The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-16 00:00:00

ncome of 1853 there were deducted 5,500,0001. income-
tax, the net revenue would be 49,000,0001., derived from
the same sources of Customs, Excise, and assessed taxes,
being 2,000,0001. more than before these reductions of
16,000,0001. sterling, of which the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Newdegate) complained. (Hear, hear.) The effect of the
alteration in the sugar duties proposed by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would be that, instead of being equalised
at 10s., they would be equalised at 12s. Where there was a
difference—and no doubt there would be a slight one—it
would not be of a protective nature, inasmuch as it would
apply just as much to foreign as to West India sugars ; and,
indeed, he should be deceiving the West India interest if
he threw it out as a boon, for he was disposed to let them
know all the truth—it would apply in larger proportion
to the Manilla and Brazil sugars than to the West
Indian. So far, therefore, as the principle of protection
was concerned, he denied entirely that anything of the
kind was to be found in the present measure. The hon.
gentleman who had just sat down had said that the Go-
vernment, having last year repealed the duty upon soap
because it was an Excise duty, were now acting diametri-
cally opposite to their own principles, inasmuch as they
now proposed an increase in an Excise duty ; but hon.
gentlemen who had listened to the debates in that house
must be well aware of the distinction between removing
an obstruction altogether and adding to a duty without
causing an addition to the obstruction which already ex-
isted, and that was his reply to the taunt of the lion. meznef-
ber when he charged the Government with gettangrid
one Excise duty one year and increasing another the next.
With regard to the question, which had already been
worn so threadbare by discussions in that house, as to who
paid the tax, it was one which be had hardly expected
would have been raised on the present occasion. They
really did not require arguments on such a subject, for he
asked who had already paid the tax ? What had been
issued by all the metropolitan brewers that morning ?
Was there any reduction in the price of malting barley ?
If there was, the Mark-lane market showed none, for it
was quoted that day at from 38s. ,to 41s. per quarter, and
he asked, was not that a fair price ? But had they not an
increased price of beer? Was it not true, as had been
stated to the house by an hon. member, that the brewers
had issued a circular raising the price of that article to
a sum that rather more than covered the increased duty
upon malt ? The duty upon malt was to be increased by
pm., but the increased price of beer was 3s. ; and,
therefore, the brewers not only repaid themselves for the
increase of duty, but charged somewhat more for the in-
terest upon advances. (Hear.) The whole question of who
paid for the increased duty was at an end, for the Mark-lane
quotations had told them the producers did not, and the
brewers circular that the public did pay for it. What,
then, was the use of discussing speculative opinions
upon this subject, or the conclusions based upon such
opinions ? (Hear.) This question had received the earnest
consideration of the Government, and he assured the house
that the principle was adopted with an honest view and a
full determination of laying the duty on the consumer in
the fairest possible way, so that it should be distributed
among the whole community in a manner that would in-
flict the least injury upon the industry and trade of the
country. This duty had been selected above all others in
order that the whole community should contribute towards
the taxation in the fair proportion in which they consumed
the article. (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER contended that this tax was unjust and
unequal, and that an import duty ought to have been sub-
stituted. Asserting that the peasants were the great con-
sumers of beer, he made fight for that fluid in answer to
Mr. Crossley, and told him to ask a wearied labourer
whether he found no nourishment in it. One of his objec-
tions to the tax was, its depriving the peasant of his whole-
some homebrew, and driving him tothe public-house. He
dwelt upon the value of malt (not given dry, but as a sweet
wort) to cattle. Mr. Wilson's Mark-lane argument he ridi-
culed, saying that the barley market was over just now,
but let them see what the result would be at a future time.
He indignantly denied that there was any unwillingness
to support the Government in the war, but said that the
wcrst way to carry it on was to make the hardworking
peasantry feel that they were unjustly treated.
Sir C. BURRELL, who was nearly inaudible, supported
the amendment.
Mr. SANDARS contended that it would be in favour of
the barley growers to continue the tax, as the foreigner,
who produced an inferior kind of barley, would be the
more able to compete with the home producer if the trade
were thrown open. His own opinion as to the war was,
that it might have been avoided, bat being in it, supplies
must be found, and he saw several advantages in this par-
ticular tax, which required no fresh staff of collectors, and
all of which went to the Exchequer. It had been his duty
to bring various grievances of the maltsters before Govern-
ment, and he was bound to state that they were in course
of removal.
Mr. FLOYEP, combated the view of the preceding
speaker, taunted the Treasury bench with its silence—
which was hardly courteous, considering the magnitude of
the interests involved—and contended at some length that
the proposal of Government was oppressive.
There were loud cries for a division, and strangers were
ordered to withdraw, but at length
Sir B. LYTTON, who was received with cheers, spoke
to the following effect :—I cordially concur in the desire
expressed by all gentlemen who have risen on this side of
the house to assist the Ministers of the Crown in providing
the necessary means to carry on with vigour and effect the
war in which we are unhappily engaged, and as all that
may weaken the Government by party disputes on matters
of domestic policy would, in my judgment, be injurious to
that aspect of moral power which this country should pre-
sent to Europe, I rejoiced when the noble lord the member
for London, much, I think, to his credit, and with the re-
spectful sympathy of the house—withdrew from discussion
a reform bill which must inevitably have roused the most
determined opposition. I did hope that opposition itself
might remain dormant during; the rest of the session. I was
not prepared to expect that the dispute which the leader of
the Government in this house so patriotically forbore,
would be forced upon us in another shape by the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. That right hon. gentleman is too
experienced a politician not to know that he has delibe-
rately introduced into his budget the very item that must
revive the most bitter resentment of the class against
which it operates, and that most of us on this side of the
house would be traitors to our constituents if we sub-
mitted to it without a struggle. (Cheers.) The issue
of that struggle may be against us, but I fear that the very
proposition of the right hon. gentleman will materially
weaken the hands of the government in the &ting conduct
of this war, because it elaborately tends to create the deepest
dissatisfaction iu that very portion of our people on whom
for the endurance of war all governments must proverbial-
ly depend. (Hear.) I shall imitate the example of those
who have preceded me, and refrain from discussing the ge-
neral propositions of the budget With respect to the pro-
posed duplication of the income and property tax, however,
I must at least enter a strong demur against the assertion
glibly made by the right hon. gentleman, that it was im-
possible to reconstruct it upon a more equitable basis; but
whether this be or be not possible, I say that a direct tax
in which the whole mass of the public complain of anoma-
lies and injustice, not rendered more tolerable by your as-
sertion that they are not susceptible of mitigation, and
avowedly to be continued for the whole duration of the war
—maintained, as it were, upon that tenure—is precisely
that tax which the Emperor of Russia will rejoice to hear
that you have doubled. (Hear.) However, there is at least
this consideration left to those who have to pay the income
and property tax—its inequalities and injustice are respec-
tively divided between all the wealth and industry of
the community whose incomes reach the limit of 1001. a
year; while the right honourable gentleman then proceeds
to select a single article of home production, and with
a complacent eulogium on the principle of fair dis-
tribution, calculates to raise from the additional tax
--which, if finally paid by the consumer, especially affects
one single department of industry—a sum a third in
amount of all which lie calculates to obtain from his fresh
demand upen the united property and income of the en-
tire community. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman
thinks the malt tax a duty which combines all those fea-
tures that should determine his choice in selecting it.
" You can raise it," he says, " without additional expense,
and collect it without additional machinery." But in this
the hon. member fur Westbury has followed him through
a variety of small arguments. I think the hon. member
for the North Riding has rather proved the contrary; but,
grant that it be so, the reasons alleged are very well for a
mere tax-gather, or even a Secretary of the Treasury, but
there are other reasons—reasons of policy and justice—
which should weigh more with a gentleman of such lofty
pretensions to the character of a statesman. And I say
that all such reasons combine to make this tax one of the
very last you should have thought of. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman in proposing this additional malt tax, spoke
only of making the general consumer pay his fair share of
the burdens necessary to carry on the war. He spoke only
of the general consumer • not one single word did be con-
descend to say of the effect of the tax upon agriculture.
(Hear.) He spoke as if there were no persons in this coun-
try engaged in the cultivation of land—he seemed to ignore
their existence. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentle-
man neetnot have looked deeper than into the familiar
pages of rre.M'Culloch,--whom he afterwards quotes with
deserved respect as a high authority—to have known the
injury to agriculture which the malt-tax, even without an
addition, evidently inflicts. What says Mr. 31`Culloch ?
" The malt tax, like other taxes on commodities, falls
wholly on the consumer ; still, however, it must be ad-
mitted that it is, indirectly at least, if not directly, espe-
cially injurious to the agriculturist. Barley is a crop that
is peculiarly suitable to light lands, and may be introduced
with the greatest advantage in an improved rotation after
,f green crops. But it is obvious that, by imposing a duty
20s. Bd. (that is the present duty) per quarter on malt
(tthheedPermudaucle into which barley is almost wholly concocted)
the farmert for the latter is materially diminished, and
ley, where, but consequence prevented from sowing bar-
suitable than a for this circumstance, it might be more
estimate the ny other variety of corn. It is not easy to
malt tax injuryinflicts which this indirect influence of the
an injursyure u agriculture ; but 'the fact of its in-
flictinguasndeniable. Suppose such a high duty
were laid ononberpeadresumweould lessen the demand for wheat,
would any
to agriculturistst9° say
that was not especially in-
juriouslaid on calicoes and broadclothOsuppose a high duty were
would be a serious injury to tI is
it not clear that it
that loch goes further; for,
on it ?" (Cheers.) Nay, Air. wee it
engaged
while he thinks, nevertheless,
you might mere it
be a tax in case
of necessity which
. even as it now
exists, he thinks it entitles the faresZryse,
compensation.
Free Trader
apee
And what is the compensation this emineant
pressure of the
insists on ? Why, he says, " the peculiar
malt tax upon land gives the agriculturist
—though all claims on account of tithes were abolished__
to to have a certain fixed duty imposed upon foreign corn:'
(Hear.) "It would be unjust, says Mr.
hi'Culloeh, "see-
ing that the malt tax, by narrowing the demand for barley,
and obliging the farmers to adopt imperfect rotations, is
especially inimical to their interests, to expose them, with-
out any corresponding protection, to the competition of
foreigners. Perhaps it might require a fixed duty of le.
6d. or 2s, a quarter to counteract the unfavourable circinu-
stances alluded•
to " That is the malt tax ! So that here,
after you have abolished all duties Cu foreign wheat, you
select the very burden which, according to political eco-
nomy, entitle the grower to home protection, and acid to it
50 per cent. (Cheers.)
The hon. member for Westbury con-
ceives that an Excise duty on malt is very different in effect
from au Excise duty on soap, lie can reduce the duty on
soap and yet increase the revenue. On malt, ,tu the other
band, he thinks he camincreace the duty without dimiaishing
consumption. tut the facts of the past are apinst hi in there.
We know that, note ithstanding the iuerease of wealth and
of population, the cousuesption oi malt varied little for 100
years, until the duty on malt was reduced in 1822—when
even before the beer duty was repealed, it rose from more
than 20,000,000 bushels in 1821 to more than 30,000,000
bushels in 1828 ; and since the repeal of the beer duty in
1830 it has risen to more than 40,000,000 bushels. (Hear.)
Now, I am opposed to all taxes that fall more upon one
class of industry than
ties of war compel you to violate this strict rule, and some
class must be partially affected by your burdens, we might
regret it less if it were that elass who have
a paramount
interest in bringing the war to a speedy close by vigorous
and effective military operations. What is that clash?.