The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-23 00:00:00

I tions of the warnings and prophecies given to the rich
hon. gentleman, that, if I had no share in those pre die
tions, and no share iu those warnings, I may at least be
proud of my colleagues and coadju.to• s for having been
more apt and far-seeing than myself. But surely the right
hon. gentleman cannot pretend any longer that on this sub-
ject he did not receive due caution from this side of the
house. Well, that was the second great mistake of 1853.
The first was with regard to his dealing with the unfunded
debt; the second was with rasped to his dealing with the
funded debt. But there is a point for our consideration,
when we have to estimate the prudence and calculate the
caution of the right hon. gentleman in these matters—
there is one element of our consideration which, when we
touched on the subjects originally, was not in our posses-
sion. Sir, when this subject was first discussed in this
house this session, I remember that on that very night be-
fore the financial debate took place, r had to address a
question to the noble lord the leader of this house, with
respect to a certain statement that had appeared that
morning in an English newspaper with regard to certain
declarations which had been made by the Emperor of
Russia with reference to the information possessed by the
Government of his intentions at a period far earlier than
had been supposed by the House of Commons. That was
on the very day, if I recollect right, when the financial
discussion occurred in this house, and the noble lord pro-
mised that we should be put in possession of these docu-
ments. We argued the case of the management of the
finances without the advantage of those documents. We
argued the case of the management of the finances merely
with the state papers before us that had been laid upon
the table. But it resulted from those documents subse-
quently presented to this house that the right honourable
gentleman must have been impressed with, if not the
certainty, the more than possibility of this country
being engaged in hostilities, and in hostilities with
the most powerful empire. (Near, hear.) Sir, I might
show that even in the earlier part of February,
the right honourable gentleman ought not to have bean
blind to what was occurring ; but I do not press that
point. The right hon. gentleman I,ad recently acceded to
office ; he had a great pressure upon him in his depart-
ment; he might not at that moment have been so deeply
impressed as perhaps he ought to have been with the
alarming state of Europe; but a month afterwards the
right hon. gentleman must have taken his part in many
Cabinet meetings in which the gravest discussion must
have occurred, upon the possibility, and the more than
possibility, of a war with a power of first-rate resources ;
and I ask the house—l ask the committee, is it of opinion
that under these circumstances a Minister of Finance
should have come forward and proposed to this house to
deal upon a large scale with a scheme of conversion which
cowasuntsery touch (Hear,th the ter part of the public debt of this
Well then, I say that that was
the second great fault of the right hon. gentleman. But
the failure of the conversion scheme is no !longer to be
gnaged by the depth and extent of the fallacy of the prin-
ciples upon which it was founded ; but it was a great fault
—a great fault of statesmanship quite irrespective of his
errors of finance, that at the time when he introduced
that scheme to the house, he should have asked this house
to deal with a great project for reducing the interest on
the national debt of the country, when he ought to have
known that there was the chance, and more than the
chance, of this country being engaged in war. And when the
right hon. gentleman tunas round and taunts ns now with not
having given him sufficient warning—of not having been
early enough in prophecy and prediction as to the incon-
venience and injury of his course and conduct—l tell him
that these taunts fall to the ground, because if we had been
completely silent—if we had not objected in any way to
his measures, his fault depends upon circumstances quite
independent, and irrespective of the verdicts of this house
and of the country, because he should have formed his
judgment and his opinions upon circumstances of the
gravest import that were utterly unknown to this house
and the country. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, I come next
to the third fault—the third great financial error in the
year 1853 of the right hon. gentleman. His third great
financial error is, at any rate, one which the hon. gentle.
man who lately addressed us (Mr. Laing) cannot call a
question of detail ; it is not a question that concerns the
interest upon an Exchequer bill; it is not one that con-
cerns even the terms upon which you may effect the con-
version of an annuity. It is under the circumstances the
gravest error that a statesman—a financial statesman can
possibly commit ; it is one which, in my opinion has grie-
vously injured the fortunes and resources of the country.
and that has mainly prepared those difficulties which I
fear it is impossible to flatter ourselves we shall not have
to contend with ; and the third great error of which I accuse
the right hon. gentleman in 1853, is that he came forward,
and, under circumstances which ought to have convinc-
ed him that war was more than imminent, proposed to the
House of Commons a peace budget. Now, I do not call the
budget of 1853 a peace budget because the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed to repeal taxes—l do not call it a peace
budget for that reason, for the right hon. gentleman him-
self may tell me as he has told us before, that if he brought
forward measures which immediately tend to diminish and
reduce the resources of the country, he also proposed other
measures which in due time would increase those resources,
or would at least supply the deficiency which his measures
might create. I may say, in passing, that Ido not at all
admit the justice of the observation of the right hon. gen-
tleman, which has been made more than once. If the
right hon. gentleman believed that there was a chance of
this country being involved in war, it is no excuse for his
destroying any source of revenue that he also substituted
an equivalent in its place. (Hear, hear.) The country
Might require, and probably will require, both sources of
revenue. (Hear, hear.) Therefore Ido not admit the ar-
gument that because he proposed and carried more than
one new tax, he was at all justified, with the information
of which he must have Inen master, in proposing the re-
peal of other taxes. (Hear.) But lam not describing his
budget as a peace budget because he repealed the other
taxes—l call it a peace budget, not merely because it pro-
posed the repeal of taxes, but because the right hon. gen-
tleman, in order to induce the house and the country to
embrace his policy, chalked out a financial future which
was all founded upon the further repeal of taxes. (Hear.)
It is not merely that the right hon. gentleman, addressing
the House of Commons, who no more dreamt of war than
they now dream of peace—(hear)— it is not that' the right
bon. gentleman then had the extreme rashness and pre-
cipitation to diminish the duties on tea by one-half, but
he more than intimated to the house that the wine duties
would, within a few years' time, be very speedily dealt
with; and indeed I am much mistaken (and I believe it is
no breach of confidence, and that there is no doubt of the
fact) if even at the beginning of the war—at least so it
reaches me from abroad, from a country disturbed by some
envoy of the right hon. gentleman—her Majesty's Govern-
ment were not then meditating and maturing a consider-
able reduction of the wine duties. (Laughter.) Well, _I
do not object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing
even with the wine duties ; but I say that a Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in possession of the information which
ought to assure him that the peace of Europe is in immi-
nent danger, and who comes forward and proposes the re-
peal of taxes to a large amount, and intimates to the House
of Commons that the policy he is pursuing will speedily
lead to still greater remissions, cannot pretend that he was
not proposing a peace budget. But Ido not say that the
right honourable gentleman was proposing a peace budget
merely because he proposed the remission of taxes, or
merely because he indicated a further remission of taxes
which it was his intention to make, although I think
that that is ample proof of my statement; but let me
remind the house of the mode and manner in which
the right bon. gentleman, according to his own account
alone, induced the House of Commons to consent to the
continuance and reenactment of the' income and property
tax. If the right hon. gentleman believed that there was
a chance of war—if he was of opinion, after all the Cabi-
net Councils that he had attended, that the peace of
Europe was in extreme danger, how can the right hon.
gentleman justify it to the country that he should have
come forward and induced the house to accept the con-
tinuance of the income tax upon specific conditions, those
conditions being that it should gradually diminish, and at
a certain date should entirely disappear—(he.ar)— the funds
intended to enable it to be extinguished being those to be
supplied by the large amount of terminable ,anuuities
which would fall in to the public advantage ? I think it
is hardly necessary to give further proofs to the oommittee
that the budget of 1853 was a budget of pure peace. Now
was the right hon. gentleman—a Minister of the Crown—
cognisant of all the despatches of our foreign envoys, tak-
ing a leading part, no doubt, in our councils, acquainted
with all of those circumstances which have since been
made known to us—was the right hon. gentleman, I ask
the house, I ask this committee, with no fear of what must
be the opinion of oil im)•artial men—was the rightwr
masa
tnhon.nt
ginendtltemmgaen the
n Hjeaure,tifiheecalr.i)u bwerlhieevtinlgvateha
tthreel.winfeo
then in the possession of the right hon. gentleman?
Why, he was in possession of information from those em-
ployed
by himself and his colleagues—by the servants of
the Crown abroad—that our foe was at that moment mak-
ing propositions to the Ottoman Porte, inducing her to
enter into an alliance hostile to England. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman knew that large armies were
prepared and assembled on the frontiers of Turkey, and
that at that moment the opinion of men whose judgment
ought so have guided us was, that the balance of power
was in danger, and the political existence of Turkey was
at stake. Well, sir, considering that that budget greatly
diminished the resources of the country—considering that
that budget made the Government enter into engagements
which, I may say throughout the country generally, would
certainly lead to great disappointment if fresh appeals
were made for the imposition of new taxes—l think a
peace budget in 1853 was a great blunder on the
part of the right honourable gentleman. I hope the
committee will excuse me for a moment if I reproduce the
statement of the right honourable gentlemen on this par-
ticular head. It is not agreeable to me at any time to vin-
dicate the conduct of the late Government, but I hope the
house will not think me egotistical if I answer a charge
which has been specifically made. The right honourable
gentleman the other night dilated on the budget of 1853,
and in defence of that budget said, " See what a position
the Government was in,
_ in 1853, with regard to their
finance. The income tax had ceased to exist. We had to
propose its renewal under circumstances of extreme diffi-
culty. The late Government had left that question in
such a state that our difficulty was extremely aggravated
in that respect." Now, in the first place Ido imagine
that the late Government had some difficulty on that,
head, for the late Government had found the income tax
equally non-existent as the right honourable gentleman.
The late Government had to decide on a great question
which at that time agitated the public mind, whether there
should be a difference recognised in the assessment of
temporary and permanent incomes. Now, lam not gsoeinntg,
to enter into sny controversy on that subject
whaothpriPs not
which would alone take up the night,
now necessary ; but although a difficult"), du
:ttle sias fought
rested with the right hon. gentleman, the 13
before the right
and the question was decided on that head
vote
on that sub-
hon. gentleman acceded to office. The
ent quitted office;
thfit subject
jest was that on which the late Government
and to pretend that the House ofCommons,
troigthhet
refused to recognise that principle,
assumption which only
which they virtually
n
rdiigdh,
tcohuolud.
gentlemen,ever he an i
sobstaclereaytoua
ld Isettlementv
the interval that has elapsed co
(A laugh.) But the right
hon. gentleman to indulge in. oncdofthite
hon. entleman once before, at
insinuation from the right g _ _
t.
n 'nuance, and
debate of many days' co
hon. gentleman said something more. I have heard the
the end of a heated
necessary
particularly then to notice
I had not thought it
it. He said the late Government had decided on the ques-
tionmwei
without
ettoit ther
reflection
enectoi
emne
etraxreweieterhoehut, thoughtdecided
—thnotf
they
lsisnecsis,
upon announcing theythatn
wodutldhe right hon.gentleman
makea
which
they had not matured , a
comi lained that I, as the organ of the late Government,
had 'not placed on the table the schedules which we
wished to carry. I assure the right hon. gentleman
that he is in error in that view, which I am sure he sin-
cerely entertained. The question of whether a difference
in the assessment to the income tax should be recognised
between permanent and temporary incomes was most
deeply considered by the late Government, and occupied
repeated and protracted consultations. It was our opinion
that that difference should be recognised ; nor does say
argument that I have heard, I may say in passlng, founded,
if the details were trat, on the igeatex amount paid b/