, they would increase the consump-
tion of hops threefold, and doing that he should like b
to
know what better relief could they give to b d
not og;
growers?—(Llear.) But the
n. increase of
the only class benefited. There would
be
employment fur 100,000 persons; and counting their
b,,
families with them, there would be an increase of benefit
for 500;000 persons. Such would be the necessary
dae,
—(Henn.) Such
effects of the adoptees of 1-mOP°,
uu increase of employmentSi MAU be re,ava.g
tural distress according to the most legitimate process;
it would be giving to the consumers in this country their

natural beverage 500 tier cent. cheaper than they could
no obtain it. Tee ietereste of the country would be
atlvaneed, end the meritlity of the people would be pro-
non' ci, by iho itueptien ot the prepoeittcn he then ven-
tured to sub it to theen—(Neer.) To that House ho
appeal, d for justice; but ii that House did not give it
then he wetted appeal from that House to those who by
bitter experience knew what was the extent of the in-
justice dene to them—to those be would appeal for re-
dress—to the people he said he would make his appeal
for the retiress ot that which was a gross and ming
.—(Cto ) He concluded with proposing the
motion ui which he had given notice.
Mr. ALCOCK hoped that this question would con-
tinue to be brought forward in the. House until some,-
t tang di finite was clone to remedy that wrung of which
the farmers had just reason to complain. tWas it net
attoniehing, he asked, that the farts:Ere found levied utellt
one single article grown by them as large an amount of _
taxation as was levied on the whole property of the
United Kinadont?—(Hear, hear.) The whole property
u: the country was 170,000,0001.; by the income-tax
there was raised on that 5,000,000/ or 5,500,0001. ; the
same sum that VBl3 paid on berley in this country.
(liner, hear.) And this rum, too, was raised;re
i
1,000,000 of acres out of the 17,000;000 acres that we
under cultivation. He complained of agricultural era.
bees opposing such a metion as this by their votes
and
speeches; and he complained, too, of some of them. et_
scouting hum the division. Ile complained am° of the
part taken on this subject by the Members for e
ehetter and the West Riding of Yorkshire; end he Was
much astonished at the course taken by the Irish t
repre-
sentatives. Where, he atked, were the Irish repreteryi
tivea that night?—(Hear, hear.) He did not expect that
'he 5,000,0001. malt-tax would be at once done away
f
with. He believed that every one would be eatntiedi
.ice
the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognized the iojast
that was done, and then as an earnest of his siecirttYr
reduced the tax 10 per cent. this y ear, and promised_e
t
next year to reduce it 20 per cent. But if the hones
would not do this, then he hoped that the people of zng
land would compel them to do it.—(Hear, bear.) ,of
Mr. PACKS; said that though he might be accused
irconsisteecy in the course ho should take on the mot,tenhti,
e
yet ho would not shrink from taking that course. 1.h%
question might he regarded under three heads. In
tiret place, as regarded revenue, he should have ne ;It
jection whatever, but would go to any extent in rep
utet
ieg taxation, if he could thereby compel the Governtatt
to give up their free-trade policy. Next, with regards;
to the consumer, he admitted the repeal of the reelt.lie,
would be a considerable advantage to the farmer' con
at n the
tidered as a consumer, ut the came into pe-e" hot
third consideration, the b
effect tn hat measure would
on the farmer as a producer, and he was convinced that
for every ss. he would gain as a consumer by the re,d;
of the malt-tax, he would as a producer lose Pen-st
for the importation of foreign malt which was ea
present prohibited would, he had no doubt, be at °tie
permitted, and the foreign producer be broughtlutet
competition with the home producer if the measure Of
the Hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Caylq) we'es
carried. In 1846 it had been stated confidently
there was no ground for apprehending a large imports;
don of foreign corn, but experience had since shown
them that French wheat and French flour bad bef
lergely imported. The same would be found to be tile
case with malt. Haviete, then, only a choice of e'v
be chose the less; and, however willing he was to ;lir:
port the motion of the Hon. Member fur Derby (
et
Bass), for a reduction of one-half of the duty, be ult;
oppose the motion of the Honourable Member °
Yorkshire.
Mr. AGLIONBY said, that, however desirable thge
repeal of the melt-tax was, it was impossible to brine
forward a neition for that purpose at such an unreason'
able time that even the advocates of the ineelethree
should oppose it on that ground ci no. Such was "
case at prevent; he had always voted in favour of the
repeal of the malt-tax, but under present circumstanced
when the Government bad repealed the window-tax en,
two other taxes, one of which was beneficial to tee
agricultural
.classes, and the other to the great Mats of
tee community—and when the House did not yet Itrio°g,
what would be the effect of the success of the e,-•Member's (Mr. Hume's) motion on the income-01-r
with such financial cLfffeuititia before them, he certainly
could not vote in favour of the motion of the li°'
Member for Yorkshire.
Mr. FLOYER could not concur in the reasoning of,
the Hon. Member for Cockermonth (Mr. AglioohY2:
For though he had voted in favour of the motion of Luvo
Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he should hely
preferred the success of the motion of the Right Iti(T*
Member for Stamford (Mr. Herrn s) for a gradual de
adnution of the income-tax. The House, however, ha!'
lag come to a decision adverse to that Motion, be mast
support the proposition for the repeal of the malt-telt
The maintenance of that tax was at direct variance
with one of the main principles by which the Govern' •
relent professed to guide their financial policy—namely'
the reduction of taxation of articles of prime necessary. ;le
was at loss to know on what principle the Governmentt
asked support for their financial policy, when they
maintained such a tax as the malt-tax, and be would
therefore venture to suggest that the principle they
should adopt should be reduction of taxation applied to
the verinus articles of consumption which formed the
main expenditure of the labouring classes. It made ne
difference to the working man, if he paid Is. in taxationt
whether that shilling was spread over a dozen articles,
or was concentrated in one article of consumption.
There were many occupations of the agricultural le-
bourer where he was exposed to damp and wet, such as
works of drainage and irrigation, where he would need
the eupport and wholesome stimulus of beer, the healtil
beverage to which he had been accustomed from hie
youth; and in the exhausting fatigues of summer and the
harvest, beer was equally necessary to recruit his
strength. He should then here that primary article of
necessity—bia beer—untaxed and cheap; and that could
only be effected by the repeal of the malt-tax. Again,
regarding the matter in a tnanufacturieg point of view,
the repeal of that tax would enable English brewers to
expert and open a new market for English malt drink
ou the Continent, where at present such wretched beer
was produced, and where the superior English article
would be sure to command a market. Unless some
measure of redress were adepted, the distress under
which the agriculturists were labouring would have'
the effect of dissipating their capital—an effect
which he had reason to fear bad already begun
to came into operation; and though it had been said
that it could be readily replaced by other capital, yet be
denied that they could look with any hope of permanent,
success fur the cultivation of the broad lands and exten-
sive fields of England to the application of the capital of
tradesmen, manufacturers, rand merchants to that par'
pose, however advantageous its a small way the infusion
of the capital of an amateur tradesmen, agriculturist,
or retired manufacturer, might be in their respective'
localities. Ho admitted that, on the face of the poorlacr
returns, there was an appearance of the distress com-
plained of by agriculturists having diminished. But the
returns of pauperism were not conclusive as to the state
of the agricultural population, for they only affected
those classes of persons who were so far sunk in the se-
cial scale as to become applicants for relief. There Vies'
another and a much larger class of labourers, who bad
yet so much of English courage remaining as to prevent
them from :4 pplying fur assistance from their paritheee
amid who nevertheless bed, during the past winter, her,ll,
sufft tit g very severe privatioes.e- (Hear, hear.) He dla
nut ueuy that labourers in full employ went and at their
former wages were deriving very considerable advantage
from the low prices of provisions.—(Cheers from the Mi-
nieterial benches.) He hid had some experience of the
condition of the poor in his own immediate neighbour..
hood, and he could state from his own knowledge that in
no previous winter had there been so large a proportion
of the labouring peer compelled to work short time. Ho
might be told, perhaps, that but for the low price of pro-
visions these men must have been driven into the work-
house; but only let Hon. Members consider seriously
what the effect would be of the partial employment of
the labouring poor; how the days heretofore spent in
healthy though constant occupation in the fields mighty
from want of employment, be passed in the beer-house,
to which the testimony of judges of assize and the expe-
rience of the magistracy taught them to look as the
rources of crime.—(Bear.)
Mr. SEYMOUR said he had made a point of visiting
the unions in his own district during the late recess, int
consequence of the statements which had been made,
that there never had been so little employment for th
labouring poor as euring the past year. Among these
was a union on the borders of Dorsetshire, and, on makin g
inquiry of the master of the workhouse, he was told Otte
there were scarcely inmates enough to keep the house ;in
order; the inmates, he said, had diminished from be-
tween 70 and 80 down to about 40, nearly every one of
owrheelmsewaaseither an old person, or incapable of work.
child, and the only case of an able-dodied man
in that workhouse mail that of a man with a wife and
three children, because he could not get a house in the
of
tartihshis
man,
in vthich he lived. He went to the employer
and was told that he was an excellent
workman, and that his employer would be happy to
take him again, if the owner of the parish (for it all
belonged to one man) would find him a house. He had
also wade inquiries in another union, in Somersetshire,
and there he admitted the number had slightly increased
but the rates had diminished in two years from 7,0001
to 5,400 L, and the master told him that there was not
one single man out of work who was of good character.
There were twenty-six parishes in the union and
twenty able-bodied men in the workhouse. How did
it happen that the labouring population were always
worse off when Protectionist gentlemen resided near?—
(Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. FLOYER explained. He had only stated that
he never knew so many
obtaining only casual employ-
ment and living upon partial wages.
Mr. P. BENNET said the able-bodied poor in the va-
rious unions of the western division of Suffolk in the
quarter ending March 25th, 1850, were 109, while in the
corresponding quarter of the present year they
amounted to 317. The question before the House was
(tee of justice to the agricultural interest; and he ap-
pealed to the free-trade party to carry out their own
principles by supporting the motion, and making the
beverage of the country as free as the consumption of
corn. The duty un malt was so high and pressed so
heavily on the producers of the crop from which it was
made, that the labouring classes were unable to obtain
that quantity of beer which was necessary for their
health. Their wages were reduced sill more than the
price of corn, and they were thus in a much worse
position tlaau ever.

Mr. TRELAWNY characterised the motion as a
dangerous appeal to the masses.—(oh, oh.) He main-
tained it to be so, inasmuch es it held oat a prospect
that an article in peat consumption amongst them
would be reduced in price to a grelt extent. This was
not a very consistent course for Cons( rvativ es to pursue.
or his own part he could not under,tani how the agri-
cultural elas,os coull be beneil:ed by a repeal of the
ulust ultimately be paid by the con-
sumer. At all events those who proposed to strike off so
large an item of taxation were bound to provide a sub-

y could
ould be
be pro-
m ven-

Ase be
give it
who by
the in-

for re-
uppeal
crying
ing the

Id con-
I some•
f which
s it nct
ed upc n
Dun t of

'isiting
usa,
made,
or th
thee 0
iak in g
d
rase
In be-
ono of

1 that
'ploy-

a() va-
n the
in the
they
e was
ap°
• own
g the
on of
ed so

was
,btain
their
a the
NOVIG