The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

culture."

It might be said that that would go only to prove the
advantage of the total repeal ; but subsequently Mr.
M'Culloch, despairing of the possibility of the total re-
peal, suggested the proposition then before the house of
the reduction of the duty by one-half. (Loud cheers.)
Well, but because this question was accompanied in-
directly with benefit to the farmer, and with a double
house tax, they were told that it was a question of town
against country. No, it was a question of free trade
against restriction—a question whether they would re-
fuse to lower the price of an article of popular suste-
nance, and remove some restrictions upon industry and
capital, because the measure was accompanied by a direct
tax, which all political economists had recommended,
even if there were no malt tax. (Hear, and Oh ! from
the Opposition.) He suspected that what deprived the
reduction of the malt tax of all benefit in the eyes of
honourable gentlemen was precisely the reason that
ought to induce them to prefer it, because it removed
some weight from that class which had the most cause
to apprehend competition. If it were to inflict some
hardship upon the farmer, and all the country were
banded against it, then, probably, the measure would
rise in the eyes of honourable gentlemen, and all the
talk would be of the selfishness of squires and farmers,
who refused to cheapen beer to their poor countrymen.
(Hear, hear, and oh, oh !) Better at once assert
the doctrine, that because the farmer considered he
was partially distressed, he should not therefore be im-
partially relieved, and, because there was unrestricted
competition, he still should be restricted in the manu-
facuture of his barley ? (Hear, hear.) Now, what was
barley ? The very grain for which England was most
famous. In wheat we were surpassed, or, at all events,
equalled. In barley we were unrivalled ; yet that un-
rivalled crop was specially selected to be obstructed and
discouraged by impediments in the way of the employ-
ment of industry in its own natural direction. This
made it the more injurious to the farmer, and it was a
most precise and elaborate rejection of one of the most
fertile sources of revenue which Providence had bestowed
on this country. If gentlemen opposite did not object
so much to the reduction of the malt tax, though, per-
haps, they might prefer its total repeal, yet, they ob-
jected to substitute a tax upon the householder for the
benefit of the farmer ; but that was only saying, in other
words, that they objected to the further extension of
_ _

the principles Of free trade. (Hear.) Well, now, what
was it that they objected to in the house tax ? Did they
object to the tax itself ? They could hardly do that, be-
cause it was a tax which had been specially selected by
their own authorities as one which they thought might be

....... ..
justly extended almost indefinitely. Mr. Mill said that of
all taxes the house tax was one of the fairest, because it

fell upon a man in proportion to his establishment. Mr
M'Culloch anticipated the very measures before the
house, for he advised the reduction of the tea-duties, and
the malt tax one-half, and the imposition of a house tax ;
and this last, too, at a time when the window tax still
existed. (Hear, hear.) The only point worthy of con-
sideration which had been thrown out by hon. members
opposite, was that which had been suggested by the hon.
member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). The principle
on which he proceeded appeared to be this—indirect
taxes were to be reduced, and a direct tax was necessary
to make up the deficiency ; what would be the best to
adopt ? The hon. member suggested that instead of a
house tax they should impose a legacy duty on realised
property. Now, he (Sir Bulwer Lytton) would frankly
own that the feeling out of doors on this subject was so
strong and so reasonable, that if they continued the
legacy duties they would, sooner or later, be obliged to
extend them to all property whatever. He granted, then,
that. Now, he begged them to grant them this :
What tax was least objectionable? He would show
them that on all principles the tax which they proposed
was more objectionable than the one before the house.
Not only almost all economists, but all educated men,
were agreed that taxes ought to fall, not upon capital,
but expenditure. When they laid a tax upon a
man's expenditure, they stimulated him to a course
of saving, as it were, in order to make up the amount
of the tax collected ; but when a tax fell upon capital,
this stimulus was not given, the deficiency was not
repaired, and the loss was one which fell to be deducted
from the wealth of the nation. But, of all taxes upon
capital, the worst was that which directly taxed the ca-
pital itself ; and, therefore, Mr. Ricardo had singled out
the legacy duty for unqualified condemnation. Mr. Ri-
cardo argued thus—Suppose 1,0001. were left to him as
a legacy, and 1001. of it were taken from him by way of
duty, he should consider that he had got a legacy of
9001. only, and should have no particular motive to make
up for the loss by a reduction of expenditure. But if he
received a legacy of 1,0001., and 1001. were afterwards
taken from him in the name of various taxes, such as
those upon houses, horses, wines, servants, &c., the result
would in all probability be that he would decrease his ex-
penditure to that amount, and the national wealth would
remain unimpaired. So that the legacy duty was a tax
bad upon principle—bad, indeed, upon all the principles
founded on by hon. members opposite, and surely it
would not be wise to increase so bad a tax. And
when it was proposed to increase the stamp duty upon
the transfer of landed property, he would ask hon.
members to consider who the landlords were whose
taxation it was thus proposed to increase ? Were they
a body of Leviathans, wallbwing in wealth ? On the
contrary, it had been proved that throughout the
country their incomes did not exceed on the average
150/. a-year ; and, as this would of course include many
whose incomes were much lower than 150/., would they
think it right to lay the screw upon those small pro-
prietors ? Seeing, therefore, that they had no other tax
except the house-tax which was approved of on every
kind of principle, and by all the political economists,
what was their objection to it ? They objected to it
either because of the extension of the area,—the bring-
ing it down to 10/. householders,—or because of the
doubling of the tax. With respect to the extension of
the area, no man, he thought, could deny that the same
principle which was applied to the income and property
tax should be applied even more rigidly to the tax
upon houses. They should only exempt the wages of
unskilled labour, or cases in which it would be unsafe
or impossible to collect the tax. But, then, they
had been told this tax was to interfere with and in-
jure the electoral franchise. That was a very grave
consideration— (cheers) ;—but there was before the house
a consideration yet more grave, and it was this :—The
10/.-householders formed the most important portion of
the electoral constituency, and it became a matter of very
great danger if that class which could exercise so great
an influence over all the taxation of that house, should
stand altogether exempted—(cheers from the Ministerial
side)—from a tax which they had the power to inflict
upon other classes. (Cheers.) Now, if the house re-
solved to sanction and enforce that principle—a prin-
ciple by which all the ancient republics were at first
corrupted and then Alestroyed—they sanctioned the
principle which justified the people of France in their
preference of an absolute Government—they sanctioned
a confiscation of property for the benefit of numbers.
He would now say one word as to the farmers, so far as
they were concerned. He wished gentlemen could dis-
miss from their minds that spectre which they called
" compensation," for, if compensation were sought
for in the reduction of half the malt tax, it would in-
deed be a most miserable dole, unworthy of that
House of Commons. But he would grant the re-
lief was not delusive—that it was a real and prac-
tical relief to agriculture, and that he would show,