The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-12 00:00:00

Repeal of the Malt Tax:

On Tuesday evening a meeting to promote the
reduction or repeal of the malt tax was held at
Halesworth, Suffolk, Sir E. Gooch, a young gentle-
man who has just attained his majority, in the chair.
Sir F. KELLY, M.P., in moving the first resolu-
tion, recapitulated the principal points in his recent
speech at Ipswich. Looking at the terms of the re-
solution he was about to propose, the first question
which arose was, whether really and truly, upon
the principles of free trade, they were entitled as a
matter of right and justice to call upon the
Government to repeal this tax. (Cheers.)
Rir PcA who farwo word thew. - PA* +-
measures which led to the extension of tree trade
nearly twenty years since, was a Conservative at
heart and in action. Although he did not under-
value the assistance they might derive from thOse
who took another view of politics, yet he could but
remind them that the Conservatives of the king-
dom, especially those who were members of Par-
liament, had for a great length of time honestly
and strenuously exerted themselves to bring about
a repeal of this most odious and unjust tax. It
was a Government which called itself Liberal,
which professed liberal principles, supported by a
Liberal majority, that had alone opposed the re-
peal of this tax. (Partial cheers.) But let him
do justice to men of all parties ; and. the learned
gentleman proceeded to remark that in 1842, when
the duties on a great many articles of consump-
tion mere reduced, not only Sir R. Peel, but every
statesman of eminence on both sides the House of
Commons, agreed that if ever the time should
come when the corn laws were repealed, the duty
upon malt must follow.—(Cheers.) The repeal
of the corn laws, however beneficial that repeal
might have been to the community in general,
had inflicted a great, grievous, and lasting injury
upon the owners and cultivators of land ; and he
asked why was it, that, although 14 or 15 years
had elapsed since the repeal of the corn laws, they
should be denied that justice to which they were
entitled in the immediate repeal of the malt tax?—
(Cheers.) If there be a tax which was so laid
as to cause complaint, that was the malt tax.
What was the fact ? Last year the State derived
something approaching £6,000,000 from the malt
tax, but by the time the malt was converted into beer
and was retailed to the consumer, it would beno ex-
aggeration to say that the amount of the tax paid by
the consumer of beer was fully one-third more than:at
would be but for this tax. It was supposed by the
best authorities that the sum paid by the consumers
for beer was about £60,000,000 a-year. He was
aware that this sum had been controverted, and he
had been involved in a controversy in the Times upon
this very subject. Let them not be alarmed—ho
was not going to inflict upou them a statement which
he should make known through the Tines itself.
When he spoke of £60,000,000 being the amount
.
paid, he was at a great distancefnircona
he
wasLonclon,
obligedwith
no books of reference at hand,
a
remarkaut that he
he spoke then, a
publication
as he did w
to leave the question undetermni.ed till he got to Lon..
don; but
now, upon
poouuldn tnowhe
authority ty 0
which was under the superintendence of the late Mr.
Treasury, and who had
access to
all
Secrtehtearyomtociai documents relating to thethe
finances of the country ; and tho Economist was an
authority evelin bie6t toe, rot0h0700(t
osh
rewgarsepaat Fitzroy)
ewspaper called
e
ind for all the beer
the Times.
tthhaet yoenaer-, 1111 d, or £2O undertook to
,000,000 sterling,
c satisfyon umtehdemin
was paid by reason of the malt tax, and only some
five or six millions passed into the Exchequer. Go
back to the times of James 1., and they found, upon
unquestionable authority, that the price of barley
was 16s. per quarter, and of a quart of the best ale,
as retailed at the inns, only ld„ He would call upon
any one who disputed the great effect of the repeal
of the malt tax upon the price of beer to the con-
sumer, to say why, if barley was at 16s. per quarter,
with no malt tax and Excise restrictions, and beer
could be retailed at a penny per quart, should not
beer now be brewed and sold at twopence a quart ?
Barley might be said to be 325. on an average, and
why should not beer now be sold at twopence a
quart ? (Cheers.) He put that question, 'and de-
fied any man of candour and intelligence to answer
the argument. With the duty off and the power of
brewing without fetters and restrictions, instead of
getting that half-poisonous and adulterated stuff,
,the farmers and labourers and all who desired
could brew a little good beer, and it would infalli-
bly happen that the great brewers and owners of
inns would' be obliged to brew a good whole-
some beer, instead of the stuff they sometimes got.
(Cheers.) He believed a repeal of the tax would be
advantageous to the brewers by increasing the de-
mand ; for the same reason it would also increase
the trade of the maltsters. The continuance of the