ESSAY REPEAL OP THE MALT-TAX, FOB WHICH A riUZE OF TWENTY FOUNDS WAS AWARDED DY TnE ASSOCIATION, ESTABLISHED AT 39 , NEW BRIDGE-STREET, ELACKFEIARS, LONDON. LONDON: PRINTED BY JOSEPH ROGERSON, 24, NORFOLK-ST'REET, STRAND. 1846 . ADDRESS. The Committee, in offering to the public this Essay “ upon the evils resulting from the tax upon malt,” avail themselves of the opportunity to add a few explanatory remarks upon the subject. The maintenance of this injurious impost for so long a period and to such an excessive amount, whilst other duties neither so injurious nor so oppressive have been either repealed or re¬ duced, is an argument of the general inattention of the people to its pernicious effects. As the human constitution accommo¬ dates itself to every variety of climate, so does the moral faculty to all the varied circumstances which society exhibits; thus we are all more or less the slaves of habit. We have been born under this infliction of the Malt Tax: it has 'appeared to us as one of the laws of our existence, and the fetter has ceased to gall only because the skin has been indurated by early and long-continued pressure. Hence a considerable space of time, with earnest and reiterated appeals, is requisite to attract the attention of the public to the question, and to direct the moral influence of an actively-engaged population against an evil which is not the less real because they are ignorant of the pre¬ cise manner of its working. No small obstacle has been thrown in the way of the friends of repeal by the false colouring industriously given to the ques¬ tion as purely agricultural. We admit that the landed interest, from the great landlord down to the meanest labourer, suffers severely from the operation of this tax; and if it could be shewn that the landed interest suffered alone, which must be supposed to constitute it a purely agricultural question, then we should argue for its repeal on the ground of its partial and imequal pressure on one particular portion of the community. Now, as it affects agriculture, we do not complain that the price of barley is depressed, and that the profits of the tenant-farmer are con¬ sequently reduced, and the rental of the landlord lowered. The following are the real subjects of complaint with us, viz.:—. That the demand for our produce is unnaturally curtailed; that 4 barley of an inferior quality is rendered comparatively valueless; that the adoption of an improved system of agriculture is greatly impeded; that we are debarred from using our corn in its most approved state for fattening our stock;* that the demand for labour is abridged, and a heavy charge incurred for the mainte¬ nance of the unemployed; that the labourer is robbed of his fair share of the fruits of the earth, and exposed, in consequence, to frequent sickness; that the farmer who supplies this necessary sustenance to his labourers—and many cannot support the charge—pays fifty pounds to government out of every hundred he expends; and finally, that whilst foreign corn is to be ad¬ mitted free of duty, every acre of British barley to be malted is subjected to the enormous tax of five pounds ten shillings. These are the subjects of complaint with us; and if well founded, which we are prepared to show by indisputable evi¬ dence, they take the question out of the narrow category of agri¬ cultural grievances, and inscribe it in the catalogue of sins against humanity, and—what is perhaps yet more sacred in the eyes of some—political economy itself. But how entirely does the agricultural portion of the ques¬ tion vanish when we direct attention to the fact, that the result of our efforts, if successful, would be the reduction of the price of all malt liquors one-half to every consumer throughout the kingdom; nor this alone, but the insurance of a more whole¬ some and palatable beverage! for in the same proportion as the cost of malt is reduced, is the motive to adulteration taken away. It is therefore the cause of the whole labouring population which we seek to advance—not of agricultural labourers only, but of mechanics, artisans, manufacturers, of all who earn their bread, and we would gladly say their beer also, by the sweat of their brow. We assume these principles—that malt liquor in its use, not abuse, is necessary in this climate to the health and vigour of the laborious classes; and that, being so necessary, malt liquor is not a legitimate object of taxation. We deem it mon¬ strous that nearly one-tenth of the public revenue should be derived from this single source; and still more monstrous that four millions out of five should be drained from the laborious classes; and hardly drained, for if not restricted by the en¬ hanced price, these very classes, without committing an abuse, would consume four times the present amount; but as things now are, the greater part are altogether deprived; some are scantily supplied, and others from the very infrequency of the indulgence, are tempted to excess. * Vide Mr. Hudson’s practical result, published in the Mark Lane Express, on Monday, July 27. 5 Nor ought we to omit mentioning the injury inflicted on manufacturing industry, by the effectual barrier which the stringent regulations of the excise present to all improvements and economical arrangements in the system of malting corn; from which, if the maltster were allowed the unfettered exercise of his skill, extensive benefit to the community might be rea¬ sonably anticipated. We are frequently met by the assumed impossibility of sup¬ plying so important an item in the public revenue. We were met by this argument in 1829, and in the year following taxes were repealed and reduced to the amount of four millions, the malt duty then paying threc-and-a half. Wc might point also to the very large remission of taxation on a vast variety of ob¬ jects since that distant period. If, however, the malt duty returns five millions to the State, it inflicts an injury upon the country, if our allegations be correct, to the amount of twenty millions, and is therefore a most profligate tax ; but these five millions never find their way into the Exchequer without being first sifted and winnowed; the expences of collection must be deducted, and the drawback allowed on the exportation of beer: and again, whatever portion of malt is consumed in our distil¬ leries might be still charged by proportionately raising the duty on spirits. The Committee take their leave of the subject for the present, respectfully commending it to the serious consideration of the public, in whose sendee they humbly believe themselves to be labouring, and expressing their strong conviction that nothing would so essentially contribute to the relief of the country, to the happiness of the people, and to their moral culture, as The Total Repeal of the Malt Tax. ESSAY FOR WHICH A PRIZE OF £20 HAS BEEN AWARDED BY THE “ TOTAL REPEAL MALT TAX ASSOCIATION.” The Committee of the 11 Total Repeal Malt Tax Association,” in putting forth their advertisement offering £20 for the best Essay- on the Evils resulting from the Malt Tax, have—very judiciously for themselves, and very conveniently for the competitors for the premium—defined the particular points to which their ar¬ guments are to he confined; thus materially simplifying the task of the judges who may he appointed to decide, inasmuch as each essay being grounded on the same basis, their comparative merits may more easily be ascertained. Judging from the steps they are now talcing, we may safely conclude that the members of the Association are zealous and sincere in them professed de¬ termination not to desist from agitating this question until it is finally set at rest by the repeal of the tax; and we may con¬ gratulate them on the propriety of the measures adopted to effect their purpose. The experience of the last few years has taught the nation two important lessons: First —“ That any measure, if grounded on truth and'-justice, must ultimately be carried by means of that peaceful agitation, however great, which is based on the moral power of the people.” Second—“ That such is the excellence of the British consti¬ tution, combining amazing strength with amazing elasticity, that, however great may be the pressure upon it, yet, when this pressure is once removed, its strength is-found to have been un¬ impaired, and its elasticity still capable of restoring it to its original form and beauty.” If then we can show that the Malt Tax is impolitic and unjust, we may safely calculate on enlisting the moral strength of the people against its continuance; and so surely as we succeed in this, so surely may we reckon on the “ total repeal of the Malt Tax.” In conformity with the foregoing observations, it will be our duty to endeavour to show that the opposition to the Malt Tax B is founded on sound principles, agreeably to the propositions laid dou'n by the Committee, and which are as follow, viz.— 1st. The evils resulting to the Farmer from the Malt Tax. 2nd. The evils resulting to the Labouring Community. 3rd. The mils resulting to the Public at Large. And first, of the first—“ The evils resulting to the Farmer.” All taxation, taken abstractedly, is an evil; but, since no good government can be maintained without taxes, it is neces¬ sary that these should be raised in the way most consonant to the general feelings of the people, and the least injurious to the interests of the trade and commerce of the country. No law, whatever be its nature, can long be maintained in a free com¬ munity against the feelings of the people; nor will a commer¬ cial country long submit to any fiscal regulation when once seen to be in opposition to the best interests of trade and commerce. It has long been a received maxim that the taxing the raw material is highly impolitic—that every encouragement should Ire given to the admission of such articles, so that the manufac¬ turer directly, and the nation indirectly, may derive all the profit arising from the skill and labour bestow r ed upon it. This principle w r c have seen fully carried out in the case, both of cotton and wool, when, in 1842, the last penny of importation duty was removed from each pound of the latter, and, in 1845, the last farthing from that of the former. The same jealousy of taxing the raw material was shown as regards coals, the pro¬ duce of our own country, as of that of foreign production; for, though in 1842 Sir Robert Peel put on a duty of Is. per ton on all coals exported to foreign countries, such was the outcry raised against it, as interfering with the interests of the ship¬ owners and with the labour of the miners, that, in less than two years, it was abolished. Some years ago, there were severe prohibitory law's against the exportation of wool: these arc now done array with, and thus importation and exportation are both equally free, and even-handed justice is dealt out both to the home and the foreign grower of wool. The principles of free trade having been carried out to a cer¬ tain extent by the recent alteration of the duties on foreign corn, grain of foreign growth will be admitted duty-free, while barley, the growth of our own country, will be taxed, through the instru¬ mentality of the Malt Duty, and hence even-handed justice will not he dealt out both to the home and to the foreign giwer of barley. And how can this injustice be defended ? Put let us examine more closely into the various w r ays in winch injus¬ tice is thus inflicted on the farmer of this country. There arc three species of food containing properties calcu¬ lated for the fattening of cattle, and which may be denominated farinaceous, oleaginous, and saccharine. The former consists of wheat, barley, oats, beans, peas, and maize or Indian com; the oleaginous is chiefly confined to linseed cake; and the sac¬ charine embraces mangold-wurzel, turnips, carrots, and pars¬ nips. Now, these are all of English growth, with the exception of maize and linseed-cake, the former of which is admitted at the nominal duty of Is. per quarter, and the latter quite free. Now, of these three fattening properties, the most stimulant are the oleaginous and saccharine, the former of the two chiefly imported, and the latter only to be obtained in the inferior state of mangold-wurzel, turnips, carrots, and parsnips. We say in¬ ferior; but to what? The answer is at hand — to barley! And why cannot the farmer avail himself of this article, seeing it is of his own growth, producible more or less in every soil ? Again we have a ready reply—the Malt Tax ! Barley, in its simple ground state, has fattening qualities; but these arc very poor when compared to those which may be brought into action by means of the malting process which, to a certain point, is allowed, that is, so far as steeping it is concerned; but beyond this the process is prohibited, and therefore the privilege is useless. The barley-growers of France, of Belgirun, of Holland, and of Germany, not haring the fear of the exciseman before then eyes, may steep their grain, bring out thus its fattening quali¬ ties, feed their cattle on it, and then bring these to the English market duty-free, to compete with the English farmer, who may stand by and sec his ow r n cattle superseded in his own mar¬ ket, merely because he cannot use the same means of fattening them as the foreigner. And why is all this ? Because the Malt Tax interferes, and puts its veto upon his endeavours to compete with his opponent. The British farmer is not afraid to compete with the farmers of France, of Belgium, of Holland, and of Ger¬ many, if he has the same advantages; but, as the law wall stand when the new Tariff comes into operation, the blindness of jus¬ tice will not have made her hold the balance even, but have caused her to put all the weights into the foreign scale, and leave the home one to kick the beam. It seems to me about the same thing as if turn men w r ere matched to ran against each other, one haring his legs tied while the other has his both at liberty. In proportion to the goodness of the barley which the malt¬ ster uses is the quantity of saccharine he can produce from it, and in proportion to the saccharine is the value of the malt. We have already said that all lands will produce barley, more or less in quantity, and, we may here add, of different qualities. 10 The barleys grown on the lighter soils—the gravelly, the sanely, and the chalky—are thin-skinned, and full of farina; while those of the stiffer are thick-skinned, and possess proportion¬ ately less flour. Of course, the maltster chooses the former, because, under the numerous restrictions to which his trade is subjected by the present law, he finds these not only more pro¬ fitable, hut he is, in some measure, prevented from using the latter. We are not pretending to argue that the best barleys will not, under the greatest freedom, make the best malt; but we do contend that the lower class of barleys might and would be much more used, were the restrictions above alluded to alto¬ gether removed. At present, the maltster not only has to pay a duty of 21s. 8d. per quarter on the malt he makes, but the law defines even the process of his manufacture, not leaving him the free exercise of his ingenuity in making improvements: he must wet his barley at a certain hour, he must let it lie in the cistern only a certain number of hours, he must keep it in the couch or bed so long, he must water it only with certain limit¬ ations, any deviation from these regulations being visited with heavy pecuniary penalties. Now, owing to these stringent rules, only the best or thin- rinded barleys can be brought to work profitably within the time specified; but, were these restrictions removed, there is no doubt that the lower species of barleys, by having longer time allowed in the process, might be converted into a much better land of malt than they can be at present. But from the cause above mentioned, they are pretty generally re¬ jected altogether; and thus the maltster directly, and the farmer indirectly, are again injured by the Malt Tax, with this difference between the two—the former, by the use of the su¬ perior barleys, can still cany on his trade, while the latter finds himself without any remedy, and the more he thinks upon the matter, and the more closely he examines into it, the more is he convinced that the great obstacle to his prosperity is the Malt Tax. Speaking of the check the tax is on the maltster, and hence the propriety of its removal, we may further observe that, owing to the duty on glass, there were some of the superior sorts which could not be manufactured in this country so as to com¬ pete, with the French; and this was one argument used, some years back, for its abolition, to which was last year added the further reason for its repeal, that it would increase the amount of the manufacture, and, of course, the employment of the workmen engaged in it. And, if these arguments had weight as regarded the injury inflicted by the glass duty, with how much greater weight are they applicable to the injustice of the Malt Tax, seeing how much more numerous are the farmers 11 than tlie glass manufacturers, the labourers of the former than the workmen of the latter ! Furthermore, we may observe that, previously to the increase of duty in 1780, there was a considerable trade carried on be¬ tween some of the southern and western ports of England and Ireland by the exportation of malt from the former to the latter. All taxes (and such are those of the Excise) which interfere with the carrying on of any home trades or manufactures, are bad in principle, and hence the policy of their abrogation. The reduction of all Customs’ duties as low as is consistent with the prosperity of our own manufactures and the raising of a re¬ venue seems acknowledged by all statesmen as the true stan¬ dard of policy in financial matters. Of late years, the repeal of taxes has had reference more to those of Customs than those of Excise. This does not appear to be quite fair. We do not quarrel with the repeal of Customs’ duties; we only crave that the repeal of Excise duties shall go hand-in-hand with the former; in short, that the abolition of the Malt Duty shall fol¬ low as speedily as possible that of the Corn Duties.* There was a time when the farmer could send his quarter of barley to the maltster, and receive back a quarter of malt in re¬ turn, the increase in making being considered sufficient pay¬ ment for the manufacture; and, were the tax repealed, there is no reason why this custom should not again prevail. On exa¬ mination or inquiry among those of a former generation, it will be found that malt-houses abounded in all parts of the king¬ dom ; whereas now they are principally, if not entirely, confined to those districts in which the best barleys are produced, or these are purchased and conveyed to other places where they are not grown, for the piu'pose of being there malted. Thus in the London market almost all the malts are brought from one or other of the following counties, viz., Norfolk, Suffolk, Hert¬ fordshire, Surrey, Dorsetshire, and the South Downs in Sussex. Now, were the Malt Tax repealed, malt-houses would again spring up; the farmer who cultivates the stiffer soils would be able to use his barleys: either for the purpose of fattening his cattle, or, when made into malt, for brewing beer for his own family and his labourers. Thus would he derive con¬ siderable advantages; because, whatever he supplied to his workmen in the shape of beer, would have to be deducted from the amount paid in money wages; the labourers would be benefited by having the beer, and the farmer supplying them in kind, instead of money, would receive great benefit, particularly the smaller one, inasmuch as, owing to the slow return of agri- * In common justice the repeal of the malt duty ought to have had pre¬ cedence of the repeal of the com law.—E d. 12 cultural produce, his greatest difficulty lies in the want of capital: and it is by no means improbable that the situation of the farmers, generally speaking, has been deteriorated from the time when they ceased to keep labourers in their bouses, as these were fed from the produce of the farm in food and beer, and little money was required for wages. Here, again, the Malt Tax crosses his path, and inflicts an additional injiuy on the farmer. Whether we look at the injury the farmer receives by the in¬ direct taxing of the raw material of barley, contrary to all the tme maxims of taxation—whether we Hew the consequences arising from this fundamental error in the prevention of the use of barley for fattening his cattle—whether we consider how the inferior barleys are shut out from the malt market by the se¬ vere restrictions of the Excise—whether we look at the hard¬ ship under which the farmer labours from being precluded from turning his barley into malt for his own and his labourers’ con¬ sumption—in whatever way we Hew the question, we cannot fail to sec that the Malt Tax inflicts a grievous, impolitic, and un¬ justifiable injury on the farmer, and that sound policy and even- handed justice demand the “ total repealfif this obnoxious tax.” Secondly.—The evils resulting to the Labouring Community. HaHng endeavoured to show under the former head the cHls arising from this tax is as it affects the farmer, we may here ob¬ serve that all these evils are more or less felt by the labourers at large, but more particularly by those engaged in agriculture. Where the tax interferes so as to lessen the cultivation of barley and its application to the fattening of cattle, the farmer is the greatest sufferer; but where it operates so as to deprive the la¬ bourer of his beer, then the latter has most reason to complain : for, although the price of this favourite beverage being raised by the tax tends to increase the expences of the farmer, still it only affects him pecuniarily, aud not physically, seeing that he is not altogether precluded from the use of this nutritious Deverage; whereas the labourer, being affected in a pecuniary way, is also affected in a physical one j for, unfortunately, no sooner do you touch the labourer’s pocket, than his stomach is sure to suffer in unison with it. Those who are unacquainted with the internal management of the poor man’s small means of existence, can form but a very slight notion of the injury in¬ flicted on him by the least rise in the price of any of the com¬ mon necessaries of life. Hence it becomes the bounden duty of Government to adopt all such mcasiues as may tend to keep the general articles of food in use among the people at the lowest price consistent with remuneration, And to insure this 13 desirable end, all extraneous increase must be removed: and what is more extraneous tbau a tax on tbis food? What is a more essential article of food than beer ? And what can tend so much to raise the price of this —the people’s beverage —as the Malt Tax ? And what demand can justice and policy more im¬ periously make than the “ total repeal of the duty on malt ?” Among the many beneficent dispensations of Providence, we cannot fail to observe how wisely it has been ordained that dif¬ ferent climates should produce different kinds of food, each pe¬ culiarly adapted to the physical wants of then' respective inha¬ bitants. Thus, the natives of the East Indies have their rice ; of the West Indies their yams and then cocoa-nuts; of the South of Europe their grapes, their olives, and their figs; and of the more northern nations then wheat, their barley, and other fa¬ rinaceous products. Now, to tax these articles, forming the staple of the people’s food in then respective countries, has ever been considered most unwise, most unjust, flying, as it were, in the face of heaven, interposing between the Great Giver of all good things and their intended recipients, and dashing from tlu; lips of a famishing people the cup which a kind Providence had prepared for them. Mark with what indignation the poet exclaims against those who some years ago obtained a monopoly of rice in Hin- dostau, and saw the people starve, rather than unlock their store before it rose to a famine price: “ Rich in the gems of India’s gaudy zone. And plunder pil’d from kingdoms not their own— Degenerate trade! thy minions could despise The heart-horn anguish of a thousand cries— Could lock, with impious hands, their teeming store. While furnish’d nations died along the shore !— Could mock the groans of fellow-men, and hear The curse of kingdoms, peopled with despair— Could stamp disgrace on man’s polluted name, And barter with their gold eternal shame!” Campbell’s Pleasures of Hope. The Gabcllc, or Salt Tax, affecting this great necessary of life, and which pressed so heavily on the French under the old regime , was one of the incipient causes of the revolution in their country. The present Octroi Tax in Prance, which is a duty le¬ vied on wine, and the produce of the country, when conveyed from one province or from one town to another, is considered by more enlightened financiers to be a most absiu'd tax, being based on the false principle we have been alluding to. The Malt Tax, resting on an equally unstable foundation, must fall. It has been argued by some that the farmer’s objection against the Malt Tax was not altogether valid, so long as the duty 14 on the importation of com continued; but that being taken away, every day that the Malt Tax remains, the sta¬ tute book' will he the record of a gross act of injustice both to the farmer and the labourer of Great Britain, and more particularly to the latter. But let us descend to particulars, and see more minutely how this tax has operated to the injury of the labouring community. The first tax was laid upon malt in 1C97, and the following are the various alterations it has undergone; viz :— In 1897 the duty per quarter was £0 4 0 „ 1760 „ }J 33 0 6 0 „ 1780 3) 33 0 10 10 „ 1791 3) 33 0 12 10 „ 1793 33 33 0 10 10 „ 1802 33 33 0 19 4 „ 1803 33 33 1 15 10 „ 1816 33 33 0 19 4 „ 1819 33 33 1 8 10 „ 1822 „ 33 33 1 0 8 „ row nve per cent. lain ou „ r i o The following tables are intended to show the operation of the tax on consumption :— _ Year Population. Bushels of Malt made. Duty per bushel. Consumption per head. 1730 5,687,993 28,410,421 s. d. 0 6 bush. gal. 0 1740 5,829,705 22,074,674 0 6 barely 4 0 1750 6,039,684 29,284,786 0 6 5 0 1760 6,479,730 27,810,971 0 9 4 21 1770 7,227,586 24,452,960 0 9 3 4 1780 7,814,827 30,805,100 1 41 4 0 1790 8,540,738 21,976,959 1 41 2 41 1801 8,872,980 30,338,376 2 5 3 3 1803 9,132,980 29,562,038 4 51 1 3 2 1805 9,392,980 21,665,204 2 5 ; 2 2l 1811 10,150,615 25,982,749 — 2 4' 1813 10,550,615 21,701,356 — 2 0 1821 11,978,875 13,249,508 26,138,437 3 71 2 11 1828 30,517,819 2 7 2 2 1829 13,431,027 23,428,135 — i 1 6 1831 13,897,187 32,963,470 — ! 2 21 1837 15,097,187 33,692,356 — ! 2 2 1841 15,906,829 30,956,394 5 per ct. added ! 1 7i 1844 16,511,725 31,856,551 — I 1 71 1845 16,711,725 30,508,840 ... i 1 61 15 These tables are calculated for England and Wales alone. The population down to 1790 is taken from “ Wade’s British History,” aud hence from the parliamentary census, the inter¬ mediate years being reckoned at an increase of 200,000 an¬ nually. The Malt Tax is taken from “The Penny Cyclopsedia,” and the amount of consumption from the same work down to 1790; and after this time, with the exception of that of 1801, from the parliamentary returns. On examining the last table, the following observations can¬ not fail to suggest themselves. The average consumption of each individual for the four first periods of ten year’s each, while the duty was only sixpence per bushel (for, though raised in 1760 to ninepence, it could scarcely be felt in this year), was 4 bushels 4J- gallons; whereas, in the next twenty years to 1780, it was only 3 bushels 6 gallons, being a decrease of 64 gallons, or more than 16 per cent. From 1780 to 1790, the duty having been increased to Is. 41d. per bush., the average fell to 2 bushels 41 gallons per head; that is, it decreased one-third, or 33 per cent. In the next eleven years, probably owing to the war, which commenced in 1793, the consumption increased to 3 bushels 3 gallons—nearly to what it had been in 1780. But from the time that the duty was raised in 1803 to 4s. 5Id. per bushel, although it underwent subsequently several modifica¬ tions, there has been a general tendency to a decline in the con¬ sumption of malt; so that the average from this latter year to 1845,both inclusive, is only 2bushels IS gallons; while that from 1730 to 1801 is as high as 4 bushels, or nearly double. Down to the year 1829, there was a duty on beer of five shil¬ lings per barrel; and we find the consumption as low as 1 bushel 6 gallons per head: but this tax having been in that year re¬ pealed, we find an impetus was given at once to consumption, the average of 1831 and 1837 being 2 bushels 2 gallons, show¬ ing an increase of half a bushel per head, or about thirty per cent. In 1840, five per cent, was added to the Malt Tax, and the consumption fell to 1 bushel 7 gallons—the average from that time to this. It may seem scarcely justifiable to as¬ cribe so great a decrease of consumption to so seemingly trifling an increase of duty; but as it is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back, so this increase of duty so far decreased the consumption as to be sufficient to show that taxation had pre¬ viously reached its maximum as regards malt, and that the least rise or fall would make the scale preponderate for or against the consumer, according to which was placed therein. In speaking of this slight alteration producing such great re¬ sults, it must be borne in mind that, partly in consequence of the great increase of duty on malt in 1803, and partly from the 16 immense rise in the price of barley, malt became so excessively deal* as to put it out of tbe power of the labourer to purchase it for the pm-pose of brewing at home; aud hence, when he wished to indulge himself with a draught of his favourite liquor, he was compelled to resort to the alehouse to obtain it: the former practice ceased, and the latter took its place, and the pre¬ sent generation are ignorant of the custom of brewing then own beer, so prevalent among their ancestors. And now let us sec how this change operates to the injury of the labouring commu¬ nity. The average price of barley for several weeks past has been about 30s. j but, as inferior samples are included, which are not used for maltiug, we shall assume 32s. per quarter to be the price: £ s. d. .Barley, per quarter 1 12 0 Malt duty per do. .1 1 8 or 66 per cent. Price to maltster . . 2 13 8 Profit .at 10 per cent. 0 5 4 or 161 per cent. Price to brewer . . 2 19 0 Profit at 10 per cent. 0 6 0 or 18 per cent. Price to publican .350 Profit at 10 percent. 0 6 6 or 20 per cent. Price to consumer . 3 11 6 or 1201 per do. on the qr. barley. Thus does the labourer pay 1201 per cent, more than the original cost of the barley, owing to the Malt Tax; or, in other words, supposing the tax were repealed, the price of barley 32s, per qr., and the increase sufficient to pay the maltster’s ex- pences of manufacture, then the consumer would buy malt at 4s. 6d. per bushel (allowing 10 per cent, profit to the maltster, and rather more), iustead of 8s. per bushel—the present price; and thus would he save in this way nearly half, that is to say, the duty compels him to pay almost cent, per cent, more for liis malt than he would without it. Taking this statement as correct, then every man who drinks a quart of porter or beer at 4d. per quart pays rather more than 2d. for tax; but as porter or beer of the same quality sells at 3 Id. per quart in London, which costs the consumer 4d. in the country, we will take the medium at 2d., which will be quite within the mark, and then it results that every man who con¬ sumes one quart of porter or beer daily of the quality here spe- 17 cified must pay annually by way of tax not less tlian three pounds and tenpence, or one shilling and twopence per week. The following table will show the amount of duty paid at dif¬ ferent periods by the labourer individually, and also by his family, estimating the latter at five persons:— Year. Consump¬ tion per head. Tax per bushel. Tax per head. Tax per Family. bush. gal. s. d. s. d. £ s. d. 1730 to 1760 4 41 0 6 2 3 0 11 3 1760 to 1780 3 6 0 9 2 10 0 14 2 1780 to 1801 3 01 1 4| 4 0 1 0 0 1803 to 1805 2 6 4 5| 12 4 3 18 We shall not cany this calculation any farther, as we consider the labourer now ceased to brew, and henceforth his consump¬ tion took place in the shape of beer at the alehouse increasing the tax on him as already stated. But this table will show how cruelly the tax oppressed the labourer, for though he gra¬ dually lessened his consumption, the former still increased upon him, until, no longer able to bear up uuder the load, he aban¬ doned his home-brewed beer in despair. Let us apply one more test before we leave this part of our sirbject, for should we be able to show that we are writing in the cause of suffering humanity, we may safely calculate on enlisting in our cause all the best feelings, and, consequently, the most zealous assistance of all our fellow-countrymen:— In 1775 Wages per week were - 7s. Od. „ Malt per bushel - - 2 6 The labourer could earn per week nearly 3 bushels. In 1845 Wages are per week - 12 0 „ Malt per bushel - - 8 0 The labourer can earn per week only 1> bushels. In 1775 Wages were per year - £18 4 0 „ 4 bush. Malt cost the labourer 10 0 In 1845 Wages per year - ■ 31 4 0 „ 4 bush. Malt cost the labourer 1 12 0 In the former year this sack of malt only required one shil¬ ling out of every thirty-six to enable the labourer to purchase it, while in the latter it required one in twenty, or nearly double. In 1775 the duty of 6d. per bush, on his 4 bush, malt would take only two-fifths of one week’s wages to pay it; whereas in 1845 the duty of 2s. 8kl. per bush, required almost the whole of one week’s wages; 18 s. d. In 1775 Wages per week - - - - 7 0 „ Duty on 4 bush. Malt at 6d. per bush. 2 0 In 1845 Wages per week - - - - 12 0 „ Duty on 4 bush. Malt at 2s. 8id. per bush. 10 10 But not to weary the reader with further statistical details, enough, we trust, have been adduced, whether we take the whole or any one of the tests here applied, to elucidate this fact, this undeniable fact—that the consumption of malt has con¬ siderably fallen off: and further—that this decrease of consump¬ tion has progressed side by side with the increase in the duty on malt. How then can we fail to come to the conclusion that the latter has been, in a great measure, the parent of the former ? It is an acknowledged fact among all historical writers, that nothing is so slow of change as the habits of the great mass of the people of any nation, whether these relate to their language, to their mode of thinking and acting, to their clothing, or to their food. Tacitus, a Eoman historian, who flourished in the first century of the Christian era, informs us that the Germans were at that time particularly fond of beer; and this remark is applicable to their descendants at this day; while not only these, but all those people who have sprung from the great Scandinavian stock are equally noted for their love of this beverage. It is well known also that our Saxon ancestors were inveterate drinkers of beer; and this taste is not, as some suppose, changed or eradicated, but only lies dormant, as it were, from the want of means to indulge it. Every man now living, who can number sixty years as having passed over his head, can well remember how, when formerly farm labourers were kept in the farm-house, beer constituted their beverage at breakfast, dinner, and supper—not to mention the bottle, which was filled with it, to take to the field or to the barn. He also cannot have for¬ gotten how universal were the harvest suppers, and how good strong ale, brewed six or twelve months before, for the special celebration of this rural feast, always constituted the only liquor used on the occasion. Some will argue that the tastes of the labourers are altogether altered, and that tea and coffee having come into use, beer has been superseded. Considering that this argument is carried too far when used to prove that the taste for beer is entirely lost, we shall not fall into the opposite error of attempting to prove that the abolition of the Malt Tax, however low it might reduce the price of beer, would be the means of causing it in return entirely to supersede the use of tea and coffee. We are too well aware of the truth of the saying, “ He who proves too 19 much proves nothing,” to venture on so dangerous a course, lest, like Hudibras, who, in vaulting too high in trying to mount his horse, instead of alighting on the centre of his saddle, fell over on the opposite side, we might find ourselves in the same unfortunate predicament. But though we thus re¬ frain from arguing that beer, when freed from all duty, would become the labourer’s beverage at his morning and evening meal, still we have no hesitation in affirming it would form his drink at dinner, and always accompany him to the field, and support him during his labours there or elsewhere. Under the altered circumstances arising out of the abolition of the tax, there can be little doubt but the farmer would find it to his interest, as well as to that of his labourers, to supply them with good wholesome beer for their daily consumption; and many of the latter, in the course of time, might brew a little for themselves, as some few even do now, so that on a summer evening, in front of then cottages, and on a winter night, by their own fireside, they might enjoy their pipes and their home-brewed beer. Let us heai’ what the labourers themselves say. Before a Com¬ mittee of the House of Commons, a few years ago, a labourer of ninety years of age, stated that when he was young every man had his own beer, and, on being asked if he could do more work with than without beer, replied, he could do double the quantity: while a younger labourer stated that for want of beer he frequently felt weak and faint. Perhaps it may be objected here, that all these arguments apply only to the agricultural laboiu’ers. We plead guilty in part to this charge, because the farmers, being the growers of barley, will be the most benefited by the change, while their labourers mil most largely participate with them. Parm la¬ bourers living in the country—many in secluded parts, far away from towns and, in some cases, from villages, not having the convenience, nor perhaps desirable that they should, of the public-house close at hand—stand more in need of the change; but it must not be supposed that this class of labourers will alone be benefited; every class, whether living in town or coun¬ try, will receive great advantage from the repeal of the Malt Tax, whether they may be supplied with beer by their employ¬ ers, whether they brew for themselves, or whether they send to the inn for it, to drink at their own houses. However, if even the benefits were more exclusively confined to the agricultural labourers than they mil be, still there is no reason, seeing how numerous these are, why they should be deprived of so great an advantage because others are not equally participators in it. But we contend that all classes will be benefited; the truth of 20 which we hope to show more clearly under the next and last head of our Essay, viz.:— Thirdly.—The evils resulting from the Malt Tax to the pub- he at large. The habits prevalent among the inhabitants of towns will always differ from those of the country : the latter arc isolated, and thus more dependent on their own resources; these must he, in a great measure, their own bakers and their own brewers: while, without stopping to consider the relative value of home- baked bread and home-brewed beer, as compared with the same articles when supplied by the baker and the brewer, the con¬ venience is so great, the town’s-peoplc generally will purchase their bread of the public baker, and their beer cither of the pub¬ lic brewer or of the publican, but most frequently of the latter. These remarks apply not only to the mere labourer but equally to the mechanic, the artizan, the smaller class of tradesmen, and persons in general of small independent incomes, dwelling in towns. Seeing that all these classes arc pretty generally purchasers and not brewers of beer, let us endeavour to ascertain what is the reduction in the price of beer, which may be fairly calculated on when the Total Repeal of the Malt Tax shall have been ef¬ fected. £ s. d. Average price of barley per qr. - 1 12 0 Present duty on ditto when malted - 118 2 13 8 Add maltster’s profit at 10 per cent - 0 5 4 .63 19 0 From this quarter of malt the London brewers manufacture a certain quantity of good common porter or beer, of the same quality which they can sell to the publican at El 13s. per brl., and the publican retail at 4d. per quart. Let us compare this with the price which may be expected when the duty is repealed:— £ s. d. Barley per qr. - - - 1 12 0 Maltster’s profit at 10 per cent - 0 3 0 1 15 0 From this quarter of malt the same brewers coxdd manufac¬ ture porter and beer as follows, viz.:—Porter and beer of the same quality as before-mentioned, at £1 4s. per barrel; the publican could retail ditto at 3d. per quart. 21 These beers are stronger than people in general like to chink at their meals; but an article quite as strong as the highest of the middle classes would desire for this purpose might he sold by the brewer to publicans at 18s. per barrel, and retailed to the public at 2d. per quart. A good wholesome table-beer, such as the great majority of people would take at dinner, might be sold by brewers at 12s. per barrel, which is only 4d. per gallon. A still smaller but not unpalatable beverage, calculated for the poorer classes of all, might be brewed by brewers at 8s. per barrel, to be purchased for home consumption at 2s. per firkin of 9 gallons, costing him less than 3d. per gallon. These arc the advantages which would result to the public at large; for though these last statements arc made to show more particularly how they would apply to the inhabitants of towns, yet as many families of different classes (including many agricultural labourers and other inhabitants of the rural dis¬ tricts in the vicinity of towns) would be purchasers, not brew¬ ers of beer, they apply equally to them; and whether the people at large brewed at home or bought their beer, proportion¬ ate advantages would be felt, and all alike would be participa¬ tors in this great good—and a great good it certainly would be, ■—for who can say but that the morals of the people will be improved in proportion as they may become beer-drinkers instead of dram-drinkers ? it being well known that the effects of drinking beer to excess are narcotic, while those of dram- drinking are maddening and infuriating. It is also a fact that there has been a necessity, of late years, of lowering the standard height for many recruits, showing a physical degeneracy in the present generation: and who can say but this may proceed from the inability of procuring beer at a moderate price, increased by the consequent indulgence in spirituous liquors? From 1730 to 1760 the people seem to have been in the full enjoyment of then natural, and therefore favourite and whole¬ some beverage—beer, when the consumption of malt averaged 41 bushels per head; and had the consumption kept pace with population, instead of the former having been in 1845 only 30,508,840 bushels, it would have risen to 75,202,862 bushels; but owing to the high duty on malt, it was impossible to bring the inferior barleys into use; and as the growth of the best could not be made to keep pace with the population, a suffi¬ ciency could not be found for all the people, many became stinted in their allowance, if we may so say, and others were compelled to forego their indulgence in beer altogether. And thus it was that tea and coffee and cocoa, and even limit’s roasted corn, were severally placed on the labourer’s table, not 22 only at breakfast and supper, but too frequently also at dinner; and hence, as before observed, it is contended that the former of these articles (tea and coffee) are now become such complete substitutes for beer, that no alteration in the Malt Tax can dis¬ place them. To this argument we have already replied, and we only here allude to it again for the purpose of observing that we do not quarrel with tea and coffee, but that as a considerable reduction has been already made in the duty on coffee, and people are beginning to discuss the propriety, not to say, the necessity of lowering that on tea, we must protest against the justice, not of lessening the tax on either of these articles, but of lessening them, and still allowing the tax on malt to continue. Without wishing to stretch our arguments further than they will bear, we may safely assert, if these have any soundness in them, that sufficient has been shown to prove the propriety, the justice, and the policy of repealing the Malt Tax. There can be no doubt that by so doing the physical condition of the great mass of the people will be greatly improved: if their physical condition is good, contentment is the result, and if they are content, all is well, firm, aud stable in a nation. The People form the basis of the great social column, and if this be sound, the shaft will retain its perpendicular, and the capital exhibit all its richness to perfection, With good grounds of hope to see these happy results pro¬ duced by the abolition of this duty, we do think “The Total Repeal Malt Tax Association” is well deserving of the support of public opinion; and knowing that the power of the people, if based on moral grounds, as we trust we have shown is the case in this matter, cannot fail of eventual success, we would earnestly call upon every one to assist, as far as lies in his power, in bringing about so desirable a consummation as the “ total repeal of this obnoxious tax.” REMARKS ON THE MALT TAX, EXTRACTED PROM THE SPEECHES OF MEMBERS OP PARLIAMENT, ETC. [From Hansard, 1839.] Duke of Richmond, page 323 “ He did not object to a free trade in corn ; hut if so there must he a free trade in everything else. You must allow mo to got my coat as cheap as I can. You must next take off the malt duty.”—March 12. Mr. Villicrs, page 357 :—“ Would the landed interest he willing, if the Malt Tax were taken off, to release the country from the tax on corn ; for of this he was sure, that all those who were now injured by the existence of the corn laws would he ready, mayho anxious to get rid of it (the Malt Tax). By according to those terms, the produce of the Malt Tax would he lost to the revenue, no douht. Pour millions and a half is a small sum indeed, compared with what might he raised through the me¬ dium of taxation, if the energy of the country were allowed its full and natural play.” Mr. Cayley, page 376, said—“ If the malt duty was repealed, we might fairly expect the consumption to he trebled. The statement of the malt consumed in England and Wales runs thus :— ‘ Annual consumption-average of ton years ending 1723, Qrs. dutv on malt, 4s. per qr. Population, 5,500,000 persons . . . . . . 3,542,000 ‘ Annual consumption-average of ten years ending 1823, duty on malt, 20s. 8d. per qr. Population, 12,000,000 persons .... 3,182,766 < In the first period each person consumed 5 bushels malt ; in the last period each person consumed 2 bushels ditto.” Mr. Poulett Thomson, page 430, says:—“ The Malt Tax was not a tax on land, hut on the consumer.” Earl of Ripon, page 583, said :—“ If the government did away with protection, there must he no exception ; the farmer must he allowed to grow his own tobacco, beet-root, sugar, and make his barley into malt free of duty ; in fact, all duties must he repealed.”—March 14th. Lord Brougham, page 618, said “ The Malt Tax was a tax on the landlords and farmers, only so far as they were drinkers of beer.”—• March 14th, 24 Sir James Graham, page G85, said :—“ lie was convinced that if they repealed the corn laws, the Malt Tax would not survive a single year : and why should the landlords he precluded from growing beet¬ root, sugar, and tobacco.” SirK. Peel, page 774, says :—“ As a farmer to the free-traders, let mo grow my own tobacco; let me manufacture and consume my own malt untaxed. The articles that I wear at present are all taxed, from the sole of my shoo to the crown of my hat. If the article 1 raise and sell is to he exempt from protection, let the article I buy ho exempt also.” lie then goes on to ask what answer the free-trader can give the farmer. “ Can you deny the justice of his appeal? nay, more—if he asks you to begin first with the manufacturer, and try the free trade principle on him as an experiment ?”—March loth. Mr. O’Connell, page 821, says :—“ I am the advocate of free trade in everything. I would let every man buy as cheap as ho could the pro¬ ductions of this and every other country.”—March 18th. Mr. D. ’V. Harvey, page S45, stated the words of a labourer, James Kershaw, aged 91, examined before the Poor-Law Committee. On being asked—“Do you remember the condition of the labourer during your life ?”—“ Yes: when I was married I could have a bushel of malt for 2s. 6d., and every poor person had a barrel of beer to drink instead of water ; hut it soon rose to 3s. Gd.” The question was put by Mr. Hodges, M.P. for Kent, who also asked him “ Did the labouring man in former times use to brew as a general thing ?”—“ Yes.” “ ifow long have they left it off?”—“ Ever since malt got to such a price that they could not buy it.” “ Do you know any poor man who brews his own beer now ?”—“ Not one.” “ Do you remember the rate of wages when malt was 2s. Gd. per bushel ?”—“Yes ; Is. 4d. per day, or 8s. per week.” The witness was then asked if the labourers would do more work if they had hotter beer and living. The answer was—“ To he sure; they cannot do more than half a day’s work. Sonic of them dropped down when they had a little hard work.” Another labourer, Thomas Preston, thirty-eight years old, was asked by Mr. Wakloy, M.P.—“ Do you feel, in performing your work, that you have the strength a man ought to have ?”—“ No: nor yet half the strength.” THE TOTAL REPEAL MALT-TAX ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT: Sir C. Lamb, Bart. VICE-PRESIDENTS •. Major Moneypenny ] A.E.FuLLER,Esq.,M.P. John Springett, Esq. AV. P. Lamb, Esq. T. E. Ward, Esq. T.B.SnooBRiDGE,Esq. Ralph Collyer, Esq.! AY. J. Denne, Esq. AA r M. Noakes, Esq. Samuel Selmes, Esq.! FrederickElyy, Esq. Tilden Smith, Esq. Jeremiah Smith, Esq. IT. P. IIilder, Esq. Fred. Langford, Esq, T. S. Pin, Esq. j TREASURERS: Jeremiah Smith | Ralph Collyer. SECRETARY, pro tem.: Thomas Thorp. COMMITTEE : A.E.FuLLER,Esq.,M.P, Sir Chas. Lamb, Bart. S. Ciieetiiam AV. Nnigiits Major Moneypenny Thomas S. Godwin Law. Reeve Samuel Selmes T. AYEitsT,jun. Henry Putland Jeremiah Smith AV. J. Denne Tilden Smith R. Collyer AV. Taylor James Selmes Henry Selmes H. Playstf.d E. Strouts John FIilder Albert Pike Thomas Fyfe Samuel Pin T. Hammond Thomas AA r HiTE Robert Horton B. Andrews C. H. Lattimore Thomas S. Pin AYm. Barnes Hy. AVood AVilliam P. Lamb T. P. Hilder IIy. Holding James Selmes, jun. F. Langford R. Jones S. AV. Smith John Snepp ' T. E. AVard M. Body F. K. Elyy G. Smith A. Blackman T. B- Shoobridge Thomas Earle Richard Smith AV. AVoodhams F. Hicks Charles Pocock AVm. Noakes R. Jenkins AV. Hutley J. Springett E. L. AVard B. King J. Newington E. Beard AVm. Shaw T. Sharp F. D. Haviland 1. Lovett Hy. Simmons T. AV. Reeves T. T. Rowley C. G. AVhittaker R. Turley JohnPix R. AVillshire Capt. 1.0. Luxford. 26 Committee Booms, York Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, London. At a General Meeting of tlie Committee, held at the York Hotel, the fol¬ lowing resolution was passed That it is desirable to open correspondence with every parish in the kingdom, and to engage some one or more indivi¬ duals in each parish to collect subscriptions from the labourers and others, down to one penny, for furthering the objects of the association : and it is recommended that to the name of each subscriber lie appended the number of the members of his family; and that parochial associations be formed, with the sole view of obtaining the repeal of this obnoxious tax; and that communications from time to time be made from such associations to the committee sitting at the York Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars,” LIST OF SUBSCRIPTIONS. Sir Charles Lamb 11. B. Curteis, Esq., M.I‘ .Major Curteis . Ilcv. IV. Glaister . Hev. Richard AVetherell Messrs, S. and li. Selmes. .Major Money penny Jeremiah Smith, Esq. Geo. Augustus Lamb, D. l)r. Buckland Mr. llalpli Collyer . Tlioi Thomas Smith Pi: Iliklcr. Esq., Saiullm el Fix Mr. Stephen Smith ■lames Hilder, Smith, Rn- bertsbridge Mr. William Nokes, si Mr. .Tas. Hilder, Bodiam . Mr. Mercer Waghorne Mr. Daniel Watson Mr. John Snepp . Mr. Edmund Crnttenden . Mr. Frank Elvy, Kent . _ Mr. Tilden Smith, Ewhurst 1 Mr. Jas. Selmes, Northiam 1 Mr. W. R. Woodhams Mr. John Roberts Mr. Alfred Blackman Mr. Henry Playsted Mr. J. B. Newington . Mr. J. J. Newington Mr. Robert Horton Mr, Francis Hickes d. £ s. d. 0 Brought forward 530 it 0 0 Mr. James Selmes . . 3 o n 0 Mr. Spencer W. Smith .10 0 0 Mr. John Dulvcy Stonbam 1 0 It 0 Mr. John Body . .loo 0 Mr. Thomas B. Lovett .loo 0 Mr. John Holloway ..loo o Mr. David Hyland . 1 o o 0 Mr. F. D. Haviland ..loo o Mr. James FJliott .too 0 Mr. John Springctt . . •'! 0 it 0 Mr. John Woodhams . 1 0 o 0 Mr. Charles Pilcher . . I on 0 Mr. William Knight . loo o Mr. L. Reeve \ . 3 It o o Mr. Thomas Sims Godwin 0 lo o 0 Mr. Tilden Smith, Yinehall 3 o o Mr. M. Body . ..loo 0 E. A. Fuller', Esq., M.P. 1(1 0 o 0 Mr. John Fix . .10 0 0 Mr. "William Cocks . . 1 0 o 0 Mr. Alfred Cocks. .loo 0 Mr. IT. Cocks . ..loo 0 Mr. Henry Putlancl .loo 0 Mr. Henry Crosse . . 0 10 n 0 Mr. J.Bankin, Upminster, 0 Mr. W. Burrell (Annual) I o o 0 Mr. T. F. Hilder . . 3 o o 0 Mr. John Stonbam, sen. .loo 0 Mr. M. Smith . . . 3 0 0 0 Mr. Farncomb . .10 0 0 Mr. P. D. Stonbam . . 0 10 0 0 Air. W. Dawes , ,10 0 0 Mr. B. King . ..200 0 C. H. Frewen, Esq., M.P. 10 0 0 £230 0 0| £301 10 27 Mr. T. miller . Mr. W. llutlcy . Mr. E. Strouts Mr. B. Hutch Mr. E. I-Iilder . Mr. C. Pocock Mr. French, Suffolk Mr. C. II. Lattimoru . Mr. S. Cheethiun . Mr. Thomas Arkell Mr. Thomas Christmas Mr. Joseph Henley Mr. Arthur Brooke Mr. E. Farncomb Mr. S. Southcrdcn Mr. G. Reeve Mr. II. Holding Mr. IV. Hawkins. Mr. William Owen Mr. Henry Wood Mr. J. Ilildcr . Mr. T. Tunnard . Mr. J. Webster Mr. T. T. Rowley Mr. G. Durrant Mr. J. Gedney . Mr. T. E. Ward Mr. E. L. Ward . Mr. W. longley llarleston Farmers’ Club Mr. J. Slowman Messrs. J. Vidler and Soi Mr. W. Honeywood Mr. E. N. Daws Mr. S. 'Weller . Mr. T. Bycrst, jun. Mr. Douilney Messrs. Horton and Hart Mr. J, H. Lnrdner Mr. R. Willshire . Mr. T. Hammond Mr. J. Hentey . Mr. T. B. Shoobridec . ? SUBSCRIPTIONS ( o l el) £ s. d. 301 1(1 o Brought lbrwa .10 0 0 Messrs. Pattcndcn and H . 1 0 0 Mr. W. Dunk. .110 Mr. Albert King . .10 0 Mr. M. Cutchey . 1 0 0 A Friend . .10 0 Mr. T. Day . . 10 0 Mr. T. Newell . 10 0 Mr. T. Parry . 10 0 Mr. W. Wilmshuvst . 10 0 Mr. James Bellingham .10 0 Mr. B. Andrews . 10 0 Mr. T. Sharpe . 0 10 0 Mr. T. Quartcrmainc . 10 0 Mr. G. W. Blanch . 1 0 0 Mr. R. Greenhill . 0 10 0 Mr. J. Wall .10 0 Mr. T. W. Reeves . 1 0 o I J. Nesbitt, Esq., Lisin 0 Messrs. Latter. 0 Sons o Applcdorc Pari 0 Kingsworth Parish, on 0 Beckley Parish, on accoiu 0 Stone Parish, second list 0 J. 0. Luxford, Esq. 28 LIST OF SUBSCRIPTIONS ( continued ). Broughton Monchelsea Parish Mark Lane Express . Mr, J. Outhwaite. Mr. James Smith, second subscription E. N. Daws, Esq., second subscription J. H. Maw, Esq. Ninfield Parisli . Ewhurst Parish, on ac- :84 14 OJ Brought forward 5 Mr. Thomas Beale . 13 0 Mr. P.Cleophasand Friend Mr. John Buckland 7 0 2 Smarden Parish 5 5 0 J. R. Warde, Esq., Yal- 10 0 ding . Mr. R. Baker . 2 10 0 Mr. Thomas Fyfe . Mr. John Mortimer 1 10 0 Mr. John Neame 110 Mr. John Abbott . 3 16 11 Mr. John Cramp . . W. J. Denne, Esq. 1 10 0 Mr. T. S. Godwin, second 5 18 4 subscription 1 0 0 H. Simmons Committee Room, York Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, At a Meeting of the Committee, it was unanimously agreed to be highly desirable, to fully carry out this great and just object, for all parties to unite, to be prompt and determined, without any reference to party politics. The public are therefore earnestly solicited to join in this all-desirable movement; and the Committee, which are daily sitting, will be anxious to receive from all parts of the kingdom any communication in aid of carrying out the object, and to be ready simultaneously to effect the great purposes in It is desirable that Parochial Committees be formed for the purpose of raising funds for carrying out the views of the Association. All parties are requested to pay their subscriptions to the credit of the Treasurers, at the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury; Messrs. Herries and Co., 16, St. James’s-street, London; or Messrs. Smith, Scrivens, and Hilder, Hastings. A Deputation of the Committee and Friends to the Repeal of this Tax Waited upon Lord John Russell, on Tuesday, 2Sth July, and were most gra¬ ciously received. His Lordship said he was sensibly impressed with the im¬ portance of the subject, and promised that the government would give it their serious consideration. All communications addressed to the Committee, or Secretary, at the York Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, as before mentioned, will meet with due attention. Jeremiah Smith, ) m Ralph Collver, l Usurers. STRAND.