The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The debate on the Malt Duty last night
took an entirely new turn. Sir Fitzroy Kelly
opened the discussion with his usual arguments and
statistics, and the House of Commons listened
patiently to the extraordinary statements which
aroused our astonishment when they were first
made two or three years ago. Members were once
more told that £20,000,000 out of the £60,000,000
spent every year by the consumers of beer was paid
on account of the duty ; but the calculation, though
remarkable, has ceased to excite attention. The
only question of interest was at what hour would
the Chancellor of the Exchequer demolish the argu-
ment of the lamed member for Suffolk. It was no
doubt true, as Mr. More afterwards said, that an
unusually large number of members had come to
the House pledged to promote a redeetion of the
duty. but it wns perLetly well known that there
wouid be no surplus this year to make a reduction
possible, if even it should be attempted. The amend-
ment of Mr: Neate, however, seconded with great
ability by Mr. Mill, gave a new aspect to the whole
question. The amendment was subsequently with-
drawn, and the motion of Sir Fitzroy Kelly rejected
on its merits by a decisive majority ; but Mr. Mill's
argument was the novelty of the evening, and its
effect upon the house was unmistakeable. For the
first time it was seriously maintained in the House
of Commons that our financial prospects were now
such that it was the duty of Parliament to consider
the propriety of reducing our debt rather than of
abolishing taxes. A comparison of our resources
and of our expenditure showed the necessity of
transmitting to later generations diminished bur-
dens as well as diminished wealth. If we are con-
suming at a rapid rate the stores of fuel which give
us the advantage we enjoy in the world—the mas-
tery of its markets, and our unrivalled powers of
powers of production—itis but just that we should
at the same time take steps to pay off the debt which
is now but a " fleabite," but which might provefatal
to energies otherwise crippled and enfeebled. 'We
shall not be suspected of a desire to detract from
the weight of Mr. Mill's argument. We are, indeed,
glad to welcome so distinguished a supporter of a
position we have ourselves repeatedly enforced.
The duty of making some provision for the reduc-
tion of the national debt is so plain that it need only
be stated to be acknowledged, and it could not have
been introduced to the consideration of the House
of Commons under happier auspices than it was last
night. The nation is by this time pretty well en-
lightened on the subject of the malt duty. It is not
an unobjectionable tax, and it is easy to conceive
modifications in the mode of its collection which
might make it less burdensome to the taxpayer
without diminishing the receipt of the Exchequer. It
is very possible that a re-arrangement of thsa impost
may some day be made. The abolition of the tax is,
however, entirely out of the question, and we may
be certain that whatever happens a duty will still be
levied on the consumption of beer. The gravest ob-
jection that has ever been urged against the duty
was that it interfered with the feeding of cattle on
malt, but the experiments of Mr. Lawes last spring
showed that the advantages of malt as a food for
cattle were, except in very special cases, imaginary.
Another objection, very properly made at one time,
that a uniform duty levied by measure discouraged
the cultivation of barley on light lands, was met by
allowing the duty to be paid by weight. The malt
duty is therefore only one item of our system of in-
direct taxation, accompanied by no special disad-
vantages and pressing upon the consumer at no un-
lusual rate. If any peculiar drawbacks remain of
which we are unaware, it would probably be found
easy to remove them ; and if the alterations which
have already been made in the mode of collecting
the tax have been rendered partially inoperative by
the excise officers, as Mr. Read maintained, it can-
not be impossible to compel excise officers to carry
out to the fullest extent the alterations which Par-
liamentracirtiicie suggestion made by
al speech, that the tax
oduty on beer, adopted
sAhiro.ulnd e
ba has a
transmutedisn s
ha ni se t oe nr
very
dvi .a t a
and ably enforced by Mr. Du Cane,
is a fair sub-
ject for debate and
consideration.
Mr. Gladstone
said there were difficulties in the way of adopt-
ing the suggestion, and thatit was not yet sup-
ported by a general concurrence of opinion, but
the difficulties would vanish if the alteration
were vigorously pressed. All this, however, can-
not affect the main question. A duty on malt or
beer must be levied if system of indirect taxa-
tion is to be maintained ; and the argument of Mr.
Mill—that it is a national duty to keep up such a
revenue as Will allow us to reduce the national debt
—was not met by any of the speakers who followed
him. County member after county member ex-
pressed the sentiments of the tenant-farmers, who
form, as Sir Edward Bu lwer-Lytton said on Friday,
the most powerful section of their several constitu-
encies, but as they were not prepared for Mr. Mill's
arguments they did not find it convenient to notice
them. , They must make :up their minds, however,
that they will have to overcome his reasoning before
they can hope to persuade the. country that it is
desirable to abolish the Malt Duty. The bulk of
the revenue is raised from afew taxes producing a
large income with comparatively a small pressure
on the resources of the taxpayer. The taxes are so
adjusted that their rates of incidence are nearly
uniform, and they affect all classes in the kingdom
in a proportional degree. If one tax be diminished,
all must be diminished, and we at once come to the
question whether it is desirable that an important re-
duction should be made in any. We cannot believe
it is desirable, unless, indeed, a corresponding re-
duction be made in the national expenditure. If
we could see our way to a reduction in the estimates,
we might fairly apply some portion of the surplus
in diminishing taxation, but the expenditure of the.
current year gives us no reason to suppose that any
such result will be achieved. However reluctant
we may be to make the admission, it seems that we
have arrived at a stationary condition of expendi-