Star.
London, England, 1821-03-22 00:00:00

MALT DUTY.

Mr. WESTERN rose, pursuant to notice, to move
for the repeal of the last duty of ls.2d. per bushel
on Malt. If the question was looked to in relation
to the agriculture, the morals of the people, and the
collection of the revenue, he thought he could Prove
that sound policy demanded the repeal of the tax.
In 1816 the representation lie had made had induced
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off 2s. per
bushel from the tax on barley. He did not admit
that the Member who proposed to take off a tax was
bound to substitute another in its room—that was
the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
for which he alone was responsible. If be could
propose a new tax he should not do so, as his prin-
cipal object was to diminish the aggregate of taz-
ation. He did not wish to shift the burthen on any
other class of the community. He did not wish to
tax the fundholder, nor oblige him to contribute to
the Poor Rates. If other classes should be made to
pay to the Poor Rates, it would only tend to increase
the number of applicants, and not to lighten the
pressure on the agriculturists. In the shape of malt,
grain, and spirits, the tax on barley for the last year
amounted to £10,000,000. Malt and beer were at
per boll, and the duty on spirits came to £lO
per boll. On barley made into beer and malt; the
duty amounted to I.:12 per acre, and to 010 on all
barley made into spirits. So heavy a duty necessarily
caused a reduction in the growth of the article. The
duty of 10s. 6d. per quarter on barley had never.
amidst all the difficulties of the war, been increased
by Mr. Pitt, with the exception of a temporary duty
of Sd. per quartet imposed in 1791, and repealed in
1792., In 1802, in the administration of Lord Sid-
mouth, the duty had been. increased to 181. and ic
1803 to S4s. per quarter. The Hon. Gentleman then
proieeded to take the average quantities of barley
grown in Great 13sitain and Ireland for three periods;
from 1791, from 1804, and for the last four years ;
and proceeded to thew that there had been a gradual
and increasing diminution, insomuch, that in Great
Britain and Ireland, for the year 1818, there bad
been a diminution :of 1,824,000 quarters below the
quantity grown in 1791. "From such a diminution in
the quantity, and consequently in the consumption,
there must have been a great diminution in the reve-
nue ; the interests of which necessarily demanded a
diminution of the tax.' The true source of taxation
was consumption, and when this consumption failed,
it was a proof that the taxation had been carried too
far. Prom these accounts he reasoned ,that the high
duty on malt was the came of the decrease in th.,

consumption of that article. There was, tindoutt
edly, a duty imposed on the House to relieve the
agricultural distress of this country. The Corn Bill
did not give that aid to agriculture which was taM
templated by die Legislature at that time. In on.
sequenke of this inadequate protection, there had
been an inundation of foreign corn imported. Ti,e
had been stith an increase of importation of Irish
and other foreign wheat in the last year, as had been
unprecedented: They tOuld no more reason on the
abstract principles of free trade, 'than they could
argue on the abstfatt rights of man. It was the aga
gregate amount of the tate; which weighed on one
growers and manufacturets, so that dray could nee'
compete with foreign Powers end foreign Maiiutec:
tuners. He then moved for leave to bung in a Bill
to reduce the Duty on Malts
Mr. MACKENZIE seconded the motiott; th.
grounitthat it would be beneficial to the Dittillifeiee
of Sc and, as well as to those of England. int
person purchasing illegally-distilled spirits in Scec;
, might buy it at 15s. less for ten gallons than
the bare duty on ten gallons of legally-distilled spi-;
, tits. In the last year, there had been a deficiency in
the produce ofapirits in Scotland, to the amount
100,000 gallons; and the deficiency in the duty was
ab0ve.1:20,0013. He believed that he spoke the unani-
mous opinion of all the Atigistrates in the North
Scotland, that the additional duty on Malt had no
creased smuggling, and all the evils which would'
have induced them to have quitted their public du.
ties, if an imperious sense of those duties had not
compelled them to continue in the dischargeofthein,
Mr. ELLICE could not consent to the repeAi
any Tax at present, until they had firSt relieved die
distress of the country, so far as to enable us to este.
blish an efficient Sinking Fund. Why should not the
debt be stated to the Public what it was ieala ?—.
why not state fairly what part of the debt hadbeea
redeemed? lie wished to know why, in 1807, the
collection of the ExCise cost £1,100,000, 'and last
year it. cost above 1:2.000,000? The consumption
of barley and spirits had falleii short in consequence
of the excessive taxation on these articles. Ile feared
that if Gentlemen expected any permanent harem
in the price of Corn for some years, they would be
much deceived. If the farmer were i o look for any
comfort, be most have a seduction in his rents and
his other expenses. The land-owner must reducebit
rents, and must pay for the support he has given to
Ministers in carrying on an.unjust war, and in extra-
vagant taxation. The only remedy was to be found
in reduced exsenses, and a decreased taxation. Ifhe
could procure similar reductions in other taxes, be
would cordially' support the present motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he wished to recal the attention of the Htsuse to the
question immediately before them—View, heeri.-.
The Honourable Member for Essex could not .eny
that which was proved by the accounts on the table,
that the produce of the tax of 1819 had fully answered
the expectation, and risen to the amount which the
country had been led to expect. The Honourable
Member had contended that the consumption of bar-
ley had been reduced by taxation; but he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) denied that the Honourable
Member had accurately exhibited the accounts which'
were before the House, or stated a fair view of the
subject. The inference from these accounts was,
that the repeal of the war duty in 1818 dii not af-
ford relief to the agriculture of the country. It did
not increase the consumption during the succeeding
year, although not only was the duty then withdrawn,
but that which had been advanced for the stock on
hand had been repaid. The Right lion. Gentleman
thought the Norse would do well to be guarded
as to the reduction of the system of taxation at Ile.
sent. The consequence of contrary policy must be,
to oblige us to borrow money to pay the hue ea of
the National Debt. He drew the conclusion tom
comparative accounts of the consumption of beer and
spirits, that the amount of the duties on Malt fell
equally and fairly on the whole mass of the comm.
nity, and not on the farmer alone. He could not
consent to the partial reduction in Malt Duties Ida-
your of Scotland. She had only a right to her share
in a diminution in common with England; and that
could not be done at present, without materially in-
juring the public service. For these, and other rea-
sons, he could not consent to the motion of the Be.
no u r able Gentleman.

Mr. MACKENZIE-explained." No Scotch!"
(said the Hon. Gentleman) but one in the pay of Go-
vernment,. would object to the motion."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in
explanation, supported his former statement.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON observed, that
he was anxious to express his opinion on this subject,
with reference to the operation of the last Malt Duty
onScotland. He would endeavour to make outs sung
case, in the hope, feeble as it was, that his country-
men would be able to get something back. The
Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellnrof the
Exchequer) had stated, that the taking of the del
in 1816 'was not met by an adequate consumption,
He had urged, that that measure did not augment
the consumption. Now he (Lord Archibald Ilya.
ton) thought that it would be conceded on all haadsi
that the abandonment of the tax then existing could
not operate on the crep ; and any person who wo
aware what the crop was in 1817 must know that
it did not amount to more than half the ordinal'
average t therefore the Right Honourable Gentleman
could not fairly expect an increased consumption.—.
What followed? The first operation of she n"
measure must have taken place under these circunto
stances in the year 1818, when the crop ORS 'tn.
proved, at which time the new measure was rmked`
IWhat did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? Wl*
that promptitude which perhaps belonged to, or di
Ilnherent In the nature of his office, becau.sethealtelv
non did not operate in three or four months, recent
to the original tax; oxclaimiag ds There is no Inorior
a repeal ; you see it' has produced no augmentali°ll
of consumption." But a.fair trial we" not &ye" to
chi measure ; in-fact, there was no trial at all.
did it happen that, supported as the Right Hood"
able-Gintleman was, by the landed interest, in that
House, not one individual connected with dud jaw'
rest got up and said that the taking of of this dal
would have no effect in improving the state dist°
culture? No person ventured to advance that yr'
nion, even amongst those who, on other necai4
were extretnely Willing to give their vote in ga'""...
of the measures of the Right Honourable Gentlureasso
Phis organic:lt he. would press Mt* ilagsgaia"

it