The Press. — London, England, 1854-05-20 00:00:00

~' V IF) p F ■ it In 480 V rotttbings zn V arlinunt. THE MALT DUTY. The Excise Duties Bill, which contained clauses increasing respectively the duties on Scotch and Irish spirits and on malt, was brought forward for second reading on Monday night by Mr. J. WILSON. The absence from a domestic affliction of Mr. Gladstone deprived the subsequent discussion ot much of its interest, the members of the Opposition feeling bound to abstain from touching upon many points whereon under other circumstances they could have freely commented. An amendment " That the bill be read a second time that day six months " was, however, moved by Mr. CALEY, whose objections to the measure were limited to the provision it contained respecting the increase in the malt tax. After a brief review of the foreign policy of the Government, from which he de duced the conclusion that the war itself, with its con tingent expenses, had resulted entirely from the vacillating and obsequious conduct of the Aberdeen Ministry, the bon. member adverted to the means by which that expenditure was to be met, and contended that the increase in the malt duty was, in principle, a violation of free trade, and in practice was most injurious to the landed interests, and insulting to the landed proprietors. Out of the fifteen millions which formed the gross revenue from the excise duties not less than twelve millions were to be raised from the single article of barley. Combined with other imposts incident upon land, the new duty would constitute an effectual tax amounting to 20s. or 255. upon every cultivated acre between John o' Groat's and the Land's End. Remarking that the malt tax affected principally the poor and working classes, he argued that a much more just and equa ble method for raising money would be to levy a per-tentage duty on imported commodities. Our imports now exceeding a hundred millions annually, on which a five per cent. duty would realise five mil lions to the Exchequer, would touch all classes with equal fairness, and, as an incidental advantage, would tend to arrest the efflux of gold from the country. The duty on malt was, besides, a most wasteful im post, mulcting the public iu a vast sum, of which three-fourths never reached the Treasury. In addi tion to the fiscal and social reasons for leaving the article untaxed, Mr. Cayley adduced many consider ations based upon the effects which the impost exer cised on the moral condition of the people. Mr. J. B. STANHOPE seconded the amendment, objecting to the increase in the malt tax, which he believed to be excessive and unjust, and contended that it pressed almost exclusively upon a single class, that of the agriculturists, who were already unduly weighted with taxation. The necessity for the impo sition of new duties this year followed from the exten sive remissions enacted during the last session— remissions which must be characterised as most unwise, at a time when the Ministers knew (though Parliament was still kept in ignorance of the facts) that the political horizon was becoming heavily over cast. --- Lord MONNE defended the proposed increase of the tax, as being merely a temporary measure, and denied the assumption that the impost would fall upon the growers of barley. Colonel GILPrN was convinced that the proposal to enhance the malt tax was universally distasteful to the agriculturists, and dwelt on the injury and injus tice which it would inflict upon them. Mr. WARNER defended the malt tax, arguing that it offered a just and expedient means for raising a necessary revenue. He afterwards entered upon a general vindication of the Ministerial policy, foreign and financial. The Marquis of GRANBY believed that the war into which we were plunged must be attributed to the exaggerated confidence shown at first by the Govern ment to the Emperor of Russia, and to the unneces sary animosity they bad subsequently displayed to wards the same Sovereign. With respect to the tax under discussion, he would do everything in his power to arrest the imposition of a duty that must press so heavily upon a single class of the commu nity. He combated the argument that the impost fell ultimately upon the consumer, and cited the au thority of Mr. M'Culloch to support the conclusion that it chiefly affected the agriculturists. Between the two classes of indirect taxation, customs and excise, he expressed a warm preference for the former, predicting that our recent course of policy, involving such extensive remissions of import du ties, would ere long be recognised as a complete mis take. Mr. POLLARD URQUHART, as a Freetrader, supported the amendment. Mr. CROSSLEY vindicated the measures of the Go vernment. Mr. BENTrNcx characterised the tax as being at once unjust to the agriculturists and inconsistent with the free•txade professions of the Ministers who proposed it. THE PRESS. Mr. J. BALL and Mr. WILKINSON spoke in favour of the tax, and Mr. BARROW supported the aniend ment. Mr. NEWDEGATE believed that the imposition of so unjust and unpopular a tax would greatly increase the difficulties of the Government in the prosecution of the great war we had undertaken. Last year they had, in his opinion, acted wisely in repealing the soap tax, because it was an excise duty; but he thought that they would now be pursuing a most impolitic course if they were to increase a duty of the same character. Mr. WILSON recapitulated and defended the finan cial principles whereon Mr. Gladstone had based his recent propositions. After dwelling at some length on the general questions connected with the war and the war expenditure, he adverted to the special im post which formed the present topic of discussion, and contended that the malt tax was not less fair and equal in its incidence, nor more oppressive in its consequences, than any other species of indirect taxation. Mr. SPOONER inquired why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not raise the required revenue, or some of it, by arresting the reduction of the tea duties P He then denounced the malt duty, and traced the action of that impost to various results of a calamitous character, declaring that it visited the farmer with injustice, and sometimes with ruin, and promoted the spread of immorality among the labour ing population. Sir C. BURRELL concurred in condemning the tax on account of its immoral tendencies. Mr. SANDARS was assured that the tax afforded the means of raising a large amount of revenue in a readier manner, and with less inconvenience to the community, than any other variety of impost. Mr. FLOYER referred to an opinion expressed some twelvemonth since by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, to the effect that the duties upon articles of general consumption should be reduced whenever possible, and asked why the consumers of beer were treated less liberally than those of tea or soap? Sir E. B. LirrToN regretted to find the elements of discord which Lord J. Russell had mitigated by with drawing his Reform Bill again introduced in another shape by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:— " Enforcing the arguments which had been adduced to prove the great injustice and inequality of the malt tax, he observed that the Government might succeed in forcing it upon the country, but their very success would seriously weaken their hands, by causing dissatisfaction and dis content to prevail throughout the country. The tax was precisely that which it would most please the Emperor of Russia to find laid on the people of England. Looking upon the tax as a war tax, he contended that the cost of war ought justly to fall heaviest on the classes to whom the war was most profitable, namely, the merchants and manufacturers. Upon the agriculturists, on the other hand, the chief burdens of the war were made to fall. They had to furnish not only funds but men. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the recruiting sergeant went hand in hand through the agricultural districts, one asking the inhabitants for their money and the other for their lives. Not long ago the reduction of the malt tax was almost re cognised as a debt due to the farmer. But now its in crease was demanded, thus inflicting a fresh humiliation on that class, exasperating their feelings, destroying the enthusiasm with which they would otherwise have co operated in carrying on the war, and rendering the excise man an ally of Russia. The hon, baronet then assailed the measures of the Government on various points of their policy ; and, dwelling with much emphasis upon the financial projects successively introduced by Mr. Glad stone, contrasted his system with that of Mr. Pitt during the war with Napoleon. He controverted the assertion that the cost of the war should be defrayed out of an annual income. We fought for the benefit of posterity, and pos terity ought to pay their share of the expense." Mr. DRUMMOND condemned the malt tax, which he considered the worst it was possible to impose. To restrict the supply of beer to the labouring class would produce more immorality than all their reformatory schools could cure. Expressing a high approval of Mr. Disraeli's budget, the hon. member reviewed and criticised the various contrivances recently suggested for raising money, and then commented upon the preparations making for war, in which the British Government, he said, had played a subordinate part to the French Emperor. He scouted the idea that the French camp at Boulogne was intended to watch Prussia, and declared that the establishment of three powerful camps in England would alone afford a chance of preserving the country from becoming the battle-field of Europe. Up to this point the Ministers, though many were present, had maintained an obstinate silence, and when Mr. Drummond sat down there were vehement calls for a division from the benches behind them. The Speaker had even ordered the house to be cleared, when Sir J. PAKINOTON rose and expressed his astonish ment that no member of the Government had attempted to justify the demand for 2,500,0001. which they were then making. He believed that his side of the house had met in the fairest spirit every pro posal brought forward by her hitOesty's Ministers for the purpose of ensuring the effective prosecution of a SAriIIRDAY, just and necessary war. ttut there were limits to their forbearance; and a strong sense of duty com pelled them to offer their decided opposition to the obviously unjust and oppressive tax then under their consideration. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the question had been narrowed by the supporters of the amendment to a single issue. They had a rgue d a su bj ect which involved the means of carrying on a great warlike movement merely as if it related to the duty upon a bushel of malt. He deprecated such appeals to class interests, such insistence upon class distinctions, as had been freely made during the d e b a t e , remind ing' the Opposition that every section of the com munity might use those weapons, and th e resu l t might prove damaging to the landed interest. The noble lord then detailed the motives that had prompted the Government to leave untouched differ ent sources and modes of raising income formerly in vogue, and induced them to have recourse to the malt duty, which, even when increased, would still barely reach half the amount it bore at the com mencement of the last war. Instead of attacking one small point in the Ministerial scheme of finance, it would, he urged, be more manly and candid if the Opposition at once declared that while they had nominally approved of the war they were not willing to grant the supplies necessary for its prosecution. Foreigners, at all events, would interpret into such a conviction their votes against the malt tax : " I)o not tell me," said the noble lord, " that the malt tax is a tax so objectionable that you would be ready to vote all other taxes if you could get rid of this. Do not tell me that the landed interest in this country cannot bear fifteen pence additional duty on malt. Tell us rather that which I should be sorry to hear, but which would be more fair, manly, and candid—tell us that though you are in favour of the war—that though you are ready to vote army and navy in support of it, you are not ready to vote the neces sary taxes—(' Oh, oh 1' from the Opposition)—that you shrink from the unpopularity which belongs to the proposal of considerable burdens upon the country, and that you would wish to escape that obligation by means of loans, or any other means by which you can avoid those burdens ; but do not tell me that this small addition to the malt tax is really the obstacle which prevents you supporting the Uovernment on this occasion. Only imagine whet would be now your position if, when you are asked to make a great effort to raise, not 2,500,0001., but 7,000,0001., for the support of the war, your first vote should be to reject that proposal. Would not the effect be throughout Europe that you did not mean to engage heart and soul in the project—(cheers)—that you meantonly to give it your tem porary support—that you shrunk and escaped from it the first opportunity you had—(shouts of ' Oh, oh 1' from the Opposition)—that you were ready to forego the declarations you' had made, to abandon the opinions you entertained, and to involve your country in the necessity of a dis honourable peace? (Cheers and disapprobation.) 1 am not telling you that that is your intention; but I am ask ing you whether such would not be the effect of such a vote as I have supposed. I would venture to say that no proposition could be more clear or more indisputable—that no person would believe that it was merely on account of raising the malt tax from 2s. Od. to 4s. that you refused ' this bill. They would say you refused the taxes ne cessary for the support of the war; and nobody would think this war would be carried on with vigour and perse• verance. With regard to the malt tax, we have debated it for the last ten years. Its merits and its demerits have been canvassed over and over again; but whether it be the malt tax, or be it anything else, I say if the House of Commons mean to support the war—if they mean to sup port us in endeavouring to maintain the dignity of the Crown and the welfare of the country, they will support the second reading of this bill. (Cheers.)" Mr. DISRAELI confessed that he had listened with surprise and regret to the doctrine that, because the Opposition had consented to the war, they had barred their right to oppose any scheme of the Government for getting money. It was not the purpose for which the revenue was wanted, no even its actual amount, that was to be considered, but the justice and expediency of the principles whereon the taxes were based. He believed that the malt tax was unjust and impolitic. At present a full fourth of the ordinary revenue was raised from a single crop, by means of the spirit and malt duties, and this overladen industry it was now proposed to bur den with an additional weight. It was preposterous to say that the produce of malt underwent no foreign competition. No malt might, indeed, be imported from abroad, but the resulting manufacture, beer, had to compete against tea, a foreign beverage, whose use restricted the market open to the barley•growers, and yet the remissions of tea duty were not to be interrupted, while malt was to be afflicted with heavier duties. Mr. Disraeli then commented upon the singular reaction which the Ministerial policy now displayed from their old bigotry on the subject of free trade : "This is the greatest reaction from political economy that I have ever heard of. I have seen many symptoms and numerous evidences of late that there is a considerable reaction from those stern opinions that have been so long prevalent and predominant in this house. But I did hardly believe 1 should live to hear that an increase by fifty per cent. of a tax that now produces one-fourth part of the ordinary revenue of the richest empire in the world would be no aggravation of the burdens and no increase of