This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1863 Excerpt: ... in 1776, in the event, which has taken place, of the duty on beer being abolished The malt-tax is, in truth, one of the very best of the existing taxes; and it is one of those which, in the event of any considerable increase of revenue being required, may be most advantageously raised. We do not mean by this to undervalue its sinister effect upon agriculture, but where is the tax, fitted to produce above six millions a year.t against which some weighty objections may not be urged? It was contended, when the corn-laws were abolished, that the influence of the malt-duty over agriculture required to be countervailed by a duty on barley when imported. And such duty ought, no doubt, to have been imposed, had the equity of the case been the only thing to be regarded. But it would have been all but impossible to estimate the correct amount of such a duty. And as it would have given rise to perpetual cavilling, the adoption of a free system of "Wealth of Nations," p. 402. t 6,029,371 nett in the year ending 31st March 1862. importation was, on the whoie, the best course to follow; indeed it was the only one that was practicable. The acts imposing the malt-duty, and directing how it should be assessed and collected, were some time ago exceedingly numerous, complex, and contradictory; so much so, indeed, that it was hardly possible for the most expert trader, however honest, to avoid subjecting himself to penalties. These defects have been, however, to a great extent, obviated by consolidating and simplifying the law. Still, however, the Malt Act is very lengthened, and might, perhaps, be advantageously shortened and otherwise improved. The beer-duty, besides being, when added to the malt-duty, oppressively heavy, was in the last degree partial and unjust....