The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-15 00:00:00

THE INCOME-TAX.

HUBBA.RD asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, whether he proposed to re-enact the income-tax as it
stood at the close of 1863, or whether he proposed any, and
if any, what, change in its provisions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered
the first part of the question in the affirmative, and the
latter in the negative.
THE DANISH QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. B. OSBORNE,
Mr. L &YARD said the French despatch on this subject
was not officially communicated to the Government.

THE MALT DUTY.
On the motion for going into committee of ways and
means,

Colonel BARTTELOT moved that the consideration of
the duties upon sugar be postponed until the house had
the opportunity of considering the expediency of the
reduction of the duty on malt. He contended that
beer was an indispensable beverage to the agri•
cultural labourer in this country, and that it was de-
sirable that a portion of the surplus revenue at the disposal
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be applied to the
remission of the malt duty.
Mr. COBBETT seconded the motion, and argued that
the duty on malt operated most injuriously on the agricul-
tural class, and in many cases led them into the consump-
tion of ardent spirits from being unable to obtain in many
rural districts good beer.
Mr. SURTEES also supported the motion, and as the
representative of an agricultural district said that he had
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have an-
nounced, in conformity with the wishes of the house, that
he intended, at ail events, to make some reduction in the
malt duty, and, that any future surplus of the revenue
should be applied to its total abolition. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. PEEL likewise supported the motion, pointing
out the injurious effect of the Malt Tax upon the agricul-
ture of the country.
Mr. STANH OPE undertook to show that, balancing the
c aims of malt and sugar to the proportion of the surplus of
V,570,000 proposed to be applied to the reduction of the
sugar duties—namely, £l,33o,ooo—malt had a prior dorm,
which he proceeded to demonstrate by deductions from a
long array of figures, He shawed that the consumption of
sugar had largely increased, proving that the duties were
not burdensome, and he neutralised the argument that a
reduction of the Malt Tax would be a greator boon to Eng-
land than to Scotland and Ireland by connecting that tax
with the spirit duties, which operated in a contrary direc-
tion.

Sir E. DERING said it was much to be regretted that a
question of eo much importance as the Malt Tax should be
presented in a shape whfch rendered it impossible to arrive
at a satisfactory conclusion—namely, as a question of malt
versus sugar, which brought into the field the great sugar
interest. He supported the motion, but should have been
bdttsr pleased it the issue had been raised simply upon the
tax itself.

Mr. BEACH, in supporting the motion, argued that the
reduction of the malt tax would benefit both producer and
consumer, and that its history showed that the increase of
consumption had been checked by the oppressive character
of the tax.

Mr. ALCOCK advocated the entire repeal of the malt tax.
Lord R. MONTAGU, in reply to Mr. Cobbett, observed
that the reduction of the malt tax would not make the differ-
ence of a farthing in the price of a iot of beer, and that, in
considering the labourer, his wife and family should not be
forgotten, who had an interest in the cheapening of tea and
sugar. He opposed the motion not only upon economical
but upon moral grounds. He was no advocate of the malt
tax, and if he saw his way to its repeal, he would vote for
it; but when it was known that it could not be taken off,
such a motion was not a fair one.
Mr. P. URQUHAR t defended the reduction of the
Sugar Duties ac a relief to a suffering interest.
Colonel NORTH complained of some remarks of Lord R.
Montagu.
Mr. PUGH, tho:gh he looked forward to a repeal of the
malt tax, could not support the present motion.
Mr. 'WESTERN opposed the metier, beliLving that a
reduction of one-fourth of the Malt Tax would be of no ad-
vantage to the agricultural interest.

Lord INGESTRE cordially supported the motion. He
thought the reduction of the malt tam would tend to im-
prove the quality of beer, and lessen the temptation to in-
dulge in ardent spirits, the incentive to vice and crime.
Sir B. BRIDGES likewise supported the motion.
Sir F. CROSSLEY disputed the assertion of Mr. Cob-
bett, that beer was a necessary of life to a lab,uring man.
Mr. PACK E spoke shortly in favour of the motion.
Mr. DU CANE did not quarrel with the principles of

the Budget ; but the rule which should guide the house in

the reduction of taxation was justice and fair play, and, it
that principle were fairly carried out, the malt tax had a
priorita• of claim for a reduction of duty over sugar. It was
originally a war tax, and its reduction had been regarded as
a complement of the repeal of the Corn Laws, and an essen-
tial part of the Free-trade movement. He disputed the in-
ference drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the
price of barley, which he had assumed from that of the best
barley ; but those who asked for a reduction of the malt tax
were the growers of interior barley. The benefit to the
farmer by the reduction of the tax would be great ; but it
would be as nothing to that conferred upon the consumer.
Ho ;:numeratEd the ingredients infused into the " villanous
?..ecoction" sold to labouring men in country beershops
under the name of beer. He pointed out a fallacy in the
argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the malt
tax was only an English grievance, observing that all that
was asked was that the malt tax might be put on the same
footing as other branches of the revenue.
Mr. COBDEN observed that there was no rule more
deserving of attention by those who took charge cf questions
in that house than that one question should not be brought
into collision with another with which it has no connexion.
Colonel Barttelot had not observed this rule, having blended
together the two questions of the malt tax and the sugar
duties, He should prefer abolishing the sugar duties.
Sugar appealed to the sympathies of all—of working men,

their wives, End children. He acknowledged his objections
to the malt tax, which appealed to the Legislature in the
interest of producer and consumer, and he thought there
was good ground for asking a repeal of the tax as a com-
plement of the free-trade policy. If the tax was repealed,
it did not follow that the consumption of malt would largely
bkrease ; but other sources of revenue would becomo more
productive without any greater consumption of intoxicating
liquors. The expenditure might also be greatly reduced.
Ile recommended Colonel Barttelot not to take the sense of
the house on his motion, which would oblige him (Mn
Cobden) and others, favourable to a reduction of the malt
tax, to vote against it.

After a few remarks by Mr. DARRO W in support of
the motion,

Mr. M. GIBSON complained that the resolution was
vague and indefinite. He was no friend of the malt tax ;
but when the house was asked to assent to the proposal to
reduce the tax by one•quarter it should seriously consider
whether the malt tax could be so dealt with advantageously.
The loss of revenue by the proposed reduction of the sugar
duties would be £1,330,000 ; but a reduction of one-
quarter of the malt tax would cause a loss of revenne
in the present year of £1,880,000. Such a reduction in
the tax would not cheapen beer, nor would it benefit the
farmer. Sugar was more extensively used than beer ; it
entered into the consumption of every family, and no
article in our tariff was of greater commercial importance.
He had no doubt that the house would support the proposal
of the Government.

Mr. BASS believed that the proposal to take off the war
duties on eugar was generally approved. He suggested cer-
tain practical objeotions to a reduction instead of a repeal of
the malt tax.

Mr. BENTINCR suggested the difficulties with which
this question was complicated. He considered the repeal
of the malt tax was impossible without an entire revision of
the whole system of our taxation, and especially of the un-
fair and onerous portion borne by th,, rural districts.

Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after a
few preliminary observations, adverted to the bearing of the
taxation of beer and ardent spirits upon the three kingdoms.
It the mast tax was to be approached, it ought not to be
approached, he said, in the manner proposed, by fractions,
or withou►t considering its relations to the whole system of
raxutton upon beverages. The question then before the
house was a comparison between malt and sugar, and he
believed that, had the Government given priority to malt,
an outcry wouid hava been raised upon the opposite benches.
The proposal they had made was dictated by sound policy,
and he believed the house would support that proposal,
which reduced the duties upon au article so intimately con-
nected with the welfare and comfort of the people.
Mr, DISRAELI cbsorved that the question had branched
out into three distinct subjects—the c:zpediency of a total
repeal of the malt tax, the remission of a part of the tax,
and the engagement which Parliament had entered into
with the country as to the remission of taxation geuerally.
After brit fly discussing the first two subjects, he addressed
himself to the last, which, he said, was the most important
point that ought to govern the consideration of the house in
this matter. He reviewed the circumstances under which
the engagement had been entered into, and though he had
not changed his opinion on the malt tax, insisted upon the
duty of fulfiling that engagement with the country entered
into at the period of the Crimean struggle, that the war
duties should be remitted.
Mr. MORRITT said, though he deprecated the manner
in which the motion had been brought forward, he would
never' heless back it.
Upon a division, Colonel BARTTELOT'S resolution was
negatived by 347 to 99.
The house then went into a Committee of Ways and

Means, when the several resolutions for giving effect to the
propositions contained in the Budget were agreed to, after
discussion, except that on the Fire Insnranc3 Duty.

, .
The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means was
brought up and agreed to.
The remaining orders and motions having been disposed
of, the house adjourned at a quarter past 1 o'clock.