Karl Marx 
Parliament— Vote of November 2&-Disraeli's Budget 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr. 3650, 28. Dezember 1852 

Parliament—Vote of November 26— 
Disraeli's Budget. 

Correspondence of The N.Y. Tribune. 

London, Friday, Dec. 10, 1852. 

My predictions on the eventful results of the renewed party struggle in 
Parliament have been realized. At the opening of the session the opposition 
commanded a negative majority against ministers; but the several conflicting 
fractions which composed that majority have, since then, mutually paralyzed 
each other. The House of Commons, on the 26th of November, when it 
adopted, instead of the "radical" free trade resolution of Mr. Villiers, the 
equivocal amendment of Lord Palmerston, offered the spectacle of universal 
and mutual cheating, of the general dissolution and dislocation of all the old 
parliamentary parties. 

The resolution of Mr. Villiers, which designed the act of 1846 as "wise and 
just," was drawn up without the knowledge of Cobden and Bright, the free 
traders par excellence. The Whigs had resolved to act for the interests of 
the free traders, without conceding to them either the initiative or any share 
in the Government, after the presumed victory. Russell, the original author 
of the words "wise and just," so offensive to the ministry, gave his consent 
to the Graham amendment; the Peelites, joined by the ministerialists, 
tendered a proposition which recognizes the expediency of free trade for the 
future, and denies it in the past, leaving the Tories at liberty to compensate 
for the losses sustained by the act of Sir Robert Peel; the same Peelites 
rejected the amendment of Disraeli, and reässuming their own proposition, 
prepared to support the original free trade resolution; the Whigs, on the very 
eve of triumph, routed by the appearance of Palmerston, who took up the 

Karl Marx 

amendment of Graham, and thus, with the assistance of the Peelites, secured 
the victory to the Ministerialists; finally, the victory itself, won by a protec- 
tionist ministry, consisted in the recognition of free trade, and was opposed 
by none but the fifty-three most decided adherents of their own party. Such 
an imbroglio of false positions, party intrigues, Parliamentary maneuvers, 
mutual treasons, etc., is the resume of the debate on the 26th, in which the 
policy of free trade was officially acknowledged, but interpreted by Protec- 
tionists, represented by Protectionists, and to be carried out by Protection- 
ists. 

In a former letter, written before the commencement of the session, I 
indicated already that Disraeli, after dropping himself in his electioneering 
speeches the restoration of the corn laws, intended to compensate the land- 
lords in the shape of a tax reform, which would enable the farmers to continue 
to pay their old Protectionist rents. By taking off the farmer's shoulders part 
of the present weight of taxation, and imposing it on the backs of the mass 
of the people, Disraeli flatters himself to have discovered a panacea for the 
suffering landlords far more available than the old precarious system of 
protection which speculated directly on the stomachs of the multitude. To 
speculate on their pockets—such is the ingenious plan of Mr. Disraeli, now 
revealed in his budget, which, on the 3d inst., he laid before the House of 
Commons, and the fate of which will probably be decided in this night's 
debate. 

It is customary with German Governments and German philanthropists 
to talk of "measures for the elevation of the laboring classes." (Massregeln 
zur Hebung der arbeitenden Classen.) Now, Mr. Disraeli's budget might not 
improperly be called a series of "measures for the elevation of the idle 
classes." However, as in the case of our German Governments and philan- 
thropists, such measures have regularly turned out mere shams, so also the 
plan at present contemplated by the English Chancellor of the Exchequer 
for the benefit of the idle classes is a plain humbug, intended to induce the 
farmers the more readily to pay their actual high rents, by holding out to them 
an apparent reduction of their burdens, a delusion which he can only practise 
upon them by some evident real defraudation of the town population. 

Disraeli had, for a long time, mysteriously announced his budget; he had 
promised the world with no less than an eighth miracle. His budget was to 
"put a term to the strife of interests; to end the internecine war between 
classes;" to "give satisfaction to all, without damaging any of them;" to 
"melt the different interests in one flourishing community;" to "create for 
the first time a harmony between our commercial and financial systems, by 
the establishment of new principles," loomingin the future. 

Let us now examine his revelations which no longer loom in the future, 

AO 

Parliament—Vote of November 26—Disraeli's Budget 

but have already since a week been communicated to the English Parliament 
and the world at large. As it behoves such revelations of mysteries, Disraeli 
introduced them with the fitting ceremonial and important-looking be- 
haviour. Peel, in his financial statement of 1842, had spoken for two hours; 
Disraeli takes no less than full five hours. One hour he dilated in showing 
that the "suffering" interests do not suffer; another one in what he did not 
mean to do for them, on which occasion he contradicted Walpole's, Packing- 
ton's, Malmesbury's and his own former declarations; and the remainder of 
the five hours in the exposé of the budget, and sundry episodes on the 
condition of Ireland, the defense of the country, prospective reforms in the 
Administration, and other entertaining topics. 

The principal features of the budget are as follows: 

1. The shipping interest. A portion of the light dues is relaxed, amounting 
to about £100,000 per annum. This is a relief of less than sixpence per tun 
per annum, and cannot reach the shipping interest before the middle of the 
ensuing year. The charge for passing tolls is entirely to cease. Some of the 
powers of the Admiralty, which have given offense to the merchant navy, 
shall be done away with, viz.: the officers of the navy, if they enlist seamen 
of foreign stations, are not to require immediate payment of their wages—they 

are to furnish gratuitous assistance to vessels in distress—and in harbor they 
are not to drive peaceable craft out of the most eligible anchorage. Finally, 
a Committee of the House of Commons is to be appointed on the subject 
of pilotage and ballasting. So much for the shipping interest. Lest the Free 
Traders should boast of any positive concession made to them by these 
provisions, the remnant of the timber duties remains as it was. 

2. Colonial Interest. Leave is granted to refine sugar in bond, so that 
henceforth duty will be payable upon the quantity of saleable refined sugar 
produced, instead of upon the raw produce itself. Besides this, the Chinese 
immigration to the West Indies is to be encouraged to supply the planters 

with a sufficient number of cheap labor. The differential duties on sugar shall 
not be abolished. 

3. Malt Tax and Hop Duties. The malt tax is to be reduced by one-half, 
which, according to Mr. Disraeli's statement, would engender a loss of reve- 
nue amounting to £2,500,000. The hop duties are likewise to be reduced to 
one-half, which would create another loss of about £300,000. These re- 
ductions are to take place on and from the 10th of October, 1853. Instead 
of the existing prohibition of foreign malt, and the actual duty on foreign hop, 
foreign hop and malt will be admitted at a duty corresponding to the excise- 
duty charged there. 

4. Tea. The present duty shall be reduced from 2s. 2/.d. to Is. perlb, upon 
all qualities, but this reduction shall be effected gradually within six years, 

Karl Marx 

so that in 1853 there will be a reduction of 4'^. and every following year 
of 2d. till the expiration of 1858. The reduction for the year 1853 would 
thereby amount to £400,000. 

5. Property and Income Tax. This tax, which has only been voted until 
August 5, 1853, is to be renewed for three years, the amount remaining the 
same, but the distribution to be altered. There shall be a distinction between 
the charges on realized property and those on industrial income. Real 
properties and the funds continue to be charged at 7 pence the pound; while 
on industrial incomes (farmers, trades, professions, and salaries) an abate- 
ment on the charge from 3 per cent, upon 2 per cent, is projected. The latter 
are henceforth only to pay 5'!^. in the pound. On the other hand the standard 
of exemption shall be lowered from £150 to £100 per annum, and upon 
property and funds to £50 a year. To prevent all losses to farmers by this 
projected change, they are to be charged at the rate of one-third of the rent, 
in place of one-half at present, so that the alteration will exempt all farmers 
renting less than £300 a year. As a boon to the Church, all parsons with an 
income of £100 a year shall remain exempt from the tax. Finally, the income 
tax is for the first time to be extended to Ireland, not by any means, to the 
landlords, but only as far as regards funds and salaries. 

6. House-Tax.—This is to be extended to all occupiers of houses rented 
at £10 per annum, instead, as formerly, only to those occupiers of houses 
valued at £20 per annum. Besides, the rate of the house-tax shall be doubled, 
i. e., from sixpence in the pound on shops, and ninepence in the pound on 
dwelling-houses, to one shilling and one shilling sixpence respectively. 

The résumé of this budget would be— 

On one side: Extension of the Income-tax in England to such classes of 
the town population as have hitherto been exempted from it, and introduction 
of the same into Ireland for fundholder s and public functionaries; extension 
of the house-tax to such classes of the town population as were hitherto 
exempted from it, and doubling of the rate of the tax. On the other side: 
Diminution of the agricultural malt-tax and hop-duty by £2,800,000; relief 
of the shipping interest by £100,000; reduction of the tea-duties by 
£400,000. 

The town population is to receive an increase of taxation in the shape of 
anew Income-tax, an extension of the house-tax, and a double rate of the 
same, in order to relieve the rural population of atax-amount of £2,800,000. 
The small shopkeeper, the better-paid mechanic and the commercial clerk 
would thus find themselves contributors to the house-tax, and become for 
the first time subject to the Income-tax. The land accordingly would have 
to pay sevenpence in the pound, while dwelling-houses would pay two 
shillings one penny. The reduction in the tea-duties does not affect this 

Parliament—Vote of November 26—Disraeli's Budget 

proportion, its amount being comparatively very small with regard to the 
increased direct taxation, and its advantages being alike accessible to the 
country and to the towns. 

The exemption of Irish landlords from all Income-tax, that of English 

farmers and clergymen from the extended Income-tax, is manifestly a favor 
bestowed on the country at the cost of the towns. But who is the gainer by 
the reduction of the malt-tax—the landlord, the farmer, or the consumer? A 
reduction of taxes is a reduction of the risks of production. According to the 
laws of political economy, a reduction in the costs of production would 
involve areduction of prices, and consequently benefit neither the landlord 
nor the farmer, but only the consumer. 

There are, however, two circumstances to be considered in this case. In 
the first place, the soil on which first-rate barley can be grown is monopoly 
land in England, and restricted to Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, etc., while the 

foreign supply of maltis limited by the nature of the commodity itself, neither 
barley nor malt being able to support long sea-voyages. Secondly, the large 
English brewers virtually possess a monopoly, chiefly supported by the 
present license system, so that even the abolition of the Corn Laws has 
effected no fall in the prices of porter and ale. 

Thus, then, the gain on the reduction of the malt-tax would neither be in 

favor of the farmer nor the consumer, but only become divided between the 
landlords and the great brewers—And as the odious interference of the excise 
with agriculture is to be maintained, the collecting of half the sum of the 
former taxes would continue to absorb the same amount of administrative 
costs as that of the whole did before. At present, the costs of collecting 
£14,400,000 of excise duties amount to £5 6s per cent. After the reduction 
of the tax by three rnillions, the rate would amount from £6 to £6 4s. Briefly, 
there would be so much less profit, and so much mischievous expense 
more. 

The budget of Disraeli thus resumes itself into a compensation to Land- 
lords; "a compensation with a revenge." 

But this budget has yet another no less interesting feature. 

If you want to carry your commercial system of free trade, you have first 
of all to change your financial system. "You have to return from indirect 

taxation to direct taxation," says Disraeli, and Disraeli is right. 

Direct taxation, as the most simple, is also the most ancient and first mode 
of taxation, cotemporaneously with a state of society based on landed 
property. The towns afterward introduced the system of indirect taxation, 
but in the course of time, with the modern division of labor, the system of 

Great Industry, and the direct dépendance of the home trade upon the foreign 
trade and the market of the world, the system of indirect taxation comes into 

Karl Marx 

a twofold conflict with the social wants. On the frontiers it becomes identical 
with protective duties, and disturbs or prevents the free intercourse with 
other countries. In the interior it is identical with fiscal interference in pro- 
duction—unsettles the relative value of commodities, and disturbs free com- 
petition and exchange. From both these reasons its abolition becomes a 
necessity. The system of direct taxation must be returned to. But direct 
taxation admits of no delusions, and every class perceives exactly what share 
it has in the contribution towards the public expenses. Nothing is therefore 
less popular in England than direct taxation, Income-tax, Property-tax, 
House-tax, etc. Now the question is, how the industrial classes of England, 
forced by Free Trade to adopt the system of direct taxation, will be able to 
introduce it without either incurring popular indignation or increasing then- 
own burdens. 

Only by three ways. 

By attacking the public debt; but that would be a violation of public credit, 
confiscation, a revolutionary measure. 

By chiefly taxing the rent of land; but that also would be an attack upon 
property, confiscation, a revolutionary measure. 

Byre-vindicating the Church estates;bxxt that again is af urther attack upon 
property, confiscation, a revolutionary measure. 

"By no means," says Cobden; "let us reduce the public expenses and we 
shall be able to reduce also our present taxation!" 

This is Utopian. Firstly the international relations of England with the 
Continent require a perpetual increase of the national expenses; secondly 
a victory of the industrial class, represented by Cobden, would have the same 
consequences, for the war between capital and labor would become only the 

1 

more intense and the means of repression require to be increased—in other 
words, the budget admits of no reduction. Let me resume. 

Free Trade drives toward the system of direct taxation; the system of 
direct taxation involves revolutionary measures against the Church, Land- 
lords and Fund-holders ; these revolutionary measures necessitate an alliance 
with the working classes; and this alliance deprives the English bourgeoisie 
of the principal results it expected from Free Trade, viz.: the illimited domi- 
nation of capital over labor. 

Karl Marx.