The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 1866.

MARKETS,---This Day.

moved off slowly. Cakes were in steady request, at fully
late rates.

The Malt Tax.

NORWICH, Jan. 27.
A public meeting of the East and West Norfolk
Anti-Malt-tax Association was held in St. Andrew's-
hall to-day, Sir H. Stracey in the chair. All the
four members for East and West Norfclk—Mr.
Bagge, M.P., Mr. E. Howes, M.P., Mr. C. S.
Read, M.P., and the Hon. T. De Grey, M.P.—
were present, and there was a large attendance,
composed principally of tenant farmers.
Mr. E. HoWES. M.P., in moving the first resolu-
tion, said he knew there were many gentlemen of
education, station, influence, and experience, who
were not altogether with him upon the question.
This was quite true, and he always stated what was
true, whether it were popular or not. At the same
time he was in favour of the total repeal of the tax,
and, except as a matter of expediency, he should
not wish to support those who advocated its partial
reduction. lie believed that a partial reduction
would effect little or no good, but as a matter of
expediency and as a means of attaining the ultimate
object, he should be prepared to vote for a measure
of the kind. Some of the growers of the best barley
appeared to think that the repeal of the tax would
be adverse to their interests. He did not think,
however, that this result would ensue ; he believed
that the effect of the law as it at present stood was
to exaggerate the price of the best barley abovethat
of the inferior barley, but he believed that growers
of the best barley would not grudge the growers of
inferior barley a little advance if their barley did
not suffer by it. But he supported the repeal of
the malt tax as a step towards carrying out the
principles of Free Trade, and whatever the conse-
quences of such a course might be he was prepared
to abide by them. The malt tax was totally at
variance with the principles of Free Trade, and
more especially with the true principles of taxation
as laid down by political economists. The malt tax

taxed a manufactured article in the first stage of
its manufacture, and this was totally contrary to
a maxim, admitted now all hands, that a manu-
factured article should be taxed, if taxed at
all, in its later stage. This was the grievance of
which the farmers complained. The immediate effect
of the tax was that it exaggerated most unduly and
unfairly the price of the manufactured article, and
its concomitant mischiefs were perhaps not less ;
these evils were touched upon by his resolution when
it spoke of the injustice inflicted on the grower of
barley. What were the results of the injustice ? One
was that it lessened consumption and depreciated
the article; another was that the farmer was ham-
pered in the operations of his trade. The tax depre-
ciated one crop, and therefore disturbed the relative
value of the crops upon the rotation of which the
farmer depended in his trade. The tax not only did
this, but it prevented the free use by the farmers of
what might be called the produce of his own farm
for his own purposes. He had watched the course of
Mr. Gladstone for some time. He believed that Mr.
Gladstone thought that the benefits which would
follow from the repeal of the malt tax had been ex-
aggerated, and that the disadvantages which would
follow had been extenuated. He was not sure that
Mr. Gladstone was not right in this, but he thought
he saw a leaning in his mind on the first proper oc-
casion to deal.with this large question. The country
was in a state of great prosperity, with the excep-
tion of the agricultural interest ; at all events, there
was no very pressing demand at present upon our
finances, and he believed the farmers would obtain
some measure which would lead to the total repeal
of the tax. The resolution moved by the hon. mem-
ber was—" That this meeting is of opinion that the
continuance of the Excise duty upon malt is a great
injustice to the growers of barley and wholly at vari-
ance with the free-trade policy of the country."
" Mr. STANTON seconded the resolution, which was
carried with one dissentient.
Mr. BAGGE, M.P., moved the next resolution, and
_ _

said the moment the Corn Laws were repealed in
1846 he joined the Anti-malt Tax Association,
and ever since then he had been consistent in

his views and opinions upon this important ques-
tion. He took his stand upon the broad principle
that after the repeal of the Corn Laws it was impos-
sible to uphold the malt tax for a moment. He was
surprised to hear the stupid cry still uttered by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the repeal of the
malt tax could not be afforded. Last year there
was a surplus of £3,500,000, and this year there
was another large surplus. Mr. Gladstone, who
had opposed Mr. Disraeli upon the question of the
tea duties, and who said that could not be afforded
also, took that slice out of Mr. Disraeli's budget ;
the consequence had been an enormous increase in

the consumption, and he believed that if the malt
tax were repealed there would be an equally large
consumption of beer. No person of common sense
could be of a contrary opinion—(laughter)—but

the question was, would Mr. Gladstone remove the
tax ? He had not the same opinion of Mr. Glad-
stone as Mr. Howes had ; but he believed that Mr.
Gladstone would not repeal the tax unless the

farmers made him do it. However, Mr. Gladstone
was very agreeable. (Laughter.) It was all beside
the question for Mr. Milner Gibson or the Chancel.

for of the Exchequer to talk about the tax being 12i-
per cont. or 30 per cent. ; the repeal of the tax must
follow the legislation of 1846. The farmers must
" agitate, agitate, agitate,' and not leave the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer an hour without sending a
petition, or give the House of Commons one blessed
moment's rest until they had carried their point.
(Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Bagge moved a reso-
lution to this effect.
Mr. LEAMON seconded the resolution, which was
carried nem. con.

Mr. C. S. READ, M.P., the "farmer's friend,"
returned for East Norfolk in July, next addressed
the meeting in support of,the resolution, to the effect
that the duty on malt was injurious to the con-
sumers of our national home-grown beverage. The
hon. gentleman argued that what was called Free
Trade at present had reduced the price of wheat,
and introduced all scrts of diseases in connection
with the importation of cattle. lie would not advo-
cate the cause of the artisans in towns, because he
believed they were well able to take care of them-
selves, but for the sake of the agricultural labourers
he contended that the farmers must have malt-tax
repeal. The farmers were sometimes told that they
ought to pay their labourers better wages, but in
their present position they could not afford.to do so.
They could, however, assist in giving the labourers
cheaper malt and beer, which would be a service to
the poor and a benefit to agriculture at the same
time. The farmers ought to make the labourers as
comfortable as they could, so that they might not
leave the British shores. The hon. gentleman then
entered into statistics to show that the duty imposed
on malt had checked the consumption, and that
every reduction of duty had been followed by an
increase of consumption. The great man the farmers
wanted to convert was the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. Mr. Gladstone was, he believed, a thoroughly
honest man, and just as Sir Robert Peel gave the
country the benefit of cheap bread so Mr. Gladstone
might yet give the working classes the blessing of
cheap and wholesome beer. (Hear, hear.)
MT. LEE WARNER seconded and MT. TILLETT
supported the resolution, which was agreed to.
The Hon. T. DE GREY, M.P., moved a fourth
resolution expressing the thanks of the meeting to
those gentlemen who had advocated the cause in
Parliament, and respectfully urged a continuance
of their efforts in the coming session. The hon-
ourable member said he feared that the farmers
had nothing to expect from Mr. Gladstone in the
matter ; if they were to obtain justice they must
exert a pressure sufficient to overcome the vis inertia'
of Ministerial indifference. (A Voice.—" What
about the income-tax ?") He believed it would be
better to tax the rich man's money bags than the
poor man's beer. (Cheers.)
Mr. GRIMMER seconded the resolution, which was
carried unanimously.
A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the pro-
ceedings.

It is a consolatofy and encouraging evidence of
the sympathy of our people for the unfortunate, that the
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate is without legs, the door-
keeper of the House without arms, the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House are both on crutches.
Despite these misfortunes, these gentlemen all prove very
efficient, capable, and acceptable officers,-.New Orleans
Picayune.