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

110
(lieZchango had occurred for the last twe :,r-ene
..r, and laughter.) There were many reasons far the
lability of the price of that article which did not exist in
'l:trades. When barley was very high the brewers had
°pcsed raising the price of small liquor, but the publicans
ccome to them and said they could not carry out the
and that the beer should sell at the .same rate—the
Jerters should balance a good year with a bad year ; but
i(nle price of beer could not be raised by the publicans, sell-
wg it as they did by retail and in small quantities. He
4°llld ask the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Frewen) not to
liZe ks,his motion, as it was not likely a continued change
tzar he proposed would be acceptable, when a much
4/8 troublesome one was rejected. He would, then, briefly
6:l' to the case of arti,ies on which reductions in duty had
d
p„„11 rude. On coffee the duty ha be 16d., and the re-
etiuxe had then been a million; but whenen it had been re-
eed to 4d. it had produced a revenue of 3,000,000/. In
4 ger they had received a revenue of 5,000,090/., yet, although
o„retluction of one-halt in the amount of duty had been made
4:lo...British plantation sugar, the revenue had reached
tiuo,ooo/., and he had no doubt would bring more.
(1441,0 a the article of brandy, in 1846 the duty had been re-
thred from 225. to era yet for the two successive years
04eY had derived a lerg revenue • and in 1819 the revenue
brandy had increased by 400,01101., but he admitted that
a 9 owing to the cholera. He thought there were as many
rte drank beer as drank tea and coffee and those other
er-aes a
,
„, ea nhe could tbt think the same rule would
'7,)143' to it the no u
duty were reduced. They had reduced
1 duty on bread; and without giving any opinion upon the
tertion he might state that the consumption of corn of all
lord
bad increased by 10,000,000 of quarters. The Noble
10 „I'd (Lord Naas) who had introduced the motion relative
"Ile-made spirits, had said that he would improve the
„;tal condition 'of his countrymen by giving them more
to consume, but having it of a better quality. Now,
ithout pretending to advocate that proposition, he would
,a
43' that it the facilities for increased consumption of malt
4(tiltter 'of good quality and of moderate strength, rather as
article of diet than of intoxication, were afforded the
ZuPle of this country, it would tend muchl to improve their
j4orel 'and social position. He would then conclude by mov-
logtithat one-half of the malt-tax should be repealed on the
di, aof October, 1852, with a view to the relief of the pro-
-IQtar of barley and the consumes of beer, without a material
lose to. the revenue.—( Hear, hear.)
CAMPBELL, in opposing the motion, would endea-
tf,,tlr, in the few remarks which he would submit to the
elee,-to let fall nothing disrespectful either to the Hon.
Gentleman who had brought forward the motion or to the
ierage which had had the advantage of his advocacy.—
.!`, and laughter.) The Hon Gentleman did not reckon
qetthe brewers or maltsters as friends of his ; but however
S interests might be concerned, their opposition would be
to grohnd for condemning a measure for which larger or
,;(Ire important public reasons could be urged. A very few4,.eeks ago it had been settled by that House that the abro-
eieo of the malt-tax was not to be carried. Now, after all
that had been urged on that occasion on the subject of what
towoula be a great fiscal revolution, he did not see how it
that be proved to be a beneficial ma ter to do away with
tai which he would rtate. It was this, that the farmer
1•!ald have recourse to that manufacture t. ithout encroach-
-48 ranch upon his other resources, the grain from which it
Ras Made being one which would be least required in any
case„ of emergency or necessity. It was said that a fixed
ci
„ItY of Is. 6d. would fully indemnify the agriculturist for
i73' loss. It appeared to him that to reduce the malt-tax
a half, would .be more desirable than to abrogate it.
ct he, would ask, had they no other duties to consider the
redactionat of? Were there not the tea duties to deal with?
4e confessed'he would rather see a duty of 2s. on the im-
Trtation Of corn than the abolition of the malt tax, however
▪ impbSition of that duty might be productive of agitation
▪ confusion.—(Hear.)
k• r. PREWEN begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
-lite whether he would be disposed to vote for that for which
,3
great majority of the agriculturists were anxious, ntimely,
114,r1 total repeal of the malt tax ? He wished to know
7Oether his present motion was to be looked upon raerely
al an instalment of justice, and as one step towards toaal re-
Peal ?--( Hear.)
, Mr. BASS thought it would have been hardly necessary
.4_o for him to answer that question, as he had already voted
more than once for the total repeal.—(Hear.)
Mr. FREWEN then said, that under the circumstances
he Would not press the amendment of which he had given
Zotfee._ (Hear. )
Ur. Ata.ooii. said the agricultural classes had reason to
`.? grateful to the Hon. Member for having brought forward
t motion. There was so much justice in the proposition
that if it were not for the difficulty, as a matter of finance,
he believed the Chancellor of the • Exchequer would be
4): him, if he could see his way to grant that which was. asked
' lie would take the liberty of suggesting one thing,
Which he thought might be as good for the agricultural in-
terestsin as the repeal of the malt-tax, and that was to
threaten
.to put on a duty of 10/. a ton on Peruvian ;piano,
Which would tend to make that article cheaper than it now
Vila owing to the monopoly of the Peruvian Government.
e had no'heaitation in saying that it entirely depended on
the farmers of England whether the Peruvian Government
could pay a farthing on their 3,700,0001. of bonds.
Sir W. JOLLIFrE said that the farmers of England
Would, no donbt, be glad to obtain guano at 5/. a ton ; Out he
Could not understand bow that result was to be obtained. He
_would, however, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
!Oder our altered commercial system it would be impossible
Stanch longer to continue to .raise our revenue in the m ode in
Which, it had been hitherto raised. For his part, he should
,ce glad to see that tax entirely repealed. He believed that
urewing_had become a monopoly through the agency ot!' the
tax ; and he said that they could not go on blowing hot and
cold with the same breath, raising a revenue of 5,000,000/.
!Ender a system of protection, while they carried , out their
free-trade theories in articles of agricultural produce. In
conclusion,' he should observe that he would only support
that motion ae, an instalment for the total repeal of that most
Unjust and objectionable
.impost.
Mr. HEY WORTH said he quite concurred in the :state-
'tent of the Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, that
With free trade it would be impossible to maintain tha t tax,
because . the direct object of free trade was to increase con-
Ihroaption b_y diminishing the prices of commodities.
Mr. PRESHFIELD said he readily admitted that, at the
moment they had abolished protection and had adopteil free
trade, they had condemned the malt-tax, and that it a tould
be impossible to carry out the two systems together. But he
Was 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 loss of the revenue derived from the malt-tax could be
supplied. In his opinion that was a matter of so much im-
portance, that it was the duty of any gentleman who pro-
Posed a repeal or a reduction of the tax to state how he
Would rare an amount of revenue equal 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 h e ad-
mitted '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 conitider-
jag that question, to know what tax they were to have as
a substitute for the malt-tax; for it was quite possible that
the sub, ititute might be worse than the tax itself.
Mr. SANDARS said he bel eyed that the brewers ware
the only parties who would derive any benefit from the
repeal of that tax. He should feel it his duty to oppose
the motiion.
The GHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
that mo tion resembled 80 much in spirit, if not in substance,
a modal: for a total repeal of the malt-tax, which the House
had not long since negatived by a majority of about two to
one, theft he should not think it necessary then to repeat
the arguments he had used upon that former occasion. .But
the motiion 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 ifs collecting, a sum of 2,500,000/., which was at pre-
sent inctarred in collecting a suns of 5,000,0001. He knew
no tax of the same amount which was raised so easily as
the present malatax ; 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 iin place of it, for no one would be sanguine
enough to suppose that so large an amount of taxation
could b e remitted without having recourse to some other
expedie at for replenishing the Exchequer. The Honour-
able M ember for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had,
on the lireceding night, announced his intention of taking
the seines of the House on the question, whether in the exist-
ing state, of the finances of the country there should be any
retnissio a whatever of taxation. And surely those Hon.
Gentleroien 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 at nount 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
suggesteiet that he should impose a duty to the amount of 101.
per ton fan guano manure; but as that was at present the
whole coat 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 a; stick, while it would be productive of considerablo
disadvat itage to the farmer. He entirely agreed with the
Honountkile Member for Wakefield. (Mr. Sanders), that the
probabilfitty was that the repeal of the malt-tax would be
beneficieflt not so much to the consumer of beer or to the pro-
ducer of: barley, as to the maltster and the brewer. He
would rt 'mind the Hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that
althougl 1 the price of malt had of late years considerably de-
clined, the price of beer had not been in the slightest de-
gee red.uced to the consumer. A most strenuous advocate
for a rei teal of the malt-tax, Mr. Baker, of Writtle, having
been aslted before the Committee of the House of Lords on
the burdens on land, what had been the effect of the reduc-
tion oft tie duties on malt and barley from 70s. to 505., which
had fort rterly-been effected, had candidly confessed that the
3,000,0 C kW. of duty which had been so removed had neither
led to at t 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. WEWDEGATE said he hoped the Hon. Member for
Derby would not divide the House upon that occasion. He
had always voted for a total repeal of the malt-tax ; but he
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 revenueh
which they would sacrifice. For his part, be should muc
rather support the partial reduction of a custom duty, th nof
an excise duty, because a reduction in the former case woulda
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.
BROTdERTON said he wished to remind thee Hon.
Member f r Derby that there was every reason to apprehnd
that; an increase in the consumption of beer in this country
wet mid only lead to an increase of public immorality. He be-
lied ed 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. DRUMMOND said that the Hon. Member who
preceded him did not seem to know the diffarence between
whiskey and beer. He (Mr. Drummond) admitted that the
nee of whiskey was productive of much evil, but be 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 preparei 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 40,0e0 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. lie 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. 'fold confer all euential benefit on the aKricultural
body.