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

1,..''

tally 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repealed, it would be impossible to give an answer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 tail"
you maintain the duty on barley or on malt?'
Lord Russell, now Prime Minister, stated years ago,
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been in power the first tax he would have repealed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 beg n"
ping, at all events, by way of a reduction of this
impost, those who profess to be the spokesmen 0'
the working men must feel it due to their clients
to do what they can in cheapening their favourite_
beverage and reducing their daily disbursement o
their hard-won earnings. It is, doubtless, very bard
f
,
upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is
should be called upon to let slip through his finger
these five and a half millions of money so easilY ob-
tained, or even to forego a half or a third of the an-
nual produce of the malt tax. He has !given, the
clerk his claret at a shilling the bottle, why eu°'iid
he be so soon called upon to give the poor ma
his beer at twopence a quart ? Somebody,_ben3aoli
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 se:
of his account how can he hope to make
figure by taking another penny off the ince%
tax, reducing a number of small imposts whien
press on nobody in particular, or payinguP me
infinitesimal portion of the national debt ? e:7O
quite aware of his difficulties and willing to mm'.
every allowance for them; but'still the fact rernin_Zi
the fact oft a heavy burden on the agrieeltu;-
Quart
and the consumer, which has been unfairly e
looked while other burdens have been renlit:7„,
An error has been committed in the past ; a 'lt:
remains for the future. It was an error tba_;„l
ductions of taxation were extended to paper, vim-4
tea, and sugar, while malt and beer, more ilurr.
taut to large classes of the community, were entirei 1
overlooked. It is the bounden duty of any Ch 8,1,130
ccllor of the Exchequer to place malt now `
foremost place among articles on which the duty 10
to be partially, if not wholly, remitted. The tars
an evil which has grown by degrees to such gigan
proportions that we seem urged by the necessitY.°o
the ease to deal with it gradually. What e des,l
is that it should at least be admitted to be ail e'—ed
If .half of it were taken off the largely illere,a,sin
use of malt in brewing and cattle feeding migr„of
one air two years be found to make up the defiele,,m
in the revenue. Many honest opponents of the di°-
among whom were some of the speakers yeeer 1,1
tell us that they will be satisfied with nothing„-eir
than its immediate and total abolition. 5-mav
danger is, that in grasping at too much they 1114.45
lose all. A partial reduction, with a view, to ;be
ultimate extinction, would do much to allaYmid
growing discontent of the agriculturists. It vi—Ass
'
be an experiment in the right direction, the su°e-08
of which would, we think, embolden theinure
Minister to venture next year on a larger meely
of relief. A proposal which seems re9l-o,e
able, thoughtreceived with disfavour by
present at the meeting, was made yeeterl
by Mr. Scla,ter Booth. It is not new, the&
it has seldom been put so prominently forwar"t be
an opponent of the malt tax. If money ralls,ai,
raised, why not tax beer directly instead of jai,
a
rectly ? A tax ,of one halfpenny or a penny %id
quart of beer, leaving malt free from duty, we,be
lead to a cheapening and a large increase it
consumption of the popular beverage, vill_milleost
would yield an annual sum to the revenue "'-",,,a1t
if not quite as great as that produced by the —it 00
tax. Such a tax would go far to meet an obje° tiy
to the excise duty on malt, which is put prom Oro
forward by the advocates for its repeal. In the 0,,,„
of petition which the repealers recommend for !vs
nature and presentation to the House of Coranehuief
it is very properly set forth as one of the. jn
flits
grievances complained a, " that the duty
great injustice upon the consumer of beer, a
opposed to the first principles of sound taxatioube.
the effect of a heavy tax upon the raw material far
ing to enhance the ultimate selling price of beerret by
„
beyond the mere amount paid as duty, the ii
taking out of the pocket of the consumer a Into
larger sum than reaches the Exchequer." 13-,a.
upon beer would be a relief to the grower of
.I),‘er
ley, and far less onerous to the consumer of nuo
than a tax upon malt, which is quadrupled by
time he has to pay it.