The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

On the motion for going into committee of ways
and means,
Mr. DISRAELI rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice. Financial questions, he
observed, were among the gravest which challenged
discussion in the house. On this point he expressed
his approval of the reduction in the income tax
which the Government had announced. He thought
that the war ninepence could not have been justly
retained, and regretted that the popular uncertainty
and agitation on the subject had been permitted to
continue so long. Abundant opportunities had been
afforded, before Parliament met, to promulgate the
Ministerial intentions with respect to this impost.
Confessing that a debate on prospective finance
was exceptional, the right honourable member
urged that the budget itself contained a large
infusion of the prospective element. Against
the financial arrangements of the Government he
had two great objections : first, that they would
plunge the country into serious embarrassments; and,
secondly, that their consequences would render the
promised abolition of the income tax in 1800, not
merely difficult, but impossible. Mr. Disraeli then
entered into a series of calculations, and analysed
the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in his late speech, which brought him to the conclu-
sion that the equilibrium between income and outlay
for the ensuing financial year was accomplished by
aid of the residue of war income tax; that the
balance-sheet of 1858 9 would exhibit a deficiency as
compared with the expenditure of about five millions
sterling, and that for 1859-60 at least as much. At
the date when the income tax should expire, there-
fore, the Exchequer would actually exhibit an accu-
mulated deficit of ten millions. This result, he said,
pointed, among other conclusions, to the permanent
infliction of that impost, with all its accompaniments
of suffering, injustice, and agitation. Since the first
promulgation of the budget, a supplemental state.
ment had been made by the Finance Minister holding
forth a promise that the expenditure of future years
alter 1857-8 would be reduced to the model of 1853.
Expressing some doubt whether that promise would
be kept, he inquired why, if so large a retrenchment
were practicable, it was not effected at once ? In dis.
cussing this question, Mr. Disraeli repudiated all
supposition that he was shaping his course in view
of any parliamentary combination. The result of the
Ministerial system, he argued, was to retain, and
threaten to perpetuate, a heavy weight of direct taxa-
tion in its most odious form, namely, an income tax,
together with that most impolitic of indirect taxes,
the Customs' duty on tea. If the estimates of
1853, which he contended had proved sufficiently
liberal, were now adopted, the income tax could be
cut down to 5d., the tea duty reduced, and an ample
surplus still in the Exchequer upon the year's reve-
nue. He wished for wise and not wild reduction,
but saw no reason why they should not revert to the
expenditure of 1853, according to the proposition
which he remarked the Finance Minister lied himself
intimated in that revised edition of his budget pub-
lished on Monday last.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the criticisms of Mr. Disraeli had scarcely touched
the financial arrangements for the ensuing year.
These, he said, were necessarily almost the exclusive
care of a finance minister. The income of the future
was to some extent uncertain, and the expenditure
must be adapted to existing circumstances when the
time came. It was, he submitted, a confusion of
terms to apply the word deficiency to the hypothetical
results of prospective financial arrangements. Fc.r
his own part, be declined to form a budget for more
than one year at a time; but, proceeding to examine
the probabilities of revenue and expenditure during
the period that would elapse before 1800, contended
that a fair prospect existed of a satisfactory equi-
librium. Many charges for the army and navy
might, he believed, be further reduced after the
ex; iration of the ensuing financial year. Several
millions of debt also stood for payment in the next
three years,—a process that could be distributed over
a longer interval, if Parliament found it expedient
to give present relief to the finances. Believing that

S ATURDAY,

no cause could be shown to apprehend a future
deficiency, he remarked that none of the propositions
contained in his budget had tended in that direction.
With regard to the amendment now proposed, he ob-
jected to take any pledge binding Parliament to a
particular course of dealing with a particular im-
post, considering that enough bad been done when
measures were carefully taken to render the extinc-
tion of the income tax at the proposed date neither
impossible nor difficult.
Mr. GLADSTONE commented upon the inconsis-
tency of the Government in sanctioning a budget so
entirely different in principle to those which he had
himself proposed when belonging to the same Ad•
ministration, and also with their assent. The pre-
sent scheme of finance altogether contravened the
system which the Legislature had been so laboriously
and successfully engaged in constructing for fifteen
years. The income tax had been introduced and
continued with a special object of removing heavy
burdens. This had been the former association of
the impost. But now, while the income tax was
retained, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spe.
cifically declared his approbation of the three taxes
which he was chiefly requested to abolish, namely,
the duties on paper, insurances, and wine. Mr.
Gladstone proceeded to criticise the Finance Minis-
ter's computations, declaring that his statements were
utterly delusive, that the pretended remissions of
taxes were enormously exaggerated, that new imposts
of most oppressive character were imposed, and a
fictitious surplus in the accounts of the ensuing
year obtained by using up a large residue of war
taxation, leaving the necessities of subsequent years
to a great extent unproviiled for. He then advertod
to the settlement of 1853, explaining the financial
prospects on which it was based, and inquiring
what new conditions of permanent character
had since supervened to justify Parliament
in repudiating the pledges then given to
the country. The Ministerial Budget, he then
argued, contained four cardinal faults. First,
it was based upon an excessive expenditure.
This opinion ho intimated his intention to embody
in an amendment upon the first motion for com-
mittee of supply. War it seemed had infused a
spirit of extravagance. For twelve years, between
1842 and 1853, the public expenditure had remained
almost stationary ; but in the four last years it had
swollen by seven millions. He accepted Mr.
Disraeli's resolution, viewing it as an honest declara-
tion against incurring the risk of a deficiency. That
discreditable contingency was, he feared, impending,
if the financial scheme of the Government were
adopted ; and lie entered into a multitude of calcula-
tions respecting future income and outlay to justify
his apprehensions on that score. His computations
led to the inference that unless the house now inter-
fered, compelling Ministers to revise their arrange-
ments, there would be no possibility of sparing the
income tax in 1860. Another objection to the
budget upon which the right hon. member enlarged at
considerable length was that it presented for the
first time during a period cf fifteen years, and as a
peace budget, a proposal to increase indirect taxa-
tion, and reverse the policy of free trade. Against
that proposal he should protest at every opportunity,
and res►st it by every means in his power. Mr.
Gladstone concluded by repeating his determination
to give a full and approving support to the resolution
brought forward by Mr. Disraeli.
Mr. Wir.sos replied at length to the arguments of
Mr. Gladstone, and combatted his conclusions. The
alleged deficit, be contended, was established upon
the assumption that the expenditure of the present
year would be permanent. This was not the case.
Present financial arrangements were still entangled
with the exceptional influence of the war. The
revenue and outlay of the ensuing twelve months had
been adjusted upon that understanding, the largest
amount of taxation having been reduced which could
prudently be spared, but no more. Hereafter there
would be further retrenchments and new adjust-
ments, but there was no just ground to apprehend a
deficiency.
Mr. LAING intended to support the resolution with
the view of effecting the same end which was accom-
plished by similar means in 1848—namely, a revision
of the budget.
On the motion of Mr. J. MACGEEGOR the debate
was then adjourned.