SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 23 June 1863)

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
rose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the effect of the malt duties upon the cultivation and price of barley; upon the manufacture and price of malt and malt liquor; and upon the application of malt to the feeding of cattle and sheep The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it must be admitted that the agricultural interest had been little favoured by modern legislation. The Marquess of Chandos had in vain called attention to this subject in 1835. Since then Parliament had repealed the Corn Laws; had imposed the succession duty; had reduced the duties on foreign wines and other articles of foreign produce; and especially they had facilitated importation of foreign cattle; but the duty upon malt was undiminished. He thought, therefore, that the time had come when he might ask them at least to take some steps to consider the general effect of the malt duties through the means of a Committee. He would be content if his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to an inquiry. He did not wish to interfere with the revenue of the present year, but he wished to submit the great question whether or not a very considerable reduction of the duty on malt might not be effected without material injury to the revenue. When the question was before a Royal Commission in 1835, several witnesses gave it as their opinion, that if the duty were reduced by one-half, the loss to the revenue would not he appreciable, and therefore he looked hopefully to the effects of reduction. In 1722, when the duty was 4s. per barrel, the consumption of beer was 6,000,000 of gallons, or just a barrel per head per annum; in 1833, when the duty was 20s. 8d., the consumption was 8,000,000 barrels, or just half a barrel per head of the increased population, the increase of duty leading to a diminution by one-half of consumption. The tax, in fact, fell with great severity on the only luxury within the poor man's means. He believed he could adduce evidence which would incontestibly show that a reduction 1380 of one-half of the duty would not lead to a diminution of the revenue. As to the use of malt in feeding cattle, whatever might be said by theoretical chemists, practical farmers said it would he of great utility, and that it would lead to a complete revolution in cattle feeding. The additional consumption of bailey resulting from the reduction of the duty would lead also to the increased cultivation of poor land, and, consequently, to increased employment for labour. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would consent to the appointment of the Committee.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
, in seconding the Motion, said, that although the remission of the tax would be most beneficial to the whole community, the effect on the revenue must be considered; and in dealing with a tax which produced £6,000,000 of revenue, it was difficult to advocate total abolition. The agricultural interest would, therefore, be satisfied if the Government would grant only such a diminution as the finances of the country could bear. He thought we ought to have free trade in everything. The best barley only fetched high prices at the bands of the brewers; but, with a reduction of duty, inferior lands would produce inferior barley at remunerative prices, to be turned into malt and ground up for feeding cattle, which would take the place of other cattle stimulants now resorted to by feeders, and regarded as necessary for their purposes, in the absence of malt.

§ MR. COBBETT
said, he was of opinion that the total remission of the malt tax would be most beneficial; but the Motion simply asked for a Committee to inquire whether the duty could not be reduced. With a reduction of duty, the price of malt would not be higher than the price of barley, as the increase which took place in the malting process paid for the cost. In the early part of the Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward an opinion that malt was not more efficacious in cattle feeding than barley. In consequence of that assertion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Cobbett) wrote to one of the most eminent cattle breeders, Mr. Booth, who informed him, in reply, that 1381 there was no doubt whatever that malt was one of the most "feeding things" that could be given to cattle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might just as well say that barley would make as good beer as malt, as that malt was not more beneficial to cattle than barley.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Fitzroy Kelly), when he appeared to found his Motion on the assumption that the cultivators of the soil were unjustly and unequally dealt with by recent legislation, took a line which he should not be justified in following. His hon. and learned Friend said, that while many other duties had been reduced, the malt duties had remained as they were. But his hon. and learned Friend should remember what had been done for the cultivators of the soil before. The duty on barley, in the shape of beer, which was double the malt duty, was entirely repealed about thirty years ago. What the House had to consider was, whether malt was unfairly taxed as compared with other articles. He had not the slightest objection to the reduction of the malt duty, provided the reduction could be effected with due regard to the interests of the revenue and to the relative rate of the taxes on malt and other articles now subject to taxation. The tax on malt, in relation to the value, was not higher but lower than the tax on spirits, tea, sugar, and on those descriptions of wine which could alone compete with malt liquor. Therefore, though he admitted it would be a great benefit to the country if the malt tax could be reduced, he was not prepared to allow that any case of injustice was to be made against the Legislature for the course taken with regard to malt. Free trade had been spoken of, and he agreed that all restrictions should be, as far as possible, abolished; but the necessities of the State must be borne in mind. He was quite prepared to accede to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the malt duty; but he suggested an alteration of the terms of the Motion, and the insertion of certain words which, recognising the necessities of the State as an element of consideration, would direct the Committee to inquire how far the repeal or reduction of the malt duty was compatible with the interests of the revenue. In granting this Committee of Inquiry, the Government were desirous to defer to a desire extensively entertained in that House and out of doors. Moreover, the malt duty was 1382 a duty of Excise, and, interfering therefore with the freedom of trade, it was a very proper subject for vigilant observation on the part of that House, and for careful inquiry from time to time, because an Excise duty operated as a bar to improvement. The use of malt for feeding cattle, and the relative claims of the malt duty and other duties for reduction, were fair matters for the consideration of a Committee. He did not object, therefore, to the question of the reduction of the malt duty being made a subject of inquiry, on the principle that the reduction must be effected without injury to the revenue; but he confessed that he was not sanguine in that respect.

§ MR. BENTINCK
hoped the Committee would not be animated by the same spirit as the right hon. Gentleman had just manifested. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the spirit as well as the malt duties were burdens on the soil.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he questioned the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that beer was more lightly taxed than wine. The duty on the wine which came into competition with beer, such as the "Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Claret" at 14s. per dozen, or the two gallons, was 1s. per gallon. In that case the duty was one seventh of the value; whereas in the case of beer it was one-fourth or one-fifth. As a tax on malt, and not on beer, the duty was at least 60 per cent.

MR. PACKE
said, that one effect of free trade had been to introduce disease into all the cattle markets of the country.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he would accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment.