The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-08-08 00:00:00

THE MALT-TAX AND THE WORKING

PEOPLE.

Wngtf a large employer, says the Anti-Malt-
Tax Circu/ar, like Mr. Joshua Fieidea, publicly
states that amongst a body of intelligent work-
men such as those in his employ, there are a
vast number who are in positive ipnoranoe of
the existence of a tax upon malt, or of it. effect
in enhancing the prioe of beer, it can require no
argument to show that, if the aid of the working
population is to be made available to bring about
the repeal of the Malt-Tax, the first thing need-
ful is to open their eyes not only to its existence,
but to its incidence and operation—to show
them how materially the exciseman interferes
with the cost and the quality of their pot of
beer, and how freely the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer invariably partakes of every draught
they swallow, without the customary preliminary
of being "asked to drink."
It often happens that an argument addressed
especially to one given subject bears with
marvelThua force upon another of a totally
different character, and with which it has not
even a shadow of connection. Thus, in a recent
article in the Times on the Union Chargeability
Bill, the writer remarks :
''lt is not an argument against the measure that it
has originated in the recommendations of economists
and philanthropists rather than from any outcry of the
labouring class itself. There are, unfortunately, in
every country those who suffer in silence through sheer
ignorance and helpleasness. They have never acquired
the mental activity to agitate or petition, they look
upon their fate as the natural order of things, and have
never conceived it to be capable of change."

Can anything be more pertinent than the
above passage as to the ignorance of the working
population on the subject of the "Malt-tax ?"
The "outcry" for the repeal of that tax has not
"arisen from the labouring class itself," but from
economists and others who have marked its
working. The great mass of the working classes,
who are, after all, the largest consumers of beer,
have assuredly "suffered in silence through
sheer ignorance," though not, strictly speaking,
"helplessness." On the contrary, they could
unquestionably have helped themselves, and,
there can be as little doubt, would have done 80,
had their knowledge been equal to either their
will or their power. If they possessed—as they
certainly have done and do—the "mental ac-
tivity to agitate and petition," they have not
had placed before them the facts and the figures
needful to stimulate that activity and set it to ,
work. The working classes, and not only they,
but the great majority of the country, have been
taught to look upon the Malt-tax in the same
light as the poor have regarded the decrees of
the Poor-law Board. The drinkers of beer have
been accustomed to view a heavy tax upon malt
as in "the natural order of things." The very
magnitude of the impost has tended to this re-
sult : only suggest the repeal of the malt-tax
and the stereotyped reply is, "See what it pro-
duces: how are five or six millions annually to
be spared ?" In a word, the people have accepted
a tax of six millions as "their fate," and "have
never conceived it to be capable of change." Is
not this a perfectly true representation of the
case?

The author of the very valuable Prize Essay
on the Malt-Tax, Mr. R. L. Everett, makes the
following pertinent remarks on the quiet sub-
mission to taxation which is the result of
"growing up" under it :

"A tax no oppressive to the poorest amongst us, no
minister would venture now to propose. When first
imposed, in 1697, it was so light as to be scarcely felt.
Then, and for the following fifty years, it was sixpence
per Naha. It was raised during the French war, a time
of danger to the country which justified extraordinary
pressure upon the people. Once raised— with that
fatal facility of continuance which all taxes seem to
possess—it has never been more than partially reduced.
It has stood at nearly its present height for sixty-three
years, so that the present generation has been bog%
under its influence. It is surprising the difference which
this makes What we are born subject to we take as •
matter of source. We do not know the full weight of
the burden we carry, never having been for one moment
without it. It is thus that this tax hni been allowed to
remain so long. Were it now to be proposed as • new
tax, the very people who patiently submit to its opera-
tions would, without hesitation, indignantly reject it."

But changes are nevertheless brought about,
even in matters where such conclusions as those
referred to have long exercised their deadening
influence. Economists and philanthropists have
as we have just seen, succeeded in removing the
monstrous injustice that so long pressed upon
the labouring poor, and that which was regarded
as the "natural order of things" has been
followed by a system far more deserving of the
term "natural." That this has been accom-
plished without the aid or agitation of the
immediate sufferers under the old rule, in a fact
which may be ailed as an important encourage.
ment to the Malt• Tax repealers, since there can
be no question that they will enjoy the sub-
stantial advantage of having the aid and co-
operation of all classes of "sufferers" from the
tax, so soon as the dense ignorance prevalent
on the subject can be removed. The working
population may be safely relied upon to evince '
sufficient "mental activity," so soon as they shall
have been enlightened upon the question, and it
will then be found that they will no longer sub-
mit to consider a tax of some seventy per cent.
upon the raw material of the national beverage
as the "natural order of things." and will
resolutely refuse to believe that so monstrous an
I abuse of the power of the Legislature in the way
of Taxation is not "capable of change."