THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



427 



to a poor mau ; but wheu bis daily diet was remembere 1, 

 when it waa lecoUected that he lived upon breaJ, and acldom 

 tasted meat, it would be admitted that it waa a necessary to 

 hiin : and he (Mr. Bond) was for giving the labourer ell the 

 comforts possible, and not for curtaiiiiig theoi. He would 

 give the poor man a good wholesome glass of beer, iuatead of 

 the adulterated article — a decoction of tobacco, coculiis in- 

 dicus, &c., and in which malt bore but a very small propor- 

 tion — now placed before him. The effect of this latter kind of 

 drink was to make a man beastly drunk ; and philanthropy, 

 stepping in, sought to cure the evil by reducing the number 

 of beerhouses, the truth being that the duty, and the restric- 

 tions of monopolists, caused the curse of which we had to 

 complain. Beer waa ah present made a luxury to the poor 

 man ; and therefore, when he got it, he was apt to take too 

 much, just as a boy was prone to indulge too freely in a tart- 

 shop or in plum-pudditig; and, not being able to get beer at 

 home, he was driven to the public-house, where he met a lot 

 of "jolly good fellows," and became excited with a fluid a\ich 

 as no man could drink without such a result. The poaching 

 scheme or henroost robbery was then entertained ; for beer- 

 liouses were undoubtedly, under the present system, the spots 

 in which many such crimes were concocted. Traps were set 

 to catch men ; prisons received them afterwards ; the weary 

 round went on ; and the system became a national manufac- 

 toiy of crime. Take away the tax, and down would fall mon- 

 opolies and adulterations, and give a man comfort at hia home, 

 and up would spring rationality, sobriety, and moderation. 

 How was it with the middle classes? Did they meet to get 

 drunk, or for the mere purpose of drinking ? No : they went 

 out to eujoy themselves ; and he believed, if good beer was 

 given to the labouring classes, aud it waa made comparatively 

 common, they would tread in the footsteps of those above them. 

 At present, adulteration and immorality appeared to go hand in 

 hand. If it was only for the sake of the poor man — for the 

 sake of increasing his sobriety, health, and enjoyment — he 

 (Mr. Bond) called upon agriculturists to pull away hard aud 

 sharp, aud they might depend upon succeeding. He believed 

 Mr. Hudson was perfectly correct in stating that the malt-tax, 

 as it at present stood, amounted to about 300 per cent, upon 

 the rental value of the land. He (Mr. Bond) considered the 

 following were injurious influences to the tenants or producers : 

 In Malt Tax 70 per cent. 



„ Adulteration 70 per cent. 



„ Brewing Monopoly .. .. 10 per cent. 



„ Excise Restrictions . . . . 10 per cent. 



„ Licensing ditto . • . . . . 10 per cent. 



„ Prohibition to Labour . . . . 30 per cent. 



„ Ditto Stock .. .. .. 10 per cent. 



He knew the consumer paid the duty ; and past expe- 

 rience with regard to sugar, coffee, and tea proved that 

 a high duty seriously curtailed consumption. In the in- 

 stance of tea, the duty was a few years since lowered 

 Is. The consumption immediately increased 80 per cent. ; 

 while it fell to its former amount immediately the tax was 

 put on again : and he believed that, if the malt-duty were re- 

 moved, the quantity of barley and malt required would be 

 three times what it was now. At present, adulteration and 

 high duties checked consumption, and substituted an impure 

 for a pore article. From 1848 to 1858 the population in- 

 creased 14 per cent.; but the increase in the consumption of 

 barley was only 10 per cent., while in the same period the in- 

 crease in the consumption of tea was 50 per cent. If this was 

 a natural result, it would be all well and good ; but the po- 

 pular taste was literally driven from beer to tea and other 

 articles, because men did not like to be poisoned, but wanted 

 something they could drink and enjoy. He hoped all farmers 

 would unite as one man to pull down a tax which he consi- 

 dered unfair on their industry, a fetter on their enterprise, and 

 an oppression towards the poor man — a tax which was pro- 

 ductive of monopolies, adulterations, drunkenness, and crime 

 (cheers). The resolution he had to submit to the meeting 

 was to the effect " that the malt-tax bore heavily upon the 

 labouring classes, being, in its operation, injurious to their 

 health and morals." 



Mr.D.vwsoN seconded the resolution, which waa agreed to. 

 Mr. Hitchcock moved " that those parts of the budget re- 

 lating to the admission of French wines and foreign malt, un- 

 accompanied by any proposition for the reduction of the duty 

 levied on malt produced at home, were most unjust to the pro- 



dacerand manufacturer of British barley aud malt, and to the 

 consumer of British beer, and called for the loudest re- 

 monstrances on the part of those affected thereby." Mr. Hitch- 

 cock said he would throw overboard the philanthropic part of 

 the case, as it had been already so well stated by Mr. Bond; 

 but he considered that the interests of the farmers were spe- 

 cially affected by the operation of the budget, and he thought 

 that it was their business to address themselves to their spe- 

 cial grievances. The object aimed at in the budget appeared 

 to be to extend the consumption of foreign wines, and to re- 

 duce perhaps the consumption of British beer. At all events, 

 this was the tendency of the budget; but it must be to the 

 interest of the farmer that there should be more beer and less 

 wine consumed, rather than less beer and more wine. He 

 thought farmers should look at what was practicable. It was 

 all very well to talk of the repeal of the malt-tax, but he believed 

 the malt-tax could not be repealed all at once. Mr. Biddell 

 had assumed that the malt-tax ought not to be retained under 

 free trade, althoXigh it was admissible under a protective 

 system ; but the malt-tax existed before Protection, and, being 

 an old tax, it could not be expected that it would be entirely 

 remitted. The elasticity of the revenue should, however, be 

 taken into account; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

 retained a portion of the duty, say one-half, it would probably 

 realize as much as before. If the revenue derived from French 

 wines was expected to be as great with a low as with a high 

 duty, why not try the same principle with respect to the malt- 

 tax? The malt-tax dated back to 1678, and farmers could 

 hardly expect its entire removal ; but they might fairly de- 

 mand its reduction, which would no doubt lead to an increased 

 consumption; for in 1853, when Mr. Gladstone raised the 

 duty from 28. Vjd. to 4s. l^d., the immediate effect was a 

 diminution in the consumption from 36,000,000 to 30,000,000 

 buahels, while as soon as the increased duty was taken off 

 there was as much consumed aa before. What was true in 

 1853 ought to be true in 1860 or 1861 ; for they could hardly 

 be so sanguine as to suppose they would get anything this 

 year, although by agitation they might lay the foundation of 

 a reduction at some future period. Mr, M'CuUoch, who was 

 always quoted as a great free trade authority, argued that if 

 the wine duties were reduced, and the consumption increased 

 to the extent anticipated, there would be a considerable de- 

 crease in the consumption of beer ; and to do justice to all, it 

 would be necessary to make corresponding reductions in the 

 malt duty, for, he added, " there should be no favouritism in 

 taxation." Mr. Gladstone's policy towards the British malt- 

 ster was most unfair, and certainly not conceived in the spirit 

 of free trade. A case could not be made out against the pro- 

 hibition of foreign malt, which waa only prohibited as a pro- 

 tection to the revenue, that there should be no smuggling ; 

 but what he complained of in Mr. Gladstone's policy was that 

 it required the English maltster to pay his duty within a cer- 

 tain time, while the foreigner was to be at liberty to let his 

 malt remain in bond as long as he pleased. At the end of 

 April there must be six months' stock in hand ; and tlitrefore 

 on a great deal of the malt required for brewing in October 

 and November following, the duty would have to be paid by 

 the Gladstone proposition by the end of June, while the 

 foreigner could let his malt lie in bond as long as he 

 liked. This could not be fair ; for under such a system a 

 foreigner would be able to carry on his business with half the 

 capital required by an English maltster. If the foreigner waa 

 to he allowed to bond his malt, why should not the English- 

 man do the same ? The Times lately objected to being made 

 collector of the revenue ; but under the system proposed, the 

 maltster would be placed in such a position. If a farmer sold 

 his barley to a maltster, aud the latter failed, the farmer merely 

 lost his barley ; but if a brewer failed, the maltster would lose 

 his malt and the duty too (laughter). This was a great griev- 

 ance, which would tell indirectly on the price of barley ; for 

 whatever affected the maltster must affect the farmer also. 

 The duty, he considered, ought not to be demanded from a 

 maltster till the malt actually lelt^his premises. In conclusion, 

 Mr. Hitchcock expressed his opinion that a division of bene- 

 fits—which would be shared in by farmer, maltster, and 

 labourer — would follow a reduction of the duty. 



Mr. Beckett, in seconding the resolution, said it was clear 

 that Mr. Gladstone was no friend of the farmers. In his last bud- 

 get the rich man and he who fared sumptuously every day ap- 

 peared to have hia first consideration ; the manufacturers the 



O 2 



