drinkers to have more free recourse than they otherwise would to
other drinks; but in a large number of cases a duty operates both as
a revenue and as a protective duty. It is a curious fact that the
fanners, after unanimously struggling FOR the duty on wheat because
it was a protective duty, subsequently unanimously struggled for
thirty years AGAINST the malt tax (involving a duty on barley)
because it was a revenue duty. As soon, however, as the malt duty was
repealed, they discovered that it had been a protective duty; barley
fell in price (malting samples) about l2s. a quarter, and has never
recovered, nor does any farmer now suppose it ever will. This is
rather a complex case, because on the abolition of the malt tax an
equal tax (in gross amount) was put on beer; and it might be supposed
at first sight that this would not affect the price of barley. It has
in several ways: Firstly, Many brewers now brew common beer with one-
third malt, two-thirds molasses, cane sugar, etc. The tax being on
the beer, Government no longer cares whether it is brewed from malt
or from rubbish, and the consumers grow soon accustomed to the
lowered taste of malt in their beer; Secondly, The admission of
foreign malt and barley without duty has quickened the importation by
removing those restraints and interferences which hamper trade out of
all proportion to their expressed amounts in pounds, shillings, and
pence.

In order to establish a Universal Free Trade and to make every port
in England a free port, it would be necessary to raise by direct
taxation about L40,000,000 annually, because the excise on beer,
etc., would have to be abandoned with the Customs duties. We will
consider the possibility of raising this L40,000,000 by direct
taxation before we dilate on the advantages which would follow
Universal Free Trade.