The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-01 00:00:00

THE SUN,

the finance of the country is founded must mainly depend the t
greatness of the realm and the happiness of the peopll—
Hear)—l am not altogether without hope that I may in-
duce gentlemen on either side of the mouse to dismiss
from their minds all prejudgments and prejudices, and
to join with me in the attempt clearly to compreheed the
exact financial position of this country.—(Hear.) When
the Minister responsible for the condition of the finances
finds himself in the position to which 1 have just adverted—
when he has to submit to the House facts which none can
dispute, that a considerable source of revenue has ceased to
' exist, and that by its cessation there is necessarily a consi-
derable deficiency in the public income, there is, of course,
one question which inevitably occurs to every one engaged
in such discussions as the present—namely, what are the
soundest means—what, at the same time, is the most papa-
, lar and the most practicable method,—or perhaps I ought to
say on such a subject, what is the method the least unpo-
pular, and the most practicable, by which me may sup-
ply the deficiency, which none can deny?—(Hear, hear.)
It is unnecessary for me to remind the Hotta*, that the re-
venue of this country is raised, generally speaking, by three
modes—by duties on articles of foreign import, by duties on
articles of domestic manufacture, and largely by a system
of direct taxation. Now, we have to inquire, in the first
place, what are the means, which are the most prac-
ticable, and to which I should be most successful in ob-
taining the consent of the House to have recourse, in
order to place the finances of the country in that
satisfactory state in which I am sure that gentlemen,
whatever seat they may occupy, would wish to see them.
With respect to the first method, namely, the raising an
increased supply by duties on articles of foreign produce
imported into this country, I should observe that a very
considerable branch of revenue is still raised by that mode,
and that, perhaps, is the first method which naturally pre-
sents itself for obtaining an additional supply. Bat, if
I try to anticipate what may be the opinion of the House
of Commons on that point—if I pass under my review
what has occurred on the subject of the Customs' duties
for the several years during which the present Par-
liament has existed;—if, indeed, I extend the range
of my observation, and examine what has been the
conduct of the Parliament which preceded the present,
I do not certainly think that in the present Parliament the
prospect of supplying a deficiency by increased Customs'
duties is very encouraging.—(Cries of " Hear," from the
Opposition.) Since the year 1842, now ten years ago—l
take that period because it is an epoch frequently referred to
in this House, and considered by many, I myself think
erroneously, as the inangurative epoch of a new system in
the management of our finances and our commerce,—since,
I repeat, the year 1842 up the year 1851 inclusive, I find one
very remarkable feature in the financial management of this
country, viz., that in every one of those past ten years there
has been a reduction of the daties on foreign articles im-
ported into this country. There is no single year of those
ten years in which there has not been a reduction, and a
considerable reduction, of the the means of raising revenue
by duties on articles of foreign import. You have in those
ten years repealed or reduced the duties on coffee, timber,
currants, wool, sugar, molasses, cotton wool, butter,
cheese, silk manufactures, tallow, spirits, copper ore, oil
and sperm, and an amazing number of other articles,
which produced a small amount of revenue, with respect
to which it is not material, and would be almost prepos-
terous, that I should trouble* the House in de-
tail. It is sufficient for me to observe this remarkable
fact, that the reduction of your Customs' daties from 1842
has been systematically continuous; that in 1842 you struck
of nearly 1,500,0001. of revenue calculated from the Customs'
duties ;—that in 1843 you struck off 126,0001 ; in 1844,
279,000/. ; in 1845, upwards of 3,500,000/. ; in 1846, upwards
of 1,150,000/. ; in 1847, upwards of 343,0001. ; in 1848, upwards
of 57000/. ; in 1849, upwards of 384,000/. ; in 1850, up-
wards of 331,000/. ; and in 1851, upwards of 801,0004' •
making an aggregate in those ten years of nearly 9,000,0001.
sterling.—(Loud cries of " Hear!") Well, then, having a
deficiency to supply, and looking to the sources whence that
assistance which is necessary, might most probably be ob-
tained, I think, after the catalogue of remitted duties which
I have just read, it would be somewhat preposterous on my
part to suppose that I could induce the present House of
Commons to supply the deficiency by the imposition of fresh
duties on imports. Have I, then, a more encouraging pros-
pect if I seek to supply the deficiency by having recourse
to duties on articles of domestic manufacture? In the con-
troversies on commercial legislation which have occurred
of late years, and which have especially prevailed during
the last six years, two opinions have been advocated in this
House, and have been very warmly supported in the coun-
try, as to the preferable means by which you might relieve
the industry of this country. One important party in this
House and in the country have advocated, and successfully
advocated, the repeal of Customs' duties, and the prevalence
of their opinions—the triumph, I would say, of their
opinions—in this House has been exemplified by that table
I have just referred to, and which I have had prepared for
the information of the House. Bat there has also been in
this House a party, if not triumphant, still very important
from their numbers and from the zeal and conviction with
which they have maintained their opinions, who have as-
serted, on the contrary, that the best mode of relieving our
native industry is by the remission or repeal of what are
called Excise duties. No one advocated that opinion with a
greater amplitude of statistical learning than my late and
ever-lamented friend Lord George Bentinck ; and it is
an opinion which is sanctioned also by the authority of
writers of the highest consideration, and one which I
myself consider to be entitled to the gravest attention and
consideration.—(Hear, hear.) But if there be Members on
one side of the House who are of opinion that you must not
supply a deficient revenue by a Customs' duty, and, on the
other, Members who are equally of opinion that an Excise
duty is more injurious to the industry of the country than a
duty on the import of foreign articles, what is the prospect
of success for a Chancellor of the Exchequer if his means of
supplying a deficiency are limited to those two, still impor-
tant, sources of our public wealth? But this is not all. It
is not merely that a very important party in this House are
opposed to Excise duties, because they think their influence
is peculiarly pernicious to the exercise of our national in-
dustry, but even Hon. Gentlemen opposite—even those who
consider a Customs' duty the greatest fiscal grievance—even
they have evinced during the last ten years scarcely less re-
pugnance to raising our revenue by duties on articles of do-
mestic manufacture. Let me now place before the House
a catalogue of the successful invasions which have been
made during the same period of the last ten years. upon
that great source of our revenue—the Excise. Whilst
you have reduced the calculated resources of revenue from
Customs by an amount of 9,000,000/. during that time of
ten years you have also in the same period repealed the
Excise duty on vinegar, auctions, glass, and, finally on bricks;
by which an amount of revenue nearly as large as
1,500,000/. has been abstracted from the Excise, simulta-
neously with your successful assaults on the Customs' re-
venue.—(Hear, hear.) But is that all? Can I forget what
occurred in this House only about a week ago, when a
Right lion. Gentleman, once a member of the late Adminis-
tration, connected in that capacity with the department
which peculiarly watches over the fortunes of our trade and
navigation—the Member for Manchester, an active member,
too, of that confederation which has exercised of late years
so considerable an influence on the finances of this country,
came forward and proposed a repeal of Excise duties,
which would virtually have further reduced the public in-
come by 1,400,000/. Linder these circumstances the House
will agree with me, that not only with respect to Customs'
duties, but also with respect to Excise duties, the Minister
who proposed to supply a deficiency by increasing their num-
ber or amount would embark upon an enterprise extremely
hopeless. Bat I fear that the difficulties of an individual in
ray position are not limited by these two branches of revenue
on which I have touched. We hear a great deal in the pre-
sent day, and often from Gentlemen opposite, that the
preferable mode of raising revenue is by what they call di-
rk et taxation.—(Hear Irons some Member on the Opposition
benches.) I receive that cheer as evidence of the attention
of the Honourable Gentleman, and I am honoured by it;
but, I fear that when I pursue the critical investigation to
which I solicit hia attention, I shall not find that wel-
come adhesion to the principles of direct taxation which
at present he seems to evince.—(Hear, hear.) Now, we
have had during the last ten years considerable experience
of the temper of the House of Commons and of
the country with respect to this third mode of
rasing the national revenue; and I wish to draw, I would
say, the most serious attention of the House to this very im-
portant branch of taxation. It is exactly ten years ago
since one of the most eminent of modern statesmen, who
was the principal means of effecting that reduction in our
Customs duties, and even in our Excise duties, to which
I have recalled the recollection of the House—it is exactly
ten years ago since he successfully introduced a measure.
which entailed on this country a large portion of direct
taxation. Now, let me recal the recollection of the House
to the circumstances under which the property and income-
tax was introduced to our attention in 1842, the fortunes
which it has experienced, and the fate which awaited it.
Remember that that important measure of direct taxa-
tion was to have ceased after a lapse of time, and was in-
troduced to the House apologetically.—(Hear, hear.) It
was introduced as a measure necessitated by an emergency
and framed to meet an exigency, and even with all these
circumstances, the House and the country could not be in-
duced to adopt it without its being framed on large bases of
exemption. There was no evidence either in the House or
the country of any great inclination in favour of direct
taxation, because the measure was introduced as being only
justified by emergency, and was so modelled that the multi-
tude could not be oppressed by its operation.—(Hear, hear.)
Well, Sir, what was the fate of that tax, introduced by one
of the ablest and most powerful Ministers of modern times?
Notwithstanding all his talent, and notwithstanding all his
power in this House, that law was with difficulty renewed,
and could only be renewed after repeated discussions, and
after motions had been made in this House by Hon.
Members of great distinction, who impugned the justice of
its provisions, and complained of the oppressions of its enact-
ments.—(Hear, hear.) At length, before the ten years
had elapsed, it had become so odious and so unpo-
pular, thats its existence was only renewed provisionally,
and that, too, upon the
beeeannaitted to the severeev
with rcondition that it should
4Pataiere—(Hear, hear.)severe
ecrutiny of a Committee
As far, therefore, as the Property
and Income-tall is concerned, the conduct of this House
taxation, respect direct taxation is scarcely more encouraging
than i
import, or opener
either
with regard to raising revenue by indirect
It was my hope that, in the shape of duties on articles of foreign
'ales of domestic manufacture.—(Cheers.)
me of making
to thetheisitatement which I have the honour of
submitting
would have been laid upon the
tee upon the Ineortioo.Use to-night, the report of the Commit-
Bourse Would
great difficulty and delicacy in
adverting
—as
ofw
consideration
extent I must do—to subjects
ansideration of that Committee. I
which are under the
member of that Committee, and,
Ivan bear witness to_thge.
leave the honour to be
I can at least say this—
thattherefore, if I can do nothing
which the in uiri
7_mlsep'artial spirit and the inde-
fatigable industry with
inittee have been carried on—(Cheers " of
the
Com-
least I hope—than an Hon. Genti )—_(Cheers) am sure—at
ernan opposite (lira
the chairman of that Committee, will ad Hume)
had the power of exercising any influence
that since I have
of its inquiries I have thrown no obes,_uP?en.th.e conduct
(, Hear, hear," from Mr. flume.) lam its way.—
not trying to nar-
row the issue in question ; I have given every f • '
which I thought theacility to an
investigationcountry required, and the
I have
results of which.watched with the utmost interest.
tcircumstances it would be presumptuous in me
ler these
41( • upou points on which
to give an opinthat Committee
has not vet decided, or at least
dupon which they have not
yet officially
communicated their decision to this House;
or two of those points, from the
yet, epon oneposition I
impossible for me to be entirely
occupy to-night, it is.
great objections to the tax u
silent. One of thepro-
of the causes of its odium gro-
pe, ty and income—hue oium and
t is this coun ee —unquestionably that
undopularity in
rate of
the re is no difference as to the mode and e assess-
mei at upon incom
es of a temporary and of a permanent
chara.cter.— (hear, hear.) That most interesting and im-
portant to your Committee; and,
tt tion is now submitted question
as I h eve said before, it would be arrogant in me to give an
their decision has been for-
mallynio n upon the subject!
op. . until
communicated to
and officially
say the .t upon that subject we
may
have
sayrec than ton a
eve.thastt üb-
deuce ,from the ablest men. I
ject, the Committee have listened to men who have made the
principles upon which such assessments should be calculated
the study of their lives, who have brought
to the Committee
iettell 114 and who
all t bat science can offer to aid anti en,

LONDON,

have put before us every combination which experience
and philosophy can devise and invent. I will not pre- I
sume to enter into the question as to the justice or injustice
cf the schemes which those gentlemen—the most eminent
actuaries of the country—have offered us; but, as a practical
man, as looking to the effect upon the revenue, as looking,
at this moment especially, to the most desirable
means by which revenue can be raised, I may say this
(not prejudging, understand, the question at issue ; not for
a moment maintaining—neither acknowledging nor deny-
ing—that the principles these actuaries have offered to us
are just)—that if these principles be adopted, I am painfully
sensible that Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C will
11 not be less odious than Schedule D.—(Cheers and laughter.)
I Well, Sir, when I am to recommend a means of raising re-
venue, I must necessarily consider circumstances of that
character, for in these questions of finance the feelings of
the people must be considered as well as the principles of
science.—(Loud cheers from both sides of the House.)
Then there is another point upon which I shall
speak with more frankness, with respect to the tax upon
property and income. I have not presumed, and 1 shall not
presume, to give an opinion upon the justice or injustice of
the methods in which another system of assessing perma-
nent and temporary incomes may be effected. I leave that
point. But there is one point upon which the Committee
is so unanimous that their opinion need not be a
secret, and I believe the same opinion is unanimously enter-
tained by the House of Commons, as I am sure it is unani-
mously entertained by the country— namely, that if taxes of
this character, if measures of direct taxation like the income-
tax, are to form, not temporary, but permanent features of
our system of finance, we cannot rest upon a system of ex-
emptions.—(Cheers.) Well, but if they are not to rest
upon a principle of exemptions, do you increase the methods
by which a Chancellor of the Exchequer may raise a re-
venue?—(Hear, hear.) No doubt that direct taxation is in
its theory an easy, a simple, and a captivating process; but
when you wish to apply that direct taxation generally, it is
astonishing what obstacles you encounter and what preju-
dices you create.—(Hear, and a laugh.) In my mind—
and I think now it is a principle pretty well accepted—
direct taxation should be nearly as universal in its appli-
cation as indirect taxation. The man who lives in the
palace, and the cottager, as consumers, are equally and
proportionably assessed. It is not, perhaps, possible that by
direct taxation you can effect so complete a result. Per-
haps it is not necessary; but that, if your revenue is to
depend mainly, or in a great degree, upon direct taxation
—if it is permanently to depend upon such taxation
—you must make the application of direct taxation very
general, is to me a conclusion that it is impossible to with-
stand.—(Cheers.) No doubt, by establishing a temporary
measure of direct taxation, based upon a large system of
exemptions, you may give a great impulse to industry ; you
may lighten the springs of industry very effectually for a
time ; but—not to dwell upon the gross and glaring injustice
of a system of finance that would tax directly a very limited
portion of the population—but looking only to the economi-
cal and financial consequences of such a system, who can
but feel that in the long ran industry itself must suffer from
such a process? For, after all, what is direct taxation
founded on a system of exemptions? It is confiscation.
It is making war upon the capital which ultimately must
employ that very industry which you wish to promote.—
(Cheers.) Well, then, when you have examined the first
and most memorable essay towards direct taxation which
has occurred during the memorable ten years to which I have
called attention with regard to the reduction of Customs'
and Excise duties, is the instance of the property and income
tax very encouraging to the Minister who looks to direct
taxation as the means of supplying deficiencies? That law
was universally admitted to be fraught with great injustice.
Not that I am urging_ this as any objection to the Minister
who introduced it. That Minister—the law being avowedly a
temporary measure, a measure to meet peculiar circumstances,
and to encounter an emergency—was perfectly justified
in the course which he took, and met with the success he de-
served ; but I am speaking of a system of finance of which
a tax like that to which lam now referring is to become a
permanent feature. This tax, framed.by the most adroit
of modern financiers, softened in all those circumstances
which would have created apparent hostility, has yet en-
countered such a degree of odium, and is acknowledged to
be the source of so much oppression, that we have not
been able to keep it standing; but those who were respon-
sible for the finances of the country have been obliged to go
upon their knees to the House of Commons to insure it a
provisional existence—("Hear," and a laugh)—and, as I
have already reminded the House, it has now, for two
years, been submitted to the severest ordeal to which
any mode of raising public money can be sub-
jected—to the searching scrutiny of a Committee
of the House of Commons, judges who are themselves
victims, and who are therefore alive to all the grievances
into which they have to inquire.—(Loud cheers.) But, if
I proceed a step further, and try to induce the House to con-
sider whether direct taxation is that simple, that facile, and
that satisfactory method by which revenue can be raised
in a country like England, can you shut your eyes to
the remarkable circumstance that occurred in the last ses-
sion of Parliament with regard to direct taxation? What
was the principal feature of the last financial year? The
abolition of one of the most considerable sources of direct
taxation. The Minister, at one fell swoop, by the removal
of the window-duty, deprived us of nearly 2,000,000/.
sterling raised by direct taxation.—(Some cries of " No,
no !" from the Opposition.) I think I shall be able to show
that was the case.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
I think I can show those Hon. Gentlemen who, I am willing
to believe, are on this occasion friendly critics, that my
statement is fully authorized. It was said on the occasion
to which I allude, that the principles of direct taxation
were not in question. Direct taxation to the amount of
nearly 2,000.0001. was at once taken off, but then it was re-
mitted not on fiscal but on sanitary considerations.—(Laughter
and cheers.) Every one knows now that all the sanitary
objects we wished to accomplish could have been accomplished
had the tax remained.—(" No, no !" from the Opposition
benches.) I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that
that is the fact. That the plea was a plausible plea—an
amiable plea—l acknowledge; but the consequence is that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has last 2,000,0001. raised
by direct taxation. [An Hon. Member on the Oppo-
sition side expressed dissent.] I notice the murmuring
negative of the Hon. Gentleman opposite. "No," says he
" you did not lose nearly 2,000,0001., for you forget the sub-
stitute of the house-tax." Now were I to fix upon any
subject—upon any measure—which would alarm me, if I
am taught to believe that direct taxation is to be the main
source to which the Minister of Finance is to look for his
revenue, it would be that very substitute, the recollection
of which led the Hon. Gentleman to murmur his negative re-
specting the window-tax. The revenue of the country could
not bear that rude and entire loss of nearly 2,000,000/.
sterling by the repeal of the window-tax. It was
necessary, therefore, to have some substitute -to find some
means by which the revenue should be sustained ; and what
did you do? You could not go to Customs' duties in the
teeth of that catalogue of exploits which I have mentionel
—(Hear, hear.) You could not have recourse again to Excise
duties, hen you yourselves were bringing forward motions
asking for the repeal or the reduction of those duties. Yon
were obliged to have recourse to direct taxation, even while
you reduced one source of direct taxation to such an
enormous amount; and what did you do? Yon imposed a
direct tax—a tax which I have always regarded as more
just and less oppressive than any other form of direct
taxation—l mean the house tax.—(Cheers.) That invalu-
able weapon in your financial armoury was taken down
carelessly, and was used for a very inglorious result. You
raised a very small revenue by your direct taxation. Out of
3,500,000 houses, following the vicious principle which per-
vades all our direct taxation, you touched little more than
400,000 (Hear, hear, and cheers) —and you again practi-
cally announced to the people of this country that direct
taxation is intolerable, unless it is based upon a large sys-
tem of exemptions.— (Cheers.) I think, then, that by re..
calling facts, and by calmly inducing the House to survey
their past career, I have shown them that the difficul-
ties of raising revenue in this country are not confined
to Customs' duties, as their early cheers would have
seemed to intimate—that they are not confined to Excise
duties, as some of my Honourable Friends near me
may suppose--but that, if you attempt to impose direct
taxation on any principles which are calculated to pro-
duce permanent effects, you are stopped either by the pre-
judice of the House and of the people, or by their intoler-
able sense of the incidents of that form of taxation.—(Hear,
and cheers.) The moral I would draw, and which I would
wish most earnestly to impress upon the House—because
they may rest essured that the time is not far distant when
they must arrive at definite conclusions upon this subject—is
that they should come to some certain results to guide them
in the management of their finances. A Chancellor of the
Exchequer who has to make a financial statement, and who
is supposed to be in possession of that happy but most em-
barrassing incident, a surplus, is looked upon by both sides
as an individual who is merely an object of prey and plunder.
—(Laughter and cheers.) In the general scramble every
one wishes to obtain his purpose, and no one looks to the
fature.--(Hear, hear.) No one looks to the inevitable danger
that must be impending over the finances of a country where
all demand relief, while at the same time they lay down
principles which prevent the raising of taxes in any form
whatever. (Hear, hear.) Whether it is a duty
upon articles of foreign import, whether it is
a duty upon articles of home manufacture, or whether it is
a direct tax, the experience of ten years has brought us to
this result—that the House of Commons disapproves of all
three measures. (Cries of " Oh !" from the Opposition, met
by cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Having made
these observations, which I shall, I fear, have painfully to
apply in the course of my subsequent remarks, I shall now
call the attention of the Committee to the income and ex-
penditure of the year which has just terminated. In
February, 1851, the income for the year ending in this
month of April was estimated by the Right Hon. Member
for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) at 32,140,000/. The actual in-
come whieh had accrued has been 52,468,317/.—(Cheers
from the Opposition.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, whose
actual income hisexcuesetthdiceeadtto
thehe estimated en-
titled to that cheer—( Hear, hear, and cheers)—but I
notam bounddo su to
n t.j
say
tthle have
ehmt Hadoendou-
aer
able Gentleman. Not only did the actual income exceed
does
his estimate by more than 320,0001., but I must say that in
the interval vast remissions of taxation took place, and yet
tmstmearatiettmesd income, is well
oenf
notwithstanding those vast remissions, the income of the
year that has just ended exceeded the estimate of 1851. In
that period the Right Hon. Gentleman repealed the window-
tax, by:which a loss of 640,000/. was experienced in the year,
after allowing for the substitution of the house-tax ; and the
Right Hon. Gentleman also reduced the duties upon coffee
and upon timber, and had besides to encounter one of the
most considerable reductions that has occurred in the sugar
duties.—( Hear, hear.) Yet, notwithstanding that groat re-
mission of direct taxation—notwithstanding that reduction
on three of the most important articles of foreign import, the
income of the Right Hon. Gentleman (the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer) exceeded his estimate, which was made
without reference to those reductions, by the sum of more
than 328,000/.—(ilear, hear.) Oa that occasion the
Right Honourable Gentleman estimated the Customs at
20,400,000/., and he then anticipated from the re-
duction of the duties on sugar, coffee, and timber,
a loss to revenue, which he estimated at 800,000/.,
which, however, trusting to the increased powers of con-
sumption in the community, he placed in his budget at only
400,000/. ; therefore the Customs really, as estimated by the
Right lion. Gentleman, would have been only 20,000,00
We have obtained from them 20,673,9001.—(Hear, hear.)
I think it due to the Rieeit lion. Gentleman ---I think
(which, with all courtesy to aim, is of still more importance)
that it will be interesting to the House and to the country—
while our experience upon these subjects is fresh, that we
should trace the action of the reductions of the Right Hon.
Gentleman
upon our Customs' revenue.—(Hear, hear.) The
duty on coffee, it will be recollected, was reduced last year
from 6d. per lb. on foreign, and 4d. on colonial, to a uniform
duty of 3d. Now this is the effect of that reduction of
duties upon consumption. In the year ending April, 1851,
there was an, increase in the consumption on the article of
foreign coffee of 2,076,375:b. ; in the year ending April,
1852, there is an increase from 2,076,0001 b. in 1851, to
5,525,0001 b., being an increase in 1852 upon 1851 of
3.448,0001b.—(Hear, hear. Nor was this increase obtained
at the expense of the growers of colonial coffee.—(Hear)
In 1851 we imported 28,216,0001 b. of colonial coffee; in 1852,
after the redaction of the duty, and during that great increase
of the consumption of foreigu coffee, instead of 28,216,0001 b.,
imported
have
ut
impooriti,oooed29l,bl.ooo,ofoofolbr.e—ig(nllseuadr, hear.)colonl coffee; ia In
1850 wein