The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-02-01 00:00:00

THE WORKING MEN AND THE MALT

TAX.

On Monday afternoon the Chancellor of the Ex•
chequer re:eived a deputation from the Committee of
Working Men who intendei a fortnight since to writ
upon him in a large procession, in company with the
deputation from the Chambers of Agiiculture, but
whom he then declinnt to see. Their purpose then and
on Monday was to urge upon the Government, through
Mr. Lowe, the imperative necessity for the rep-al of
the Mlit-tax, and Mr. Thigss, who is a far .ner at Rich-
mond, in Surrey, expressed the vi-we of those whom
the deputation ri inesehte3. They were deeply im-
ira‘sed, he said, with the conviction that this tea
operate I vcry iajurionsly, not only upon the working
class., telt upon a'l other claweu of society; and
they therefore prayed the Government to make this
question paramount over a I other questions during the
sect Segoon, with a stew to the total and immediate
repeal of the tax sea first instalment towards that free
breakfact, dinner, and supper table for which the
coun'ry bd been craving for years put. They
grounded his request upon the firm basis of justice,
morality, and sound tolicy, as laid down by the most
illustrious writers on the question of taxation—viz.,
Turgot, Charles Tennant, Adam Smith, Richard Cob-
den and John Bright. This question afforded a broad
basis for a great public movement involving a great
public good. In it there was nothiug to set Siass
against class; on the contrary, the object was to unite
all classes in one common rotcre.t for one common
good. Between 1810 and 1816 Parliament was engaged
in serious deliberation upon the question of taxation,
and the result was to the effect that it was essentislly
wrong to place a tax ut any kind upon food or raiment,
or raw material appertaining thereto.
in reply to Mr. Love, Mr Briggs ri'ed Si hi, au-
thority the spei ch-s and dius-ions in Parlicsmett and
throughout the country.
Toe Chancellor of the Exchequer : I must say I do
not read them sq.
Mr. Briggs: Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright are good
authorities.
Mr. Lowe: Why is it wrong to tax food? Itu come
here to argue, not to assert.
Mr. Briggs: It is wrong, inasmuch as it taxes food
in its way from the soil to the mow h. It interposes
an impediment which is a sin against the highest laws.
Mr. Lows: Which laws :Ire they?
Mr. Brings: We have the greatest respect for those
in authority, over us, but if they go against the higher
laws they must be the greatest sinners.
Mr. Lowe : What is the higher law that we go
again.=

,ainst ?
Mr. Brigge : The law of nature and the law of Got
Mr. Lowe: Where do you find it
Mr. Briggs : In putting an impe liment in the way
of feeding the poor, you grind the face of the poor.
Mr. Lowe: Then I understand that you are of
opirion the poor ought not to be taxed at all. Is that
so?
Mr. Briggs: No. I have given you a small budget
which shows you how you can raise 78 millions a year
without taxing induetry in any shape, and without
treading on the toes of any interest or doing the
slightest injury or injustice or immorality. After a
olaint from Mr. Lowe to confine himself to the object
of the interview, Mr. Br,ggs said they came not to
argue in detail, but to lay down a broad principle.
They looked to those in power, and who were heavily
paid to carry out the principle in detail. They repre-
sented no personal or local intereit, and no class, and
would not go into detail about any paltry, pettifog-
ging, tinkering, meddling, shifting a tax off one thing
and putting it upon another. They left dstails to
their servants—the House of Commons and the Go-
vernment.

I%lr. Lowe : I, as one of your servants, have a good
many things to do, and do not sit here to bear general
speeches such an you address to public meeting.. I
come to hear practical suggestior a for the improvement
of the system of taxation, and I must renuest yen to
confine yourselves to Finch Bugg, sniffle fcr the repeal of
this tax as you may think fit to offer.
Mr. Briggs proceeded to argue that the Malt-tax
was remponeibla for turning the British people into gin
drinkers!, and the Scotch and Irish people into whiskey
drinkers, and for waiting 47 millions of the people's
hard-earned money in order to put seven millions into
the Treasury. It bad done this by preventing home-
brewing, by preventing the retailers to the poor people
from making a wholesome and cheap beverage. It
likewise incrianed the prior of but lees meat 2.1. a
pound, or to the extent of 20 millions.
Mr. Lowe said he had men this statement given as
from the report of a Home of Cionmons Committee
upon the iinestion of taxation in 1868, but As a fact
there was nothing of the kind in the report.
Mr. Briges Paid whether that was no or not the prin-
ciple to which they objected wail rotten from an econo-
mical point of view. It prevented the cultivation of
the soil in the test and the moat ecientific way, and it
created a famine in butcher's inmat. The root ciopa
and barley could not be grown in the regular course of
agricultdere, and that prislneed a scarcity of butcher's
meat throne-hint the country. Mr. Briegs continued
to argue in much the came strain, drawing attention to
the gigantic etriilem made by industry 'luring recent
years, and mentioning that from 1816, when the Corn
Laws wire repealed, to 1860 there had be. n the mini-
mum of Trades' Unions in operation. His exprtmsi d
the firm conviction that the Government could do
without the seven millions derived from this tax, citing
Mr. Bright again in support of his opinion. He there-
fore urged the Government to repeal it and all Cus-
tom, aid Excise immediately.
One or two other speekera having addressed. the
Chancelar of the Exchequer,
Mr. Lowe mid he was afraid it would be' impossible
to rides Peven millions in any way without doing mis-
chief to somebody, or interfering with somebody's
oucupation. It hail not beiin revealed to him how he
cc old raise an enormous sum without injuring a me-
body •, and therefore he conceded cheerfully that
the Malt-tax had many evils which he wofild rather
it had not, and that it did canoe come interference
with agriculture. He should like Om poor man
to have hie beer as cheap as posi Dole, and would
be glad if it could be done consistent'y with the
necessities of the revenue, that he sit odd have the
power to brew his own beer; but he did not know of
any means, nor had any means been suegi Wed to him,
by which he could raise this seven millions in a manner
that would be lees injurious than the present method.
It wan not prohibited by any ri vealed or natural law
to place a tax on any article of food ; it had not he-n
the custom of England to abstain from doing no ; and
he ,rid net hold that doati iue at all. There was no
foundation either in reason or justic- for it ; on the con-
trary, if the poor were to he exempted from taxation
altoeether, the working classes, possessing already a
great deal of political power, would have the power of
taming ethers, and it was not unreasonable to sup-
pose that the reap nitibility of pa pie who were
not themselves subject to the laws they made would
he abused, ending probably in results which all would
have to deplore, and which would probably injure none
so much as the working chimes themselves. He had
always endeavoured to make taxes as moderate and
light as possible, and while he had been Chancellor of
the Exchequer be had taken sway the last vestige of
protection on corn; he had lowered the tax on sugar
one half, and should be glad if he could see his way to
any other re ductiens. But to say that the poor
were to be exempt entirely was a doctrine which he
cotdd not at all accept, and the sooner that was under-

Ilt00(1 the better. That was is theory wh.ch no
practical man actinie-t e .in ; and as ti the
particular case of the Malt-tax, he was afraid there was
no chance of the tioytroment being able to deal with
it. He admitted there wee-- many obi. tin. to it, as
there were to all taxes, wail he had to wish to main •
tam n it linger than was meta ssary : but it would just r. •
mind the deputw ion that if anything shook our I t-os-
perity, or made people distrustful of this country, the
necessary consequence would be the withdrawal of
capital, followed by a reduction of wages and a series
of other calamities. . .

....
Mr Briggs : Will you allow no to reply to one or
two points?
Mr. Lowe : No; I think not. It would not be of
the slightest good.
The deputation accordingly retired.