The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-13 00:00:00

from the embarrassment in which lie might be placed by the
total and instant repeal; and vet the people of England would
be perfectly content. He could have wished that it had been
his good fortune to address a house more favourable to the inea
sure which he advocated than the present one, but of this they
might rest satisfied, that the malt duties couid not Imig main-
taro their position in the financial arrangements of the ceuntry,
and it might soon fall to the lot of same more worthy advocate
of the measure than he was to witness the repeal of that
pressive tax for the abolition of which the country so loudly
called. (Cheers.) The object of his resolution was to call upon
the house to vote altogether fur the extinction of the ma ltduties,
but at the same time he begged leave to state,-that if he should
succeed in his motion it was his intention to ask leave of the
house to bring in a bill for the purpose of regulating and arrang-
ing the time when the reduction would take place. Having
stated thus much, bon. gentlemen would perceive that in con-
senting to kis motion they did nut bind. themselves to any spe-
cific time or manner. Ills resolution went merely to pledge the
house to the extinction of the tax. The question of time was
one of after consideration, as also whether the reduction should
take place in one, two, or three instalments. It was with this
consideration, and because the detail could be afterwards dis-
cussed, that he thought proper to forego any long resolution,
which would only have the effect of encumbering the question.
The noble marquis concluded by moving "That the duties on
malt shall altogether cease and detetinine."
Major HANDLE"( seconded the motion, and spoke at great
length in support of the views taken by the Marquis ofehaudos.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the question he was called upon
to consider was not a party question, but whether he could con-
sent to a resolution which pledged him irrevocably to the total
repeal of the malt tax. He was called upon to consent to that
resolution at a period when the house bad had no opportunity of
hearing any financial statement from him, at a period when the
house was ignorant of what was the amount of disposable reve-
nue, and before it had had any other opportunity of considering
any other claim to the remission of taxation. Ought not, then,
such a motion, if necessary. to have been brought forward after
an authentic declaration of the national means had been laid
before the house. It would be his duty to make such a commu-
nication as soon as possible after the close of the financial year,
the lit of April. '1 he noble marquis would not wait fur this ex-
planation, and he (Sir It.) was Vous forced into a discussionwhich
he thought oughtto have been postponed, and it became necessary
for hitn to enter into a statement, with the view of con vinciog theta
of the impropriety of acceding to the noble marquis's motion. The
noble lord, (Althorp;) iu his budget of last year, after provid-
ing for the repeal of the house tax, made a calculation of what
would probaie y be the available surplus for the year beginning
Ist April, 18-35, and ending on the same day of 1836;—his lord-
ship made a calculation of the probable financial prospects of
the country for two years. Although some of Lord Althorp's
calculations were erroneous, yet, upon the • whole, he was not
far from the,truth. Lord Althorp estimated that the- demands
for the .service of this year would be identical with the last, but
he (Sir IL P.) trusted there would be a considerable reduction
in the estimates for this year compared with the last. (Hear.)
L Those fur the ordinary service of the year would exhibit a re-
, duction of £470,000. (Cheers.) Although this would of course
f increase the available surplus revenue, yet as there were mis-
calculations in the statement of the noble lord (for which his
lordship was iu uo degree responsible) from which a correspond-
ing reduction must be made, Lord Althorp's estimate of the
amount of available surplus was, upon the whole, not far from
the truth. Lord Alttiorp calculated that on the sth of April
next the revenue would exceed the expenditure by about
i.:250,0007 He (Sir H. Peel) thought that after reducing nearly
half a million on the estimates, he could not calculate upon hay-

ing a greater surplus than £250,000, that was to say, after pro-
viding for £750,000 for compensation to the West India pro-
prietors, and after the revenue bad been subjected to the ope-
tation of the repeal of the house-tax. In this state of our finan-
cial prospects, with a surplus of £250,000, the noble marquis
asked the house to pledge itself on thiS night to the repeal of
the whole of the malt-tax. The gross produce of the malt-tax
last year was £5,150,000. In the year ending sth Jan., 1832,
the stun paid into the Exchequer on account of malt duty was
1;4,208,000 ; in the year 1833, 4,675.000; in 1834, £1,772,000;
and in the yeer ending sth Jan. 1835, £1,812,000. Thus, with
only a surplus revenue of £250,000, the house was called upon
to sacrifice an increasing revenue of £4,812,000. (Hear,
hear.) There could be no doubt, that, in determining on the
policy of a tax, the charge of its collection was a material
consideration. For that reason lie had taken pains to as-
certain what was the charge at which the malt-tax was col-
lected; and he ventured to assert that there were few taxes
the collection of which was accompanied with less expense to
the public than this tax. He believed he could state with con-
fidence, that the charge of collecting the gross revenue of
£5,100,000 derived from the malt-tax did not exceed to £150,000,
(Cheers) and he did not believe that it would be possible to
reduce the excise establishment to any extent beyond that
amount. He could further state, that there was no tax by
which £5,009,000 was raised,- nor any combination of tai es pro-
ducing the same amount, which on the whole admitted of so few
opportunities for fraud and unfair dealing. The noble lord and
the honourable gentleman who seconded his motion complained
that no remission had taken place with reference to the malt-
tax. They had fergetten that in 1830 the duties on malt were
relieved by taking off the duty on beer. In the mean time the
price of barley had increased, and at the present moment, in
reference to the price of wheat was higher than it hid ever been
known before. The price of wheat, being untaxed, was low,
while the price of barley, subject to a tax, was high. Such
being the facts of the case, by what process of reasoning did
the unuourable gentleman arrive at the conclusion that the
removal of the tax on malt would necessarily increase the price
of barley ? Anticipatiug that it would be alleged that there
had been a defective harvest in barley last year, and that the
rise in price of the article was sufficiently accounted for by that
fact, he had taken the troubie to obtain from the Excise-office
that very morning an account of the number of bushels of malt
brought to charge from the 10th of October, 1833, to the 19th
of February, 1834, in order that he might compare the amount
then brought to charge with the quantity brought to charge
since the 10th of October, 1831, to the -19th of February in
the present year. Having examiued these returns, lie felt great
satisfaction in being able to state, that the rate of duty remain-
ing the same, there had beets an increase in the resent year,
notwithstanding the defective harvest, of 816.7/9 bushels of
barley:. (Hear, hear.) In discussing the present question he
had uo desire to refer to any topic which might excite a feeling
of enthusiasm calculated though it might be to influence the
house to take the same view as he did of the present question.
He would willingly deprive himself of the advautage which the
excitement of such a feeling would give him, if the house would
only consent to give him its patient attention while be strictly
confined himself to a statement of facts, and to a review of such
arguments as had been urged in favour of the revision of the
malt-tax The advocates of that measure, though aware that
the surplus revenue Might not amount to 1:250,0q), vet felt
themseives pledged to the repeal of a tax yielding I:5,000,000.
They contended that there was no other way of relieving the
agricultural interest, and prophesied that many advantages
would result from the removal of the malt tax. Matters of
prophecy were, however, matters of uncertainty; he was anxious
to inquire into their probable realization. It had been said that
the consumption of the old national bevemge had been greatly
diminished. This he (Sir H. Peel) admitted, but did it notarise
hem the competition of other articles which had come into
general use during the last century. The people now drank
inure tea, more coffee, and more spirits than formerly. That
they did not drink more beer also was owing to a change in our
national habits and not to the operation of te malt tax. (Hear,
hear) He would state a case unfavourable to himself. In 1722
the population amounted to six millions and the number of bar-
rels of beer consumed as stated iu the returns was six millions.
In 1833 the population amounted to fourteen millions, and the
average annual consumption for the last three Years previous to
the repeal of the beer duty amounted only to 8,200,0(111 barrels
This he attributed to the increased coneusreption of other arti-
cles. In 1722 the quantity of tea coaehmediti this country did
not exceed 370,00'aib. In 1833 it amounted to 31,829,0001b5.
`the use of tea, had in fact superseded to a certain extent the
use of beer: In like manner the consumption of spirits bad
also increased. This the hon. member had deprecated, hut he
would find it impossible to prevent. The hon. gentleman might
increase the duty on spirits, but by doing so he would in fact be
only lessening the revenue with diminisuingtheir donsimiption.:
In 1722 there were 3,000,000 gallons of spirits consumed; in
1831, 12,332,000 gallons. In the year 1760 the quantity of coffee
consumed was not. more than 262,0001b5.; in 18.3.3 it had in-
mused to 20,691,0001b5. With these returns before him he
Caine to the conclusion that the increased consumption of tea,
coffee, and spirits did account for the decreased consumption of
beer, and as far as morality was concerned he doubted whether
any great advantage would be gained by discountenancing the
use of tea and coflee for the purpose of substituting beer. The
hon. gentleman (Major Handley) seemed to think that the use
of tea and coffee was unfairly encouraged, and fancied that their
consumption was increased in consequence of the dirty on those
articles being lower than that which was applied to beer. That
such was not the case wquld easily be shown by comparing the
rate per cent. of the duties on beer and on those other articles
to which he had already referred. The duty nu malt was 25.7 d.
per bushel, or 57 per cent.; and the lion. gentleman opposite
said that that duty was higher than the duty on coffee. So far
from that being the fact, the rate el duty on West India coffee
was 63 per cent, ad valorem.' (Hear, hear.) On port and sherry
the rate of duty was 75 per cent.; on rum, 407 per cent.; on
English spirits, 7s. 6d. per gallon, or 333 per cent ; on brandy
627 per cent.; and on geneva, 930 per cent. Sue] being the
facts of the case, he would ask the hon. gentleman opposite
Whether the increased consumption of those articles could
juetly elm_asttrileoed to .any favour shuwu them with rerzard_
to the amount of duty over beer ? (Hear, hear, hear.)
The malt duty was 20s. Bd. per quarter, and the total amount
received by the Exchequer was not more than £5,000,000; but
according to the statement of the noble lord, a sum of £16,000,000
found its way by some mysterious process into the bands of the
maltsters, and was divided among them. He (Sir H. Peel)
certainly did not pretend to understand this matter, but lie
would ask, was it credible that in this country, and in art open
trade, such extravagant profits should be made by the manu-
facturers of malt? It had been stated last year by the honoura-
ble member for Oldham, that 'the price of barley being 255. per
quarter, and the duty 20s. Bd. that the price of malt ought not
exceed 455., but instead of this price it was raised to 665. He
(Sir 11. Peel) always thought it desirable, in discussing any
subject, to have the latest information respecting it that could
be obtained; and he had therefore sent to Mark-lane, to learn
what was the price of barley, and the price of malt of equal
quality; so that be might he able to judge whether the state-
ment respecting the enormous gains made by the maltsters was
well-founded. He was informed that the rice of good malting-
barley in Mark-lane that day was from 36c. to 40s. per quarter.
That was undoubtedly a good price for barley, (near, bear,)
and notwithstanding the high price, the consumption had
according, to the last returns increased, instead of having dinii-
nished. 1 Hear, hear.) Adding to the price of the quarter of
barley the amount of the duty on malt, which was 205.81., he
eaten iated that the price of malt ouht to be 603 8d per quarter.
The
,price of the best malt was in tact 665. per quarter, leaving.
a dierence of ss. 4d. between the price of malt and the price of
barley, increased by the amount of the duty; and he (Sir
Peel}. did not think that an extravagant profit. The noble
marquis (Chandos) and the lion. member (Major Handley)
had spoken of the advantage which would result from the
remission of the malt duty, in consequence of the facility which
would thereby be afforded to the farmer of malting barley, not
for .the purpose of making beer, but of feeding his cattle.
(Hear, hear, hear.) ' He (Sir It. Peel) was not ignorant
of the advantages to the farmer which this would produce, and
he kid great satisfaction in being able to inform his noble friend
that his object was effected by an order of the Board of Excise,
which he regretted had not been sufficiently known before. The
eider was in the following words :—" The practice of steeping
barley in water to prepare it as food for cattle having become
prevalent, and as the revenue may be injured by the applica-
tion thereof to other purposes,—ordered, that the respective su•
pervisors and officers endeavour to ascertain the parties who
carry on this practice within their several districts, and their
manner of disposing of the corn so steeped; but that no inter-
uption whatever be given thereto, except upon actual proof, or
well-grounded suspicion of fraud. Particular attention must be
paid to the situation of the premises where the corn may be
steeped, with respect to any kills or oven upon or in which it
nwy he dried, as well as to the proportion which the quantities
of hurley steeped bear to the number of horses or other cattle to
be fed therewith; and it' any suspicious circumstances shall be
discovered, the matter must be fully investigated,--and the par-
ticulars stated to the board." One favourite argument in favour
of the repeal of the malt duty was, that it would encourage the
pour wan to brew his osn beer. The arguments by vkhich it