The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-06 00:00:00

cally declared that if the corn laws were to be
repealed, it would be impossible to give an answer
to the farmer, who would ask, If you take away
the duty on foreign corn, on what pretence cant,
you maintain the duty on barley or on malt?'
Lord Russell, now Prime Minister, stated years age,
after the repeal of the corn laws, that if he had then
been in power the first tax he would have repealed
would have been the malt tax. When Mr. Disraeli
in 1852 proposed to take off one-half of the malt
tax, he was certainly not carrying to an extreme
the policy which had been so broadly indicated by
the Liberal statesmen who had pronounced the im-
post indefensible. If the members of the Conser-
vative side of the house are bound to consider the
interests of the ill-used class which they represent/
if the Liberal party and the Freetraders are con-
strained. by their principles to make some begib%
ning, at all events, by way of a reduction of t
impost, those who profess to be the spokesmen of
the working men must feel it due to their client:
to do what they can in cheapening their favourite
beverage and reducing their daily disbursement °,.,/
their hard-won earnings. It is, doubtless, very hay;
upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer tbatc,
should be called upon to let slip through his fingers
these five and a half millions of money so easnY "rp,
tanned, or even to forego a half or a third of the alie
nual produce of the malt tax. He has given /
1,0 ld
clerk his claret at a shilling the bottle, why
he be so soon called upon to give the poor
ay
his beer at twopence a quart ? Somebody, he In of
argue, must pay taxes ; why not the producer
malt and the drinker of beer ? If two
or more are to be deducted from the credit side
of his account how can he hope to make a
,no
figure by taking another penny off the income
tax, reducing a number of small imposts ivh lan
press on nobody in particular, or paYingiiruP are
infinitesimal portion of the national debt? 1 eko
quite aware of his difficulties and willing to ma
every allowance for them ; but'still the fact remaiti
the fact of a heavy burden on the agrieulturo....
and the consumer, which has been unfairly on,
looked while other burdens have been remi,tl7,
An error has been committed in the past ; a un!.,
remains for the future. It was an error that
.re_
ductions of taxation were extended to paper, VT
tea, and sugar, while malt and beer, more impor-
tant tant to large classes of the community, were entirely
overlooked. It is the bounden duty of any "th;
cellor of the Exchequer to place malt now le, is
foremost place among articles on which the duty is
to be partially, if not wholly, remitted. The taltic
an evil which has grown by degrees to such gigao of
proportions that we seem urged by the neeesel/Yire
the case to deal with it gradually. Whatwe _ic
is that it should at least be admitted to be an esed
If half of it were taken off the largely incr,eat
use of malt in brewing and cattle feeding reign
one or two years be found to make up the deficiency
in the revenue. Many honest opponents of theZ:
among whom were some of the speakers Ye,e,,/eo.r less
tell us that they will be satisfied with netwikheir
than its immediate and total abolition• way
danger is, that in grasping at too much the): its
lose all. A partial reduction with a 'fief, `4,.° the
ultimate extinction, would do much to auaJaid
growing discontent of the agriculturists. It Less
be an experiment in the right direction, the s.
of which would, we think, embolden the -c,Thire
Minister to venture next year on a larger 112*",00.
of relief. A proposal which seems reng"
me
able, though received with disfavour blicrqay
present at the meeting, was made Yetmigh
by Mr. Sclater Booth. It is not new, by
it has seldom been put so prominently forwar-
ust be
an opponent of the malt tax. If money In,
raised, why not tax beer directly instead et .""00
rectly ? A tax of one halfpenny or a PeenY„iiia
quart of beer, leaving malt free from duty, "-the
lead to a cheapening and a large increase-ut it
consumption of the popular beverage, "`i,„lost
would yield an annual sum to the revenue a`—roait
if not quite as great as that produced by t,he,,ou
tax. Such a tax would go far to meet an ourp-ntly
to the excise duty on malt, which is put pronne-,00
forward by the advocates for its repeal. In the low,
of petition which the repealers recommend for oas
nature and presentation to the House of C?lnile,hief
it is very properly set forth as one of tne,
grievances complained of, 4, that the duty in dis
great injustice upon the consumer of beery an
opposed to the first principles of sound taxation
the the effect of a heavy tax upon the raw material
beer far
ing to enhance the ultimate selling price of thereby
beyond the mere amount paid as duty, tue-uch
taking out of the pocket of the consumer an o
larger sum than reaches the Exchequer."
beer
ley, beer would be a relief to the grower of r , bee_
ley, and far less onerous to the consumer e.„' he
than a tax upon malt, which is quadrupled t
time he has to pay it.