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

LONDON

-
4et:tautee. Tl,e repeal had been advocated for the purpo7e
vibeit:eldte thi he
g, rat't ti-4e'ne of the
the h roseed but ho feared it
pensivecPm-gode'cf ;rlich'ing •hei
of Lut were the a;riculturists to accept the: peel
1,41! t" as an equivalent for the repeal of the corn-
r Would they take it as an ? He
that,
whether leee.e.rs of the party would twee to
.17a!ter they might rely on it Olt the result would be
ivaLeucposition of taxed which would press still more
ity on the landed rest
...Mr • WODEROUSE expressed his regret that the
`"411011 had been brought forward, and felt it his duty to
pragainst it. Thirty years ago he had voted in favour
n!"Peal of the duty, and if the state of the country
e the same now as then he should be tempted to take
the same
same course. But the point which governed him
intit that at the present moment there existed an ansee
]tin,
Prohibition aainst the importation of malt; and,
though foreign malt might not immediately come in
ho,,tettt suantities, yet the measure must inevitably
aade an Immediate effect on the finer qua:ities of barley,
w,,..,llffeet those counties adapted to its growth, and
Yaearersmsegd
that7'd extend to others. When the proposition was male
oy, he gave notice of an amendment, in
.hopes
might have been found in the adoption of
I:e7erearat:edudtuierYs: but the question of duties seemed to
taotPledgd• dr. Husisisson's policy was a system of
which afforded security to the g,rower,
immanent
injuriog. the consumer, and it was a subject of
shaillaneut regret that those views had been entirely
e:Waned. It was his firm coaviction that if a duty
tnc?.fBo moderate an amount as 3s, a quarter on who :4
totlnt• on the minor grains, were imposed, every rea-
Ofele person would be satisfied, and he did not know
of
ittg!l,l' Illattrial part of the community that would he in-
Gsu To take off these duties, however, must bring the
It;erument of the country to a state of financial weak-
' on this ground he justified the vote he was
shout to give.
Mr, pks,
sWEN
supported the motion. The tax which
proposed aste s oeu to remove was exorbitant, and operated as a
'itrY irons
inducement to adulteration, especially among
ti ..„ brewers, and the result was, that a great quell-
Ito of the beer sold was not the produce of malt and
thea. Nothing could make this more clear than the fact,
t
the quantity of malt made at the present time was
tioulere than the ouantity made seventy years ago. In
there were 30,805,100 bushels made, the duty being 4
bilhtu, a and the consumption being at the rate of four
%le
same
per head. The quantity bad remained very much
4,0115,,1ue down to the present time, although the popnla-
lpiesu,ad so enormously increased. In 1844, 30,508,840
to, "elB Were made, the malt-tax having been increased
lid. a bushel, and the consumption per head was 1
kid 1 61 gallons. The population in 1780 was 7,814,827,
Ids.ll 1845, 16,711,725.—(Hear.) Malt was an article
sstiti,n might be very advantageously used in fatteniug
and there was a great quantity of soil of inferior
knew of many thousands of acres in the
:rll division of Sussex of this description, which
he be profitably employed in the growth of barley
is h;s
opinion, were reasons quite sufficient to justify
vi;e,ti:otuatking every opportunity of urging, year after
1177 r. the removal of this most heavy and unjust tax.
ht the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to
tZlttoh!t
_another tax as a substitute for this, and he did
ebkitu'ule the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his
17' weuhl have any very great difficulty in doing so.
surf
should like to see the tax totally repealed, but the
and safest way would be to have a gradual reduc-
pa - the mode ho had suggested in a motion upon the
ix:3pr; If his plan were adopted, the tax would be re-
)k about five years and a half.
QV. . SANDARS considered the Hon. Gentleman
us: el•
Ca YleY) given no sfficient reason for the con-
loa to whichbad he wished u
the House to come. With
113PiTt to the argument that the removal of the tax
ht:ittta. etebintcrease the consumption of beer, it appeared to
a
Popular taste of late hail greatly changed—that
it and coffee were largely consumed, while intoxicating
in (Pars were less regarded. The Hon. Gentleman here
eat
rs , into some calculations to show the effect of the
t,peal of the tax with reference to foreign malt inspor-
Ile considered (we understood) that malt would
largely imported into the euuntry from the Baltic
P arts 7„.: tie Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Cayley) had
b tf„o:eu to the advantages which wonld result to the la-
G classes, but be did not agree in that statement.q
" beer might now be brewed for 2d. or 3d. per
6 et.art, which was charged by the retail dealer at
orBd. If the labouring classes did not
w their beer now, when it was so much to their ad-
Ontages why should it be assnmed they would make it
the repeal were carried? It bad also been said that
tt
Poorer classes would make their own malt, but this
rl6 quite absurd. He really believed if the tax were
;.e.l,ealed that very few persons, as at present, would be
,171 aced to brew their own beer. As to the assertion of
rh%°Poly, that, too, was a fallacy. He could assure
fi!' lien. Member that maltsters did not make large pro-
b". The large profits were made by the brewers, not
/the maltsters. It was said that the repeal of the tax
could be a relief to the agricultural interest. If he
he ad bring himself to believe such would be the effect,
would support the motion, but as his opinion was
dtiy rerent, and he felt that we could not spare 5,000,0001.
3qr.e revenue, he would vote against the proposition. The
Member for Derby proposed to repeal half the
trq c, but that would not do much good as it would not
dt) away with the present vexatious regulations. To
•114)w how vexatious the regulations were, he would
6 is.te there were in 1847 upwards of 300 prosecutions
, le alleged violations of the law. He felt bound, there-
' Ire, to oppose the motion.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND was not going to urge argu-
e lents that had been often before urged ; but he would
leave to say a few words on behalf of a class of in-
' tvidnals whose claims were often talked of but seldom
I Silly heeded. He must first express his surprise at
t le speech of the Honourable Member (Mr. Sanders),
1' rho talked about malt improving by a twelvemonth's
c
bunnement in the hold of a ship. This was only one of
singularities of that Honourable Gentleman's speech.
caving that Honourable Gentleman where he was, he
1° tuld ask the Right Honourable Gentlemen and Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, who began by an appeal to the
nsaes—tbe very ground he always took—to give a u
rea-
;" why they made such a clamour about cheap bread,
yet refused to stir a step about cheap beer.—(Hear,
."" are) The official return which he had referred to
ee
aved that the consumption of spirits had greatly
leell creased of late years. The average consumption
~le 1 gallon per head for England, 1 gai-
; i per head for Ireland, and 2 gallons per head
r annum for Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) This large
Ireue, he believed, was greatly owing to the tax
(lit• malt. The Honourable Gentleman asked where they
lii sold find a tax that pressed so little on the community.
ttt what was the definition of the community with rola-
-24 In to this tax. The community that paid this tax was
most exclusively the agricultural labourers.—(oh, no.)
°n• Members said no. How much beer did Hon.
Z.' embers oosite drink or pay for during the year? It
1: 8, 4 Curious circumstance that the consumption of malt
"‘ 1 not increased notwithstanding the large increase of
Pop ulatien, In making an appeal to the House for the
len loyal of a tax it was the fashion to place it on the
glO and of a, relief to the poor. His rule was, lay taxes
o
income or on houses, or any other property, but
take i them off the poor.
'I he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
af
Met
id he must apologise to the House, as the Hon.
-get nber for the North Riding had declared little new
e 2,4 1 be said on the subject, for repeating arguments
whit 11 he had used before on the same subject; but
he "uld do an as briefly as he could. The Hon.
Ideal her opposite (Mr. Drummond) appeared to him
to e atertain some odd notions about the amount
*back the agricultural labourers contributed to the
te!euue by their consumption of beer. If they were
lel MY the main consumers, then their condition could
Ha: rdly be so bad as had been insisted on by their advo-
C3.T es,—(gear. hear.) He was surprised to hear his
xL4)n. Friend speak of the inquisitorial and obj ectionable
nature of the tax. The greatest authorities who had
inquired into the subject, uniformly represented that if
a large amount of revenue was to be raised, there was
luirdly any tax by which it could be raised so cheaply,
anti respecting which the inconveniences were so small.
Tho tax produced nearly 5,200,0001., and in the report
whi th was made by Commissioners who were appointed
to
inquire some time ago into the subject, it was stated
that the tax occasioned little inconvenience, and that it
!via hardly possible to show a tax lees objectionable than
the malt-tax; it was less felt and less injurious
than any other tax ; in addition to which,
no other tax of the same magnitude was collected
at so small an expense,
• Mr. Barclay,
opheions of y, litten eminent r ebf re er w etre, 'atnh de
Mr. Joseph Taylor, of Bishops Stortford, some five years
ago, in con6rmation of the character of the tax. The
Rig'tit Rom Gentleman read the questions put to these two
gentlemen and their replies, which completely bore out
Wifaa the collected
his assertions. Now, if
—a
.1,1.5: amount of revenue was
produced by the tax it
teeertfeedreninceeroef
cheaply than any other tax—and
this Excise officers with the manufacturer, as had been
declared by the two practical men whose evidence he had
referred to, was not onerous and objectionable, then he
thought a strong case bad been made out in favour of
the tax. He entirely concurred in the view of the Hon.
Gentleman that the tax was paid by the consumer. He
Was quite ready to admit that the tax might interfere
with the demand for the article; for that was hi the na.
tare of all taxes to have such an effect; but he Would
,Sll3', if it were necessary to have 5,000,0001. of revenue,
" was impossible to obtain is by any tax less injurious
to the consumer and the producer. The Hon. Gentle..
man stated that the consumption of malt had not in-
creased in the same proportion as tea, coffee, and cocoa,
from which articles the duty had been partly removed;
that the increase in the consumption of beer be
no
Proportion to the increase in the consumption ofe those
other articles. This was to be attributed, not tro t
e
effect of the malt-tax, but to a change in our habits.
We drank less beer than our forefathers; and that
change might also be traced throughout the middle
and labouring Manes. The duty on tea was twice as
high as the duty on malt, in proportion to the price of
tne article, so
that if they were to reduce the duties
of the highest amount, it was clear that tea should
get a preference from them over malt. The con-
sumption of intoxicating liquors bad of late years been
decreasing, while the consumption of drinks which were
not of an intoxicating character bad been increasing,
and he looked upon that as a proof of a happy change
in the habits of the people. His Hon. Friend (Mr.
Cayley)
anticipated a great reduction in the price of
beer if the malt duty should be repealed. But he be-
lieved that the expectations of his Hon. Friend upon
that point were very much exaggerated. In the Cum-
. mitts° to which he had already referred Mr. Baker, of
Writtle, who was one of the principle advocates for that
change, had stated it as his belief that if the duty on malt
were repealed the reduction in the price of beer would
amount to 100 per cent Now he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) coefessed Fie wen at a loss to underetand
how such a reduction could tike place, because if the
price of any article were reduced by 100 per cent. there
would be no price whatever left to pay for

laugh.) That was an example of the sort of arguments 1
toey sometimes heard upon subjects of that description.
But he fund ',hat past expesience might teach them to
distrust the expectations which same persons enter-
tained of any c sntaterable ditnintnion in the price of
beer in consequence of a repeal of the midt-tax. About
25 years ago they had reduced the duties imposed on
strong beer in the shepe °final', duty toad beer titey by about
703., and they had reduced the duties on ordinary Leer
by about 505.; and as they had been told that those re-
ductions had not led to any considerable increase in the
price of barley, or to any considerable decrease in the
price of beer, he did not see how a reduction of about
215., which was the amount of the present malt duty,
could be reasonably expected to be productive of aey
great benefit, either to the grower of malt or to the con-
sumer of beer. Mr. Barclay, the grtat brewer, to whom
he had already referred, had stated in his evidence be-
fore that Committee that the utmost reduction in the
price of beer which would follow from a repeal of the
malt tax could not amount to more than a halfpenny a
quart; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) he-
ti eved that such a reduction would be too dearly pur-
chased by the loss of 5,000,000/. a year to the revenue.
His Hon. Friend had told them that the duty operated
as a great discouragement to the brewing of their Own
beer by private individuals. Bat he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) did not think it could well be said to
lead to any such result. He believed that in the south
of England private individuals did not diem it advisable
to brew their own beer; but in his part of the country
every farmer and labourer breivel his own beer. Ho
was inclined to think that a considerable stimulus
would be given to the illicit distillation of spirits if the
malt tax were repealed; and that vies a result
which it would be desirable, if possible, to
avoid. The great question they had to con-
sider was, how they could replace the 5,000,000/.
derived from the malt-tax, or how they could raise that
amount in ens less objectionable manner. The House
had decided the other night that the income-tax, which
produced about the same sum, should be renewed for a
year only, and any Government must be placed in a po-
sition of great financial difficulty when so large an
amount of taxation depended on an annual vote. If
Hon. Gentlemen meant to get rid of the income-tax as
soon as possible, how could they, as men of common
sense determine oa at once removing 5,000,0001. derived
from the malt-tax?—(Hear.) If they repealed the malt-
tax, where, he would ask, was the possibility of their
getting rid of the income-tax in any conceivable time?
It would surely be absurd to resolve to get rid of a tax
which brought in 5,000,000/. a year, and then to follow
up that vote by a resolution to get rid of another tax of
the same amount which would render the attainment of
the object of their first decision absolutely impossible.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to get rid of the
income-tax, and Hou. Gentlemen on his side of the House
were anxious to effect reductions in the great articles of
consumption; but neither object could be realiztel if they
were to get rid of the 5,000,000/ derived from the malt-
tax. He knew no tax of equal amount which was so
cheaply and easily collected ES the malt tax, cr which
was so evenly distributed over the whole population of
the country, and he should therefore feel it his duty to
vote against the motion.
Mn, DISRAELI said—l wish to express in a very few
words the reasons why I shall give the vote which I in-
tend to offer upon this subject. I admit that if this case
were one simply of fiscal remission it might be of easy
disposal. I admit the force of those circumstances to
which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer alluded in the latter part of his speech. I
admit that after the vote which the House came to on
Friday night on the income-tax, this question occupies a
very different position from that which it occupied
during the last session of Parliament; and I em per-
fectly willing to admit that any Gentleman who voted
for the repeal of the malt-tax last session, a!ter the vote
at which the House arrived the other night with respect
to the income-tax, is perfectly free to take a different
course upon the present occasion. But I cannot look
upon this question as a mere question of fiscal remis-
sion.—( Hear, hear.) Nor will I consider it with refe-
rence to the perhaps higher consideration of the interest
of the labourer. His interest has been brought most
clearly before the consideration of the House by my
Honourable Friend the Member for Surrey (Mr.
Drutnmond). We must sympathise with the
view which my Honourable Friend expressed upon
that subject with so much frankness in his speech. I
confess I was somewhat surprised at the expressions
used by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer upon that point. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man says, " What is a halfpenny in a qnart of beer?"—
(Hear, hear.) But when we hear of a halfpenny in a
quartern lea, we are told there will be a revolution.—
(Hear, bear.) It is not, however, my intention to touch
even upon that important topic. I must look at this
question under the same light, and ieflueuced by the
same feelingain a great degree to those which actuated
me in the vote which I gave upon this subject last year.
I look upon this tax with reference to its influence on
the capital of the most suffering class of the community.
—(Hear, hear.) Their position has been brought under
the notice of the House under circumstances which call
for our most serious consideration. The sufferings of
calculateestimate a theti
dthe occupiers of land are universally and authori-
tativelydeg ree acknowledged.efth oseff euerih g
sI; it is
d
It i s
ithudifficultclto t
to
ascertain the amount that has been lost by the farmers
of this country by recent changes in our legislation.—
(Hear, hear.) Night after night we have had various
estimates offered to us of the amount of those losses, and
without any exception those estimates have been offered
to us by gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite. The
very boast which they indulge in of the amount of gain
which has accrued to what they call the community by
the change in the laws which regulated the importation
of agricultural produce, is in fact an estimate of the loss
which accrued to the British occupiers of the soil.—
(Hear, hear.) We have had one estimate, which I must
always accept as the official statement of the amount of
that loss. Last session a distinguished Member of this
House (Mr. C. P. Villiers)—a gentleman who never
indulges in loose phraseology, and who is perfectly
master of this interesting subject—in moving the address,
told us, amidst the assenting cheers of the Treasury
bench, that the gain to what he called the community by
the change in those laws was in fact a transference of
capital from the occupiers of the soil to that community to
the amount of not less than 90,000,0001. per annum.
We hear much of the question of the laws which regulate
the importation of foreign produce being a landlord ques-
tion, being a question of rent; but, inasmuch as the
whole rent of the United Kingdom is only 60,000,0001.,
the farmers must. according to that estimate, have lost
at least 30,000,0001, even if no rent had bean exacted
from them. But admitting even what perhaps lam not
authorised to admit, a teauction of rent to the amount
of 20,000,0001., the loss to the farmers, and that loss is
an increasing ono, mint have amounted to at least
70,000,000!., according to that estimate which was the
foundation of the address which we offered to the
Throne. You have here, then, a class which, according
to your own statement, according to your own data,
have experienced a delapidarion of capital which has
never yet been equalled in the experience of any other
class in this country; and what is the remedy offered by
the Ministers of the Crown to that class? It is, to give
up the cultivation of wheat, while at the same time you
are maintaining laws under which you raise in one
branch of your revenue, namely, your inland taxation,
t No-thirds of italerge amount from another crop of the
British farmer—(Hear)—that crop being one which, in
consequence of the alteration in your laws, and in conse-
quence of the advice of your Ministers, ha would natu-
rally have recourse to in order to obtain some compen-
sation for the change in your legislation.—(Hear, hear.)
I never heard that question properly met. You can only
meet it by arguments which totally contradict all those
principles which you on other occasions profess. You
can only meet it by proving that restriction is a benefit.
You can only meet it by demonstrating that large im-
ports do nut check consumption.—(Hear, hear.) lam
willing to admit that thatis a rash principle which would
pull to pieces too rudely the financial system of this
country. I have never concealed my wish that this tax
should be maintained. I have never concealed my wish
that the whole system of our local taxation should, if
possible, be continued. But this I say—that it is im-
possible you can maintain your malt-tax--that it is im-
possible you can continue to raise from the people of this
country a large revenue separate from the general reve-
nue which you otherwise raise—that it is impossible you
can continue to do this if you establish a system of un-
equal taxation—(Hear, hear)—and if you do not do that
to the agriculturists which Mr. Ricardo sanctioned,
which Mr. M'Culloch recommended, which the firer
lights in political economy have invariably advocated,
both in their speeches and in their writings—if you do
not place the cultivators, the owners, and the occupiers
of the soil on the same level with the other classes of
the community.—(Cheers.) I heard the other night—
and I heard it, to my surprise, from the lips of a man
from whom I should never have expected to have heard
such a sentiment—that he recognised no difference
between a protective duty and the new-fashioned
term of what the Right Hon. Gentleman called a coun-
teracting duty. Now I entirely protest against such a
position. The question of protection has nothing to do
with an adjustment of taxation that shall place the cul-
tivator of the soil on the same level with the other arises
of the community.—(Hear, hear.) If you choose to
adopt a system of protection—that is, a system of bents•
fits or of disadvantages, in which the cultivator of the
soil shall take his share—we have nothing to do with
that; but if you choose to establish a system of taxation
It Which you raise from ono class a large amount to
Which the others do not contribute, you must by some
fiscal arrangement place this extraacontributing class on
the same level of tax t"ton—l use the words of Mr. Ri-
a
cardo-58 other classes. The elements of the counter-
by the very 3 mave been analysed, ascertained, and fixed
free trade—who who first advocated what you now call
of foreignfirstproduce
advocated that system of free im-
portsso great a discovery. which you now consider to be
us to en These were the men who first re-
commendedthe agricultural classespsate for the extra taxation of
now we are told that a by counteracting ditties; and
duty are identical. l counteracting
duty and a pro-
tectivet observe the position to
which you have driven us by u
aea course of injustice which
can never in the long run
tural class does not coma forwasruressful. The a ricul-
g
teracting duties.—(Hear, hear.) and They telt you for coon-
your reproaches that they are asking or legislative fa-
. will not incur
yours to which they are not entitled; the
the falsely-excited odium which you yourselveswilinot incur
created
by stating that they want to place a tax on the bread of
the people. But this they ask of you—" Place us on
a
level of taxation with the rest of the community—(gear,
hear)— and inasmuch as by this malt-tax, according to
the highest authorities, you have placed on us a burden
which the other classes do not uhare, inasmuch as by
your system of local taxation you raise mainly from the
soil a large revenue for the purposes of the community,
to which the 'trireme city noes cautribete. we ask you
in the new t.late 0: 4alkors to relieve us from their bur-
dens; but if you think it better that these burdens should
remainr if it is your opinion that it is for the advantage

of the community that that taxation of a particular class
should continue to subsist, if you consider that the ad-
vantagea of relf-goeertintent are so great, and that the
theiletes of raising this tax of 5,000,000/. ought not to
be lightly lost, then it is for you to come forward and
offer the terms on which you wish to retain those ad-
vantages. But never shall it be represented to us that
we come forward to ask for counteracting duties on
account of the disadvantages to which wo are subjected.
We now accept the principles of your new system, and
upon this we ask you, according to the dictates
of financial justice, to rid us of the grievances under
which we suffer." It is under the influence of these
views that I shall give the vote which I am about
to give for the motion of the Honourable Member fur
the North Riding of Yorkshire, who on this, as on
other occasions, has, with a zsal which all must admire
and a knowledge which all acknowledge, brought this
subject before the House. I think it impolitic that we
should terminate a mode of levying a large branch of our
revenue, such as the malt-tax. I think it most impolitic
and inexpedient that we should take refuge from the
burdens ot local taxation in thu new-fen ;led nod den-
genius system of what is called "national rat- s;" but I
cannot shut my eyes to the inevitable sonar quenees of
the fatal policy which you are pursuing.—(dear. hear.)
I cannot thut my:eyes to the fetal consequences of a sys-
tem which is exacting a larger amount of taxation from
the land of the United Kingdom, at the very moment
when, under your legislation, it is enduring great trials
and great losses,--(Bear, hear.) I know that every day
and every hour that conviction must become more and
moro pressed upon the minds of that great body of the
community who are immediately interested in the
cutsi-
venal of the soil; and that session after session you will
be more and more powerfully and sternly callel on to
adjuet your taxation to the principles of political justice.
—(deer, hear.) It is under these circumstances, that I
shall give the vote which I mean to give to-night in favour
of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. I shall give it as a
protest against the course which you are pursuing—is
course which I believe, in the first instance, to be unjust,
anti, in the next instance, to be injurious. But if the Go-
vernment would come forward and meet this question with
frankness; if they would tell us that it is of great ad-
vantage to the community that this extra taxation should
be exacted from the land, and that they did not shrink
from measures of equitable adjustment which would
place the cultivators ot the soil on the same level with
the rest of the community, then I should be glad to sup-
port measures which the Right lion. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of as so expe-
dient; and then I should feel that I could, with some
appearance of fairness, with some regard for the prin-
ciples of political justice, refuse that appeal which prac-
tically is made by the lion. Member for the North
Riding of Yorkshire, that we should place the land of
England on the same level of taxation as the other great
interests in this country.—(Hear.)
Mr. FULLER said that be took up this question as
affecting the labouring population; and he looked on it
as the most injurious, most obnoxious, and one of the
most tyrannical taxes that had ever been levied on the
country. It pressed heavily on the labourers, as, if
bread were their staple food, beer was their staple drink.
A labourer, aged 91, who was examined before the
Poor-law Committee some years ago, on being asked by
Mr. Harvey, " Do you remember the condition of the
labourer during your life?" replied, "Yes; when I
married I could have a bushel of malt for 2s. 6d., and
every person had a barrel of beer to drink in-
stead of water." Mr. Hodges, M.P. for Kent, asked
him, "Did the labouring man in former times use to
brew as a general thing?"—" Yes." " How long have
they left it off ? "—" Ever since malt got to such a prce
that they could not buy it." "Do you know any poor
man who brews his own beer? "—" Not one." "Do you
remember the rate of wages when malt was 2s. 6d. a
bushel? "—" Yes; ls. 4d. per day, or Bs. a week." The
witness was then asked if the labourers would do more
work if they had better beer and living? The answer
was, " To be sure ; they cannot do more than half a
day's work. Some of them dropped down when they
had a little hard work." He trusted that this year
they would have the vote of the Honourable Member
for the West Riding, when he reminded the Honourable
Gentleman of a speech of his at Manchester a year or
two ago, upon which occasion he said, " We sympathise
with the farmers; we we will never tolerate one shilling
for protection
in
by way of corn, but we will co-operate
with
tax. We owe gettingthe farmers irid of
stohmaet
tohbinngox,
aionuds
we will
tmryaltt-
o
repay them in kind,"—(Hear, hear.) He hoped also
that they should have the support of the late Sir R.Peel's
friends, and of all the Welsh Members who were fond of
good ale.—(A laugh.)
Mr. IlUtlE, amid general cries of "Divide,": said an
appeal had been made to the Free-traders by the Hon.
Member for West Surrey. Now he, as a Free-trader,
intended to vote for the entire repeal, in opposition to
any partial repeal, and he had made a proposition to
that effect so long ago as 1829. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that
the increase of the duty on malt had not affected the
consumption. That was a palpable error. In 1804
the tax was raised from 2s. 2d. to 4s. 4d., and notwith-
standing the increased population the consumption of
malt fell on the average of the next few years from
25,500,000 bushels to 23,000,000 bushels. He consi-
dered that the effect of increasing the duty on malt had
been to change the moral character of our population,
and to drive them from beer, which was a wholesome
beverage, to spirits. This country now consumed from
23,000,000 to 24,000,000 gallons of ardent spirits an-
nually. Was it not, then, for the House, when they
saw the amount of drunkenness, crime, and demoraliz t-
don that existed in the land, and considered that it was
produced by the fiscal regulations 't which they
maintained, to alter the present system? From what-
ever articles taxation must come, he asked them not to
take it from the beverage of the middle and lower
classes. The whole population of the country was in-
terested in this question, and he thought that the appeal
to the Free-traders which had been made by the Hon.
Member for West Surrey was a strong and powerful one,
for he could not understand Gentlemen taking trouble
to obtain cheap bread and cheap beef, and now turning
round and refusing to give them cheap drink.—(Hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had asked hew he could meet the deficiency
of 5,500,0001., which the repeal of this tax would occa-
sion. lie would tell the Right Hon. Gentleman. Re-
duce the expenditure, and go back to establishments
which in former years were found adequate for every
purpose. Look after the Crown revenues, levy an
eauitable property -tax, and impose a duty of one per
cent. upon the descent of landed property. If the Go-
vernment would direct their attention to these matters,
there would be no difficulty in the way of repealing the
malt-tax.
Mr. BASS decidedly disagreed with the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wakefield as to the effect of the repeal of the
malt-tax in bringing large quantities of foreign malt
into the market. When he saw the principal brewers
make their own malt because they could not trust others,
he never believed they would go abroad for the foreign
article. It was very difficult to make good malt, and in
cold countries where severe frost prevailed it was impos-
sible. With regard to the transport of barley, the
English brewers preferred English barley as the best.
but in consequence of the failure they had lately to im-
port. The importation of foreign malt had decreased
many years back, and had been less in 1850 than in the
years 1848 or 1849. In reply to the Hon. Member for
Wakefield's remarks on the proposition for a half-duty,
a notice of which he (Mr. Bass) had on the paper for
that night, he would only say that he know of no re-
striction now existing which would prevent the malt
from being manufactured as good as it could be. He
was informed that it would not be competent for him to
bring forward his motion that evening; but he would
say that on some future occasion he thought he could
bring forward reasons sufficient to induce the House to
agree to his proposition. -Neither he, nor, he believed,
the Hon. Member who had brought forward the present
motion, had any idea of interfering with the fiscal ar-
rangements of the year.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. BRO raER roN protested against the delusion
that this was a poor man's tax, or that there was any
sort of analogy between a duty on wheat and a duty on
barley. Bread was a necessary of life—beer nothing of
the sort. The malt-tax was an entirely self-imposed
tax, which the people could themselves repeal, and he
certainly should not vote for the repeal of a tax which
was so entirely in everybody's own hands.
Mr. HENLEY did not understand how it was that
with such views the Hon. Member had voted upon the
sugar duties, or upon the coffee duties, which were quite
as much sell-imposed taxes as that upon malt.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member for Montrose complained that the
landed property was exempt fromahe probate and legacy
duties. The reason why those duties had not been im-
posed upon landed property was simply because this sort
of property, passing not by will but by settlement, legacy
and probate duties upon it would have been a remark-
ably unproductive impost. The Hon. Gentleman might
therefore fully console himself with the stamp duties and
the tax upon leasehold property, and the land-tax, for
these got much more out of landed property than ever
legacy or probate duties would have extracted.
The Marquis of GRANBY said, the Hon. Member
for Montrose pointed to the army, the navy, and the
Ordnance, for the means of making up the deficiency
to be occasioned in the revenue by the repeal of the
malt-tax. The Hon. Member forgot the admission of
his own leader, that it was precisely the repeal of the
corn-law which made us dependent on foreigners for no
less than 10,000,000 quarters of wheat per annum; that
rendered it impossible for the Government to reduce the
expenditure to which the Hon. Gentleman referred.
Lord J. RUSSELL reminded the Hon. Member for
Montrose that, no very long time after the year 1826,
to which he had reterred, the question was brought
before the House whether the malt-tax should be reclaced
or the duty taken off beer, and the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Right Hon. Member for Cambridge,
preferred to take off the tax upon beer, which was ac-
cordingly taken off to the extent of 3,000,0001. per
annum. At the present moment he believed the fact to
be that the country was not paying more duty upon '
the raw material of beer than it paid seventy years ago.
Various gentlemen had proposed various ways of supply-
ing the deficiency to be occasioned by a repeal, of the
malt-tax. The Honourable Member for Middlesex sug-
gested, among other things, the imposition of legacy
and probate duties_ upon landed property; but the Hon.
Member for Oxfordshire. on the other hand, showed that
landed property already paid equivalent duties.
As the House was not at all ready to vote for the sub-
stitutes proposed, the real result of the motion would be,
that there would be a diminution of 5,000,000/. in the
revenue.--(Bear, hear.) The lion. Member for Mon-
trose said, " You should at once take 5,000,000/. off the
expenditure for the army and navy ;" and he stated, as a
reason for that course, that the present Government had
increased the expenditure for the army and navy by
000,000 L He (Lord J. Russell) entirely denied that
hoputation. He believed the estimates voted for the
army and navy in the present year were not so large as
in 1845. It was true there had been some increase in
the Ordnance estimates, but 'he did 'lot believe that,