The Marquess of Camdenpresented a Petition from agriculturists of Northbourne, in the county of Kent, asking for some relief to their distresses.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in the course of a few days he should have to present to their Lordships some petitions of a similar nature. The petitioners were anxious for the Repeal of the Malt-tax, and they wished him to support the prayer of their petition. Now, he certainly entertained a sincere respect for the petitioners; but with every respect for their opinion, he differed from them in their views on this subject, and he should do all that lay in his power to prevent so ruinous and absurd a measure from being carried into effect. He did not know that any measure could be adopted less likely to benefit the farmer or the consumer, whatever its effect might be on the maltster and the brewer. The question was, whether between 4,000,000l. and 5,000,000l. a-year was to be deducted from the public revenue 732 under the pretence of giving relief to the farmer. He must deprecate any such proceeding. He knew that all this revenue was wanted for the public service; and how could the public service be reduced so as to meet such a deficit: It then came to this—whether 5,000,000l. was to be raised upon malt, or to be raised upon income? Now, it certainly would take him a long time to consider before he consented to give up the Malt-tax for a Property-tax. Such an alteration would do much harm to the cider counties; and, in fact, light soils, where barley was grown, would be the only soils that could benefit by it, and that, too, in a very trifling degree.
Lord Teynhamwas sorry for the opinion thus expressed by the noble and learned Lord. The Malt-tax had put an end to the good system of men drinking beer brewed at home. There were now twenty beer-shops where there had been but one before. The agriculturists were highly taxed, while there where thirty millions of funded property untaxed. The loss of the five millions might be supplied by other taxes.