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

THE SUN,

it tute• Tt e brei bsen adveeaeai for the purpose
of meeting the case of the hop-growed, but ha feared it
,would,e be rather an expensive mode of accomplishing the
object,
r.)..f. But were the agriculturists to accept the repeal
of Ibis tax as an equivalent fur the repeal of the corn-
lsws ? Would they take it as an ultimatum ? He
doubted whether the leaders of the party would agree to
te that,_ for they might rely on it that the result would be
the imposition of taxes which would press still more
heavily on the landed interest.
Mr. WODELIOUSE expressed his regret that the
motion had been brought torward, and felt it his duty to
vote against it. Thirty years ago he had voted in favour
()t
a repeal of the duty, and if the state of the country
Were
the same now as then he should be tempted to take
the same course. But the point which governed him
t4,s, that at the present moment there existed an abso-
lute prohibition against the importation of malt; and,
although foreign malt might not immediately come in
n
great quantities, yet the measure must inevitably
have
an immediate effect on the finer qualities of barley,
and affect those counties adapted to its growth, and
would extend to others. When the proposition was made
tw
years ago, he gave notice of an amendment, in hopes
tlsa°t a remedy might have been found in the adoption of
a moderate duty; but the question of duties seemed to
be exploded. Mr. Huskisson's policy was a system of
moderate
duties, which aff rded security to the grower,
without injuring the consumer, and it was a subject of
Permanent regret that those views had been entirely
%bandoned. It was his firm conviction that if a duty
!ren of so moderate an amount as 3s. a quarter on wheat
and 2s. on the minor grains, were imposed, every rea-
sociiltible person would be satisfied, and he did not know
f
• any material part of the community that would be in-
J.Fed. To take off these duties, however, must bring the
tiovernment of the country to a state of financial weak-
acts, and on this ground he justified the vote he was
about to give.
Mr. FREWEN supported the motion. The tax which
it
proposed to remove was exorbitant, and operated as a
leery strong inducement to adulteration, especially among
country brewers, and the result was, that a great quan-
tity of the beer sold was not the produce of malt and
na• Nothing could make this more clear than the fact,
rat the quantity of malt made at the present time was
not more than the quantity made seventy years ago. In
1030 there were 30805,100 bushels made, the duty being
Is4ide and the consumption being at the rate of four
t,_linels er head. The quantity had remained very much
samep down to the present time, tuthough the popnla-
Fon had so enormously increased. In 1844, 30,508,840
bushels were made, the malt-tax having been increased
to
23. 10d. a bushel. and the consumption per head was 1
bushel
ett gallons. The population in 1780 was 7,814,827,
and in 1845, 16,711,725.—(Hear.) Malt was an article
which might be very advantageously used in fattening
eattiet and there was a great quantity of soil of inferior
quality—he knew of many thousands of acres in the
eastern division of Sussex of this description, which
}might be profitably employed in the growth of barley
in purpose of being converted into malt. These,
his opinion, were reasons quite sufficient to justify
a
L'lreain taking every opportunity of urging, year after
year, the removal of this most heavy and unjust tax.
e thought the Chancellor of the Excequr ought to
out another tax as a substitute for h
this,e and he did
not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his
ability, would have any very great difficulty in doing so.
e should like to see the tax totally repealed, but the
unrest and safest way would be to have a gradual redac-
tion in the mode be bad suggested in a motion upon the
Paper. If his plan were adopted. the tax would be re-
pealed in about five years and a half.
Mr. G. SANDARS considered the lion. Gentleman
elusion24yley) had given no sufficient reason for the con-
; to which he wished the House to come. With
would
to the argument that the removal of the tax
roilld increase the consumption of beer, it appeared to
him that popular taste of late had greatly changed—that
_
and coffee were largely consumed, while intoxicating
liquors were less regarded. The Hon. Gentleman here
Went into some calculations to show the effect of the
repeal of the tax with reference to foreign malt impor-
tation. He considered (we understood) that malt would
ue largely imported into the country from the Baltic
Ports. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Cayley) had
referred to the advantages which would result to the la-
bouring classes, but he did not agree in that statement.
Good beer might now be brewed for 2d. or 3d. per
quart, which was charged by the retail dealer at
6d• or Bd. If the labouring classes did not
brew their beer now, when it was so much ti' their ad-
Vantage, why should it be assumed they would make it
if the repeal were carried? It had also been said that
the poorer classes would make their own malt, but this
Was quite absurd. lie really believed if the tax were
repealed that very few persons, as at present, would be
induced to brew their own beer. As to the assertion of
monopoly, that, too, was a fallacy. He could assure
the Ron. Member that maltsters did not make large pro-
fits. The large profits were made by the brewers, not
by the maltsters. It was said that the repeal of the tax
would be a relief to the agricultural interest. If he
Could bring himself to believe such would be the effect,
he would support the motion, but as his opinion was
different, and he felt that we could not spare 5,000,0001.
of revenue, he would vote against the proposition. The
Bon. Member for Derby proposed to repeal half the
tax, but that would not do much good as it would not
do sway with the present vexatious regulations. To
show how vexatious the regulations were, he would
state there were in 1847 upwards of 300 prosecutions
for alleged violations of the law. He felt bound, there-
fore, to oppose the motion.
' Mr. H. DRUMMOND was not going to urge argu-
ments that had been often before urged ; but he would
beg leave to say a few words on behalf of a class of in-
dividuals whose claims were often talked of but seldom
really heeded. He must first express his surprise at
the speech of the Honourable Member (tir. Sanders),
who talked about malt improving by a twelvemonth's
confinement in the hold of a ship. This was only one of
the singularities of that Honourable Gentleman's speech.
Leaving that Honourable Gentleman where he was, be
Would ask the Right Honourable Gentlemen and Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, who began by an appeal to the
biasses—tile very ground he always took—to give a rea-
son why they made such a clamour about cheap bread,
and yet refused to stir a step about cheap beer.—(Hear,
hear.) The official return which he had referred to
Preyed that the consumption of spirits had greatly
increased of late years. The average consumption
was 1 gallon per head for England, 1 gal-
'on per head for Ireland, and 2 gallons per head
Per annum for Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) This large
increase, he believed, was greatly owing to the tax
en malt. The Honourable Gentleman asked where they
would find a tax that pressed so little on the community.
But what was the definition of the community with rela-
tion to this tax. The community that paid this tax was
almost exclusively the agricultural labourers.—(oll, no.)
Eon. Members said no. How much beer did Hon.
Members
opposite drink or pay for during the year? It
was a curious circumstance that the consumption of malt
had not increased notwithstanding the large increase of
Population. In making an appeal to the House for the
removal of a tax it was the fashion to place it on the
ground of a relief to the poor. His rule was, lay taxes
on income or on houses, or any other property, but
take them off the poor.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
afraid he must apologise to the House, as the Hon.
Member for the North Riding had declared little new
could be said cn the subject, for repeating arguments
which he had used before on the same subject; but
he would do so as briefly as ho could. The Hon.
Member opposite (Mr. Drummond) appeared to him
- to entertain some odd notions about the amount
which the agricultural labourers contributed to the
revenue by their consumption of beer. If they were
really the main consumers, then their condition could
hardly be so bad as had been insisted on by their advo-
eates.—(Llear, hear.) He was surprised to bear his
Hen. Friend speak of the inquisitorial and obj ectionablo
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
haroty any tax by which it could be raised so cheaply,
and respecting which the inconveniences were so small.
The tax produced nearly 5.200.0001., and in the report
which was made by Commissioners who were appointed
to inquire some time ago into the subject, it was stated
wasthat h theard hardly
a x
possibleoccasioned
to
showlittle
s inconvenience, ol
ensyseni ence,and that it
the malt-tax; it was less felt and objectionable
less injurious
than any other tax in;emagnitude
.ude addition to which,
same no other tax of the was collected
at so small an expense. He
to the
opinions of Mr. Barclay, an eminent brewer, and
Mr. Joseph Taylor, of Bishops Stortford, some five years
ago, in confirmation of the character of the tux. The
Right Han. Gentleman read the questions put to th s two
com
gentlemen and their replies, which P e
pletely bore out
his assertions. Now, if a large amount of revenue was
produced by the tax—if it was
collected more
cheaply than any other tax—and if the interfererce
the Excise officers with the manufacturer, as bad 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 Ron.
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 in the na-
ture of all taxes to have such an effect; but be would
say, if it were necessary to have 5,000,0001. of
.revenue,
it was impossible to obtain it by any tax less injurious
to the consumer and the producer. The lion. Gentle-
man stated that the consumption of malt bad
_not in-
creased in the same proportion as ten coffee, and cocoa,
from which articles the duty had been partly removed;
that the increase in the consumption of beer
bore
proportion to the increase in the consumption of those
to
other articles. This was to be attributed, not
i
effect of the malt-tax, but to a change in our bah
tha .
etenge
drank less beer than our forefathers; and
tt
and laboumrii
guhgtelaalsssoes.be
Ttbreaceddutythoronngtheaouwt tsh et
wmi
cie a
d dl es
high as the duty on malt. in proportion to the price of
the article, so that it' 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 had of late years been
decreasing, while the consumption of drinks which were
not of an intoxicating character had been increasing,
and ho 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 Com•
mittee to which he had already referred Mr. Baker, of
-Writtle, who was one of the principle advocates for that
change, bad stated it as his belief that if the duty ore malt
were repealed the reduction in the price of beer would
amount to 100 per cent. Now he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) conf,ssed he was at a loss to understand
how such a reduction could t he place, because if the
price of any article were reduced by 100 per cant, there
would be no price whatever left to pay for it.—(A

I..uge) That was an example of the sort of arguments
they sometimes heard upon subjects of that description.
But he fund that past experience might teach them to
distrust the expectations which some persons enter-
tained of any considerable diminution in the price of
beer in consequence of a repeal of the malt-tax. About
25 years ago they had reduced the duties imposed On
strong beer in the shepti ofrealt duty and beer dtuy by about
705., and they had reduced the duties on ordinary beer
by about 50e; 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 any
great benefit, either to the grower of malt or to the con-
sumer of beer. Mr. Barclay, the great 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) be-
lieved that such a reduction would be too dearly pur-
chased by the loss of 5.000:0001. 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 deem it advisable
to brew their own beer; but in his part of the country
every farmer and labourer brewed his own beer. He
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 was 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 5,000,0001.
derived from the malt-tax, or how they could raise that
amount in any 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 on at once removing 5,000,000!. derived
from the malt-tax?—(Hear.) It 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 5,000,0001. 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 Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the llouee
were anxious to effect reductions in the great articles of
consumption; but neither object could be realized if they
were to get rid of the 5,000,0001. derived from the malt-
tax. He knew no tax of equal amount which was so
cheaply and easily collected as the malt tax, or 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.
Mr. 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; end I um per-
fectly willing to admit that any Gentleman who voted
far the repeal of the malt-tax last session, at 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
noon 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.
H. Drummond). We must all sympathise with the
view which my Honourable Friend expressed upon
that subject with so much frankness in his speech. I
confass 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 quart of beer?"_.
(Hear, hear.) But when we hear of a halfpenny in a
quertern loaf we are told there will be a revolution.—
(Hear, hear.) It is not, however, my intention to touch
even upon that important topic. I must look at this
question under the same light, and influenced by the
same feelings in 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
fir our moat serious consideration. The sufferings of
tho occupiers of land ere universally andauthori-
tatively acknowledged. It is difficult to estimate the
degree of those sufferings; it is difficult to calculate and
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, bear.) 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 mach 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, 00 00,001.,
the farmers must. according to that estimate, have lost
at least 30,000,0001, even if no rent had been exacted
from them. But admitting even what perhaps lam not
authorised to admit, a reduction of rent to the amount
of 20,000,000 a, the 109 a
8 to the farmers,and that loss is
an increasing one, must have amounted to at least
70,000,0001., 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 delapidation 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,
two-thirds of its large amount from another crop of the
British farmer—(Hear)—thut crop being one which, in
consequence of the alteration in your laws, and in conse-
quence of the advice of your Ministers, he would natu-
rally havo 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 not check consumption.—(Hear, hear.) lam
willing to admit that that is 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 first
lights in political economy have invariably advocated,
both in their speeches and in their writings—if you du
not place the cultivators, the owners, and the occupiers
of the soil on the same level with the ether 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 closes
of the community.—(Hear, hear.) If you choose to
adopt a system of protection—that is, a system of bene-
fits or of disadvantages, in which the cultivator of the
fiscal arrangement soil shall take his share—we have nothing to do with
that; hut if you choose to establish e system of taxation
by which you raise from one class a large amount to
which the others do not contribute, you must by some
Ri-
cardo--Qs as
duty
the same place this extra contributing class on.
by the very
leveloth of taxation—l use the words of Mr. Ri-
haer classes. The elements of the counter-
actingports of foreign prosctl
men
been analysed, ascertained, and fixed
free trade—who first fiwrho first advocated what you now call
so great a discovery, advocated that system of free im-
ucewhich you now consider to be
Butleracting
the agricultural claesPeser
commended us to al These were the men who first ro-
te for the extra taxation of
now we are told that a coubnteracting counteracting duties; and
observe the position to
te
whichc ive
yduty h
have driven
identical,
üby
aduty and a pro-
justice which
can never in the long run
agricul-
tural class does not come forward ansduall
The
Wls UaOtitvienCfUa'
hear.) Theys youll for coun-
your reproaches that they are
teracting duties.—(Hear,
asking orwll legislative
incur
Yours to which they are not entitled; they
the falsely excited odium which you yourselves created
r
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
be scuochcerssefgf
level of taxation with the rest of the community—(Hear,
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 share, 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 community does not contribute, we ask you
in the new state of affairs to relieve us from these bur-
dens; but if you think it better that these burdens should
remain, if it is your opinion that it is for the advantage

of the community that that tints ion of a particular class
should continue to subsist, if you consider that the ati•
vantages of self-government ere so great, and that the
facilities of raising this tax of 5,000,000/. ought net to
be lightly lost, then it is for you to come forward and
offer the terns on which you wish to retain those ad-
vantages. But never shall it be represented to us that
we come forward to ask fur counteracting duties oa
account of the disedrantages to which we 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 for
the North Riding of Yorkshire, who on this, as on
other occasions, has, with a vial 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 of local taxation in the new-fangled and dan-
gerous system of what is called " national rates;" hut I
cannot shut my eyes to the inevitable consequences of
the tatal policy which you are pursuing. —(Hear. hear.)
I cannot shut iny;eyes to the fatal consequences of a sys-
tem which is exacting a larger amount of taxation from
the land of the United Kiugdum, at the very moment
when, under your legislation, it is enduring great trials
and great losses.—(Hear, hear.) I know that every day
and every hour that conviction must become more and
more pressed upon the minds of that great body of the
community who are immediately interested in the culti-
vation of the soil; and that session after session you will
be more and more powerfully and sternly called on to
adjust your taxation to the principles of political justice.
—(Hear, 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—a
course which I believe, in the first instance, to be unjust,
and, 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 of the soil on the same level with
the rest of the community, then I should be glad to sup-
port measures which the Right Hon. 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 price
that they could not buy it." "Do you know any poor
men who brews his own beer? "—" Not one." "Do you
remember the rate of wages when malt was 2e. 6d. a
bushel?`"--" Yes; is. 4d. per day, or Bs. a week." The
itness 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 be 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 by way of corn, but we will co-operate
with them in getting rid of that obnoxious tax, the malt-
tax. We owe the farmers something, and we will try to
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. HUME, 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 io vote for the entire repeal, in opposition to
any partial repeal, and lie 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 notwitlas
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 demoralize-
tion that existed in the land, and considered that it was
produced by the fiscal regulations 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. He 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
equitable 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 consequeuce of the failure they had lately to im-
port. The importation of foreign malt had decreased
many years back, and had been lass in 1850 than iu the
3 ears 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 (Ur. Bass) had on the paper for
that night, he would only say that he knew 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, bad any idea of interfering with the fiscal ar-
rangements of the year.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. 13110 PHER 12 ON 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 self imposed taxes as that upon male—(lean)
The Hon. Member for Montrose complained that the
landed property was exempt from the probate end legacy
duties. The teasoa 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 tee 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 occesiened in the revenue by the repeal of the
malt-tux. The Hon. Member foraot 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
exvnditure 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 referred, the question was brought
before the House whether the malt-tax should be red aced
or the duty taken off beer, and the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Right lion. 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
b that
theateri
countrybeer was not paying more duty upon
the raw
than it paid seventy years ago.
mVarious gentlemen had proposed various ways of supply-
ingal of
the deficiency to be occasioned by a repeal: of the
malt-lax. The Honourable Member for Middlesex sug-
gested, amoog 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 oi the motion would be,
that there would be a diminution of 5,000,000/. in the
revcnue.—(ilear, bear.) 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
5 000 0
, 00/. He (Lord J. Russell) entirely denied that
imputation. Ile 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 not believe that,