426 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



sumption. It was lost by 69 against 73, and not a single 

 Suffolk member was present. Had all four voted for it, as 

 they ought to have done, it would have been carried, as tha 

 then Speaker was member for Hampshire, a malting county. 

 If they want to succeed, their efforts must not die with that 

 meeting:, but they must make a long pull, a strong pull, and 

 a pull altogether. If they did so, they would most assuredly, 

 at no distant day, meet with that success which their cause so 

 undoubtedly deserved. 



A discussion eusutd, in which Mr. J. R. Cooper, Mr. R. 

 Tacon, Mr. E. Deck, Mr. T. N. Turner, Mr. G. Haward, and 

 Mr. J. Howlett, the Chairman took part, and a petition to 

 the House of Commons was unanimously agreed to, and nu- 

 merously signed, 



IPSWICH FARMERS' CLUB. 



To the Ipswich Farmers' Club belongs the credit of having 

 revived the agitation — which some years since attained consi- 

 derable strength, but that of late has been allowed to 

 languish — for a repeal of the duty on malt. The club met on 

 Tuesday, in considerable force, in the large room at tha Great 

 White Horse, and the gathering, which was strictly a farmers' 

 meeting— no noble lords or honourables being allowed to 

 monopolize the talking — was presided over by Mr. Hare, of 

 Weston. 



The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said British 

 farmers were now living in what were called free-trade times, 

 and under such circumstances they considered that they should 

 not be justly dealt with until the obnoxious malt-tas was 

 removed. Viewed in any light, politically or morally, the 

 abolition of the malt-tax must be regarded as a great boon. 



Mr. W. BiDDELL moved the first resolution, and observed 

 that the movement was one of which he so entirely approved, 

 that he cheerfully gave it whatever support he could. Some 

 years back he had not taken any part in the matter; but since 

 he had seen the result of recent legislation, and since he had 

 observed that nothing was to be done without agitation, he 

 had become a hearty promoter of the object at present con- 

 templated. In almost all cases agitation had been successful, 

 and no doubt the present good cause would be successful also, 

 for it was one which bespoke the support not only of disap- 

 pointed Protectionists, but also of the Liberal party. The 

 resolution with which he was entrusted was to the effect "that 

 in the opinion of the meeting the malt- tax was prejudicial to 

 the interests of British farmers, both as producers of barley 

 and meat ; that the tax could only be j ustified under a system of 

 Protection; and that under the present free-trade arrange- 

 ments it was unjust and indefensible." He believed it to be 

 the fact that the tax was, as stated in the resolution, indefen- 

 sible. Some persons might say that the present was an im- 

 proper time for commencing an agitation from which a loss to 

 the revenue might arise ; but if this was the case, why bad 

 the Government thought fit to remit a large amount of revenue 

 on the paper aud other duties ? A reduction of the malt-duty 

 would only be obtained by agitation, for now, he was sorry to 

 say, nothing was done without it ; the people carried every- 

 thing, and the Government did everything by the people. 

 With regard to the decrease of revenue, which some persons 

 might anticipate from a reduction of the duty, he owned it 

 was a point on which he was not altogether clear ; but the 

 experience of the past showed that any increase of the duty 

 had been followed by a decrease of revenue, and although this 

 might not be conclusive, still it was strong evidence that, as a 

 higher duty had been attended with a decrease, so a lower 

 duty might be attended with an increase of revenue. French 

 wines and other drinks which would enter largely into compe- 

 tition with malt were now about to be brought in at a great 

 reduction of duty ; and not only was this to be done, but Mr. 

 Gladstone had also decided that in certain houses, under a low 

 licence, wine aud other foreign beverages should be drunk, 

 while the beverage in which farmers were so much interested 

 was to be prohibited. This he (Mr. Biddell) contended was a 

 signal injustice to the agricultural interest. He might be told 

 that one might always get beer at such places as it was now 

 proposed to license; but he believed the managers would re- 

 sort to every evasion to secure a sfile of their own articles. 

 Would the manufacturing interest submit quietly to such 

 grievances as farmers had now to complain of? The malt-duty 

 was a tax of from 30 to 40 per cent, upon what would always 



be the national beverage, and manufacturers would besiege 

 the Chauccllor of the Exchequer with deputations, and move 

 the world, to get such a tax off any of their commodities. 

 Farmers must be a quiet set of beings to bear the grievance so 

 quietly, and he hoped the time would come when Farmers' 

 Clubs would enter a little more fully into politics as affecting 

 the agricultural interest. He could not but think that Farmers' 

 Clubs had adopted a suicidal course in excluding politics, and 

 he hoped that for the future some attention would be paid to 

 them, because he trusted the tempers of farmers were such 

 now-a-days as to enable them to discuss questions without 

 thinking the worse of those who were opposed to them. He 

 had been opposed to the abolition of Protection ; but he did 

 not particularly regret it now, and although farmers could not 

 perhaps stand up for a reduction of the malt-duty under the 

 old system, he thought they might fairly claim it now. For- 

 merly there was a great deal of what might be called Govern- 

 ment capital engaged in the malt-trade, in consequence of the 

 duty not being called in till after the malt was made ; but this 

 great outwork and defence of the mslt-tax was now thrown 

 down, and the way being thus cleared the attack must now 

 be proceeded with. He differed from a noted free trader with 

 whom he was speaking not long since, as to the effects of the 

 malt-tax. If the tax only injured barley to the extent of Is. 

 per coomb, the loss must be considerable. But he believed the 

 tax prevented a great deal of the barley produced being made 

 into malt at all ; and taking it altogether he believed the duty 

 was a most injurious one to the farmer. 



Mr. Barthropp, in seconding the resolution, said he held 

 it to be most unjust that the farmers of England should not he 

 allowed to do as they liked with their own produce. They 

 had been compelled by recent legislation to grow wheat in 

 open competition with the world ; and as they had had free 

 trade forced down their throats, they ought now to insist upon 

 having free trade in everything else. It was preposterous that 

 Frenchmen and inhabitants of other countries more suited to 

 the growth of barley than France should be able to grow their 

 malt, feed their cattle with it, and send it over to England 

 duty free, while Englishmen were not allowed to do the same. 

 Mr. Hudson, of Castleacre— a moat eminent authority — re- 

 cently observed that he questioned whether any of the 

 members of the House of Commons, who made our laws aud 

 imposed our tsses upon us, had ever calculated what the pro- 

 duce of an acre of barley paid in malt-duty. An acre, pro- 

 ducing 5 qrs. of barley, would, when it was made into malt, 

 pay at the rate of £5 ISs. 9d. per acre. Mr. Hudson grew 

 200 acres of barley every year ; and the amount of duty on 

 this was £1,137 10s,, while the rent was only £250, leaving 

 the duty £887 10s. in excess of the rent. With such a state- 

 ment before them, farmers must not continue quiet, as they 

 bad done, but must agitate the question, and endeavour to 

 procure a remission of the grievance under which they had so 

 long laboured. 



The resolution was carried unanimously. 



Mr. R. Bond next addressed the meeting, and expressed 

 his belief that, in agitating the question, farmers must look to 

 the kingdom generally for support. He believed that the tax 

 was indefensible, and that it worked decidedly badly in prac- 

 tice. Ho was convinced that it had the effect of vastly en- 

 couraging adulteration, fostering monopolies, and checking 

 the wholesome consumption and production of barley ; and that 

 the manufacturers of Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham 

 would not for a moment entertain such a tax upon their pro- 

 ducts. The iron-lords or coal-owners would not submit, and 

 there was no reason why the farmers should submit either, to 

 such a heavy impost. It might be said that it would be only 

 fair and proper to tax Nature's products in the shape of coal 

 or iron; but in taxing malt, you taxed Nature's gift and 

 man's production combined : aud agriculturists were vastly 

 cramped in their operations by the tax. It seemed to be ex- 

 pected that poor agriculture was to bear the burden without 

 complaint; but if farmers continued to submit to it uncom- 

 plainingly, they would be decidedly wrong. He might be 

 asked what he would substitute for the malt-tax ; and, in re- 

 ply, he would say, substitute a just tax for an unjust one. It 

 could not be right to tax the few for the many, and lay a 

 heavy burden upon barley produce. It certainly was not just 

 in principle to tax the poor man's beverage, and let in the 

 rich man's wine comparatively duty-free. There were many of 

 the tee-total class who considered that beer was not necessary 



