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

I.l5lclVaS

ease incurred in carry ring it on. This is, in fact, the
tcluestion now before us.. Do not tell me that the malt
ax is a tax so objectionable that you would be ready to
vote all other taxes if you could get rid of this. Do not
tell me that the lanclaxl interest in this country cannot
bear fifteen pence additional duty on malt. Tell us rather
that which I should be sorry to bear, but which would
be more fair, manly, and candid—tell us that
though you are in favour of the war—that though
rot are ready to vote army and navy in support of
it, you are not ready to vote tb.e necessary taxes—[" Oh,
oh," from the Opposition)—that you shrink from the
unpopularity which belongs to -the proposal of considerable
burdens upon the .nuntry, arid that you would wish to
escape that obligation by moans of loans, or any other
means by which you can avoid those burdens ; but do not
tell me that this small addition to the malt tax is really
the obstacle which prevents you supporting the Govern-
ment on this occasion. Only imagine what would be now ,
your position if, when you are asked to make a great effort
to raise, not 2,500,000/., but 7,000,0001. for the purpose of
the war, your first vote should be to reject that proporeal.
Would not the effect be throughout Europe, that you did
not mean to engage heart and. soul in the project—
(cheers)—that you meant only to give it your temporary
support—that you shrunk and escaped from it the first
opportunity you had—(shout) of "oh, oh," from the Op-
position)—that you were ready to forego the declarations
you had made, to abandon the opinions you entertained,
and to involve your coneetry in the necessity of a disho-
nourable peace ? (Cheerri and disapprobation.) lam not
telling you that that is :four intention ; but I am asking
you whether such woulq not be the erect of such a vote
as I have supposed. T. would venture to say that no pro-
position could be more clear or more indisputable
no person would believe that it was merely on account of
raising the malt tan from 2s. 9d. to 4s. that you refused
-this bill. They would say you refused the taxes necessary
for the support of the war ; and nobody would think
this war would be carried on with vigour and perseve-
rance. That certainly is my impression. With
regard
to the malt tax, we have debated it for the last ten
years. Its merits Ind its demerits have been canvassed over
and over again • and Mr. M'Culloch says, even in times of
peace, the malt, tax should be imposeda,atsebeiilga tax pe-
culiarly of finance
an ;
but whether
adaptod to a good system
it be the malt tax, or be it anything else, I say if the '
House of Commons mean to support the war—if they
mean to support us in endeavouring to maintain the dignity
of the Crown and the welfare of the country, they will
support the second reading of this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRA.ELI—I have listened to the remarks which
have fallen from the noble lord who has last addressed the
house with great regret and with some surprise. The noble
lord has just laid down one of the most extraordinary doc-
trines of finance ever expressed in this house—that an Op-
position, if it approve a war in which her Majesty's Go-
vernment is engaged, is bound to vote every proposition
for new taxes which that Government may propound, with-
. out criticising and without cavilling, at the expense of its
patriotism if it objects. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
I myself am a supporter of the policy, so far as the war is
concerned, of the Government. Ido not want to go into the
causes or the merits of that war at present; it is enough that
we are involved in that war, and it is our duty to support her
Majesty in its prosecutio ; but Ido reserve to myself, and
I should hope that gentlemen who are members of this
house, and not merely sitting on the benches behind me,
always reserve to themselves the means of criticising the
mode in which you are proposing to carry on that war, even
if we bo unanimous in thinking that that war ought to be
prosecuted with vigour and effect. But the noble lord
says this is a course which is no longer open to you ; you
have given in your adhesion to the warlike policy of the
Government, and therefore you are bound to give an un-
compromising adhesion to every financial proposal that
they bring forward in order that that war may he prose-
cuted. " What is 15.1. a bushel upon malt ?" asks the
noble lord. (A laugh ) Does the noble lord forget that
in considering the incidence of taxation thet e is something
more than the amount of the burden that a statesman
ought to think of ? That the justice of the principle upon
which a tax is devised is a consideration which must enter
into the contemplation of the House of Commons, and that
it is one which, if neglected by the House of Commons,
will certainly net escape the reflection of the people. It
is, in my opinion, an unjust claim which is made by the
Government. and it is for that reason that I venture to
oppose it. The noble lord has for a moment, attempted
to withdraw the consideration of the house from the
• subject before it by referring to the question of the in-
come tax. That question must come before the house
shortly, and I think it a much more convenient time to
discuss it when the resolutions of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer with respect to the assessment of the income
tax are on the table than on the present occasion. I
could not see what was the point of the noble lerd when
he referred to the proposition of the late Government
with respect to the income tax ; but since he has
introduced the subject, he will panion rue for briefly refer-
ring to it. The noble lord has said that the late Govern-
ment, in their scheme fur the assessment under the income
tax, acted unjustly towards the l ud, and that it is the
present Government wh I are devoted to the interests of
the agricultural class. The late Government, in the scheme
for the assessment of the income tax, which they never had
an opportunity of proposing to the house, but which they
indicated in the general exposition of their policy, did not
attempt to devise a plan which would be favourable to one
class or another. They attempted as far as lay in their power
to make an arrangement which would on the whole be just
to all with reference to the whole scheme of our taxation.
They were not called upon to decide, and they did not ask
themselves, what would be to the advantage of the land or
of trade. They were called upon to decide whether in the
assessment of this tax the difference between permanent
and temporary income should be recognised, and resolved
that, so far they were concerned, it should be recognised.
But in introducing their scheme with reference to the in-
come tax—(on which I wish now scarcely to dwell, because
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, and it is
painful to me to enter into a controversy in which he is con-
cerned in his absence, and therefore I refrain almost entirely
from the subject)—they stated that they brought it forward
with reference to the whole system of our finance. The
measures they brought forward were avowedlyonly a portion,
and a small portion, of the changes they thought should
take place in the whole system of our finance ; and it was
as much a matter of policy as of justice that in asking the
trading classes to join with us in a comprehensive revision
of our system of taxation, they should declare that they
thought the time had arrived, was ripe.end opportune,
when a difference in the assessment of temporary and per-
manent' income should be recognised by the Legislature.
It has been said in the course of the debate that the malt
tax is not an unjust tax, as we on this side of the house
complain that it is. We contend that it is unjust towards
those who pay it, and that it is impolitic on the part of the
state unnecessarily to have recourse to it. Let the house
calmly consider the character of our finances. Our ordi-
nary revenue is at this moment supplied to the extent of
one-fourth part by what is virtually a tax upon a single
crop of the British farmer, and it is to increase that enor-
mous taxation that at this moment supplies one-fourth of
your revenue, that you have now a bill upon the table
which is greatly to aggravate—in fact, to the extent of 50
per cent.—the amount of that taxation. Well, never for-
get, when you are askedto discuss the question of the duties
upon spirits and upon malt, that these duties furnish one
quarter of the ordinary revenue of this country. But then it
seems that you may raise from a single article, and that not
the principal crop of the British farmers, a sum as large asthe
revenues of important empires, and yet not produce the slight-
cat ill effect upon their fortunes, upon their profits, upon their
employment, upon their industry, upon their property.
(Hear, hear.) But this is the greatest reaction from po-
litical economy that I have ever heard of. I have seen
xnany symptoms and numerous evidences of late that there
is a considerable reaction from those stern opinions that
have been so long prevalent aid predominant in this house.
But I did hardly believe I should live to hear that an in-
crease of 50 per cent, of a tax that now produces one-
fourth part of the richest empire in the world, would be
no aggravation of the burthens and no increase of the im-
post, that could diminish profit or embarrass the farmer.
(Cheers.) A little while ago, if any gentleman on these
benches ventured to refer to the btu-then of taxation that
pressed upon the productive classes of the country, he was
treated with jeers. Then we were told that the consumer
—the great consumer, as he was described by a distinguished
member opposite—was the person who should alone be
considered ; that the consuming power was the basis of
modern finance • that that was the consideration that
should alone influence the Treasury, and that no tax was
now to be considered but with reference to his interests.
And now we are told with a nonchalance that is admirable,
and with a sang froid *hat is sublime, that this immense
impost is not for a moment to be considered because it is
only a consumers' question. Well, I think it is something
to have brought them to that. I think that after all the
panegyrics we have hoard for years upon the consuming
power—that after those who uttered them have succeeded
in abrogating the laws that protected the industry of Eng-
land too successfully—that we should now have it ac-
knowledged that the plea upon which they advanced their
doctrines was fallacious—that the object they wished to
cherish was in fact an unworthy one—that the great point
which they wished to enhance was not worthy of being ac-
complished ; that I think is a result which we may look to
not without gratification. But then, when hon. gentlemen
on this side of the house demand for the British producer
the benefits of that unrestricted competition which both
sides of the house have now accepted as the principle of
our commercial code, we are told that the question of un-
restricted competition cannot affect the fortunes of the cul-
tivatore of barley, or the manufacturer of malt, and for what
ea "On forsooth ? Because he meets with no competition.
It may,
aratheEtangalinsuhf
indeed, be true that foreign malt may not compete
malt, but the question is whether the bever-
ket by
other manufactures is not met in competition in the mar-
claim the attention and which may please the palate and
competition to i°and
patronage of the people. Why, the
is that which he r which the manufacturer of beer is exposed
very well that theare:ives from the import of tea. You know
petition with beer
than tea
article that comes more in com-
immense tax that
you tea ; then it is that you find the
malt, and of course of are
placing upon the manufacture of
beer;;.then it is that you find that fo-
reign competition from
which is entirely free. you'e h you say the home manufac-
niaust, therefore, look to the
amount of the tax on malt, n e
Parison with the taxes
on beverages with which it comes°T
ecoetition. Why, it
was always a most difficult thin to ilda competition.
the tea duties
because it was impossible justly to deal
from deaTiolnunless
you
dealt with the malt tax; and that difilculritills7
s!wey with alwayst e teare.
vented the minister of finance
Tap to deal
duties. The late Government undertook
neglectgeratt
with both the malt duty and the tea duty.
Government dealt with the tea duty, but
upon malt. - - course that increased the severity of the
'
competition between tea and malt, and now y
greatly the duty upon malt at the very time whenou reiynocu::
carrying on a system
which every year greatly decrease
is (Cheers.) And
e
the duty upon tea. Why, that justice?
it is at this very moment that you come forward and say—
" Great as may be the impost upon malt, it is not a ques.
-
tion of free trade or of unrestricted competition, because
malt competes with no similar article; and great as is the
tax upon it, it can bear it, because it has no rivals in the
market." It has rivals in the market, and yon are ydimi-
nishing the taxes upon them at the very moment you are
aggravating the impost that crushes the manufacturer of
malt. Well, there is another point which the house
should consider with reference to this question, and that is
the local taxation of the country. Every one knows the
effect of that local taxation which has recently been re-
ferred to. It has been acknowledged by the highest au-
thorities on both sides of the house. I can point out Mi-
nisters of State ; I can even refer to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer as having acknowledged the peculiar burden of
that apeciesof taxation. Well, there was an attempt to com-
prOngse the qttestion by diminishing the duties upon malt ;
t and neeeehow are you tending to revive that controversy —a
eoiatroveref which mint at all times be embarrassing and
aid especially SO when you are increasing the
general-414i0n of the country (Hear, hear.) There is
another'reiriark which the noble lord made, which is so sin-
gular, 0144 is I suppose he is still the leader of the Whig
Marty, kca4hot PUB it Wet on this 0C4411011 entirely with