PROTEST BY DEPUTATION 259 



On 4th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. 

 Lowe) said in the House of Commons that " the remission of 

 the tax would benefit partly landowners and partly con- 

 sumers of beer." The theory, previously held, that the tax 

 was paid entirely by consumers, being thus abandoned. 



1870. 



A deputation attended by representatives of thirty-two 

 Chambers and fifty-seven Members of Parliament interviewed 

 the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th March, and presented 

 a memorial prajn'ng for unrestricted permission to sprout 

 and prepare grain for feeding purposes, and for a repeal or 

 reduction of the Malt Tax, or for its transference to beer. 

 The arguments in the memorial were repeated in a condensed 

 form* in a petition to which local Chambers were asked to 

 get signatures, and which were sent out 011 15th March. But 

 one point is brought out so w r ell in the memorial that it is 

 given here in extenso, because it shows one of the arguments 

 which misled the Chambers into asking for a transference of 

 the duty to beer. The guileless innocence which engendered 

 the belief that any relief from the duty would be given by 

 maltsters and brewers to the producers is touching in its 

 simplicity. An increase in taxation is passed on at once, 



* That the Malt Duty, as at present levied, interferes with the most 

 remunerative rotations of crops and limits the growth of barley. 



That the prohibition of the use of sprouted grain as food for animals 

 deprives farmers of a source of profit in their business and of a means 

 of protecting themselves against adulterated feeding-stuffs. 



That the Malt for Cattle Act (1863), 27 & 28 Vic. c. 9, is inoperative 

 by reason of the expensive and wasteful character of the feeding 

 mixtures which alone it permits to be used, and by reason of the 

 obstructive and vexatious conditions which it imposes. 



That the incidence of the Malt Tax falls with peculiar pressure upon 

 the labouring classes artificially enhancing the price of beer, thereby 

 encouraging the practice of adulteration and interfering with cottage 

 brewing, and with the comforts, habits and morals of poorer families. 



That an excessive loss falls upon consumers owing to the duty being 

 levied upon the raw material, malt, instead of on the manufactured 

 article, beer. 



Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House 

 to repeal or reduce the Excise Duty upon malt, or, in the absence of 

 such relief, to adjust the burden so that it may be less oppressive upon 

 agriculture and less costly to the public. 



s 2 



