The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

be sure, have‘ made some miner reductions of duties. I
might ave"ieduced the duty on soap, instead of the duty
on windows. I might have reduced the duty on paper,
instead of the duties on coffee and timber; but that would
only have satisfied some, while it dissatisfied others.—
(Hear, hear.) Unless I was prepared to remit an amount
of taxation far beyond what the circumstances justified,
I do not see how I could have met a tithe of the de-
mands made upon me for a reduction of taxes. Under
these circumstances it seemed to me the best po-
licy to consider and propose that which I thought
right, and to abide by it.—(Hear, hear.) Before ;I
enter upon any details which I may have to make
I must be allowed to make a few observations on the
opinions and state of feeling which unfortunately pre-
vail on this question. It matters little whether the Budget
of this year be popular or not. We are bound to look
far beyond the present year or existing circumstances.
We are bound to resist the first steps in a wrong direc-
tion. We are bound to resist the beginning of a policy
which, if persevered in, would, I believe, be fatal to the
credit and character of the country.—(Hear.) The all-
pervading objection to the proposals I made was, that I
had thought it necessary to retain some surplus above
the expenditure. I should have thought, Sir, that recent
experience7-the experience of no great number of years,
would have abundantly demonstrated the impolicy of
pursuing a diffdrent course. It is just ten years since
the Government of Lord Melbourne was displaced; and
I know nothing that was so strongly urged against it as
the annually recurring deficit in the revenue.—(Hear.)
What was the result of the course then pursued? A
loan of 5,000,000/.—an increase of the debt to that extent
in a time of profound peace, and ultimately the imposi-
tion of the income-tax. For the three or four following
years a different state of things prevaile 1, and in 1846 a
large reduction of taxation took place, and was fol-
lowed by a considerable degree of prosperity and by
an increase of the public revenue. In August. 1846,
with the acquiescence of the late Sir Robert Peel. I
stated that if the revenue was not increased, and if
the expenditure remained the same, there would be in
1847-8 a deficiency in the revenue. No doubt extra-
ordinary circumstances occurred at that time calculated

to defeat all previoui calculations, The revenue of
1847-8 was 2,000,0001 less than the revenue of 1846-7.
lum spe.Ating of the financial year. Extraordinary
occurrences chlled for a large increase of expenditure,
but making allowance for that increase, there was never-
theless a deficiency in the ordinary revenue, and under
these circumstances, and with a deficiency of 3,000,0001.,

I proposed in 1848 what I thought to be the honest
course. I was again driven to borrow for the ordinary
expenditure to the extent of 2,000,0001. The extraor-
dinary circumstances which happened were such which
no foresight could have guarded against, and which
must, I fear, from time to time happen in an empire so
extensive and distinguished as ours.—(Hear, hear.)
With colonies in every quarter of the globe, and coming
in contact with nations of every description, we must be
prepared for unforeseen occurrences. Shortly after I
made my proposals we were unexpectedly startled with
another such a circumstance—a new Kafir war.—(Hear,'
hear.) What amount of expenditure that war may en-
tail upon us no one can pretend to say.—(Hear, hear.)
We ere bound to extend protection to the emigrants
we have sent to the colony; and no doubt, under the
circumstances, a considerable charge must be imposed
on the revenue of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Within
the last few days a demand has been made upon me
which I hope will not turn out so serious as it appears
to be. The East India Company have called upon me
to pay to them an unliquidated balance of 400,0001. on
account of the Chinese war.—(Expressions of surprise.)
I hope that a careful examination of the accounts will
show that the balance is not so large as that, but never-
theless the demand has been made, and, as it may be
proved to be a just demand, will of course have to be
paid. Here, again, is a demand which we could not
foresee, but which it would be most unwise if we did
not provide some means of meeting. If we are never to
pay when we have the means—if we are to borrow in
bad times—and if we are to give he tax-payer the full
benefit of every surplus, how is public credit to with-
stand such a system? We have in past times accom-
plished great things by means of public credit. The
scheme of a sinking fund, adopted by Mr. Pitt, is now
believed to be fallacious; but, nevertheless, it contri-
buted to the maintenance of public credit in times of
danger and revolution.—(Hear, hear.) In our days the
only available sinking fund is held to be the annual
surplus of income over expenditure.—(Hear.) I do not
propose to depart from the amended system. lam not
prepared to hear the existence of a surplus scouted
as unnecessary, and the necessity of maintaining public
credit unimpaired ridiculed as something absurd.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose scouted the
notion of keeping a surplus, and objected to any margin
of income over expenditure being devoted to the pay-
ment of some portion of the debt. The Hon. Member is
the last person I should have expected to make such an
observation. Ido not impute to him any intention of
injuring the national faith, for no man seeks more to up-
hold it; and hence it was I was surprised at his remark.
When I borrowed 8.000,0001. in perpetual annuities the
Hon. Member for Montrose objected on other grounds—
namely, that the annuities should have been terminable;
and the other night, when the Hon. Member condemned
a surplus, he expressed a wish that the whole debt should
consist of terminable annuities.—(Hear.) Now, I ask,
what is the difference, so far as existing tax-payers are
concerned, between terminable annuities and permanent
annuities, with a sinking fund for their reduction?—
(Hear, hear.) Both proceed on the principle of a greater
present charge for the sake of a quicker reduction.
We have always congratulated eurselvss on the pro-
spective relief which would occur in 1854. in 1860, and
in some subsequent year, from the extinction of that
porno's of the debt provided for by those who have gone
before for the relief of those who were to come after
them.—(Hear.) And are we to refuse to those who come
after us the benefits we enjoy from those who preceded
us? The way to diminish the permanent debt is by
application of the surplus; and it should never be said
when we had the power that we wanted the virtue to do
that which was just and right.—(Hear, hear.) I have
heard within the last six months dangerous doctrines,
which I never expected to hear on th subject of the
public debt.—(Hear, hear.) I have not, I confess,
heard them from any Member of this House, but I have
seen them in the organs of public opinion and in the
reports of public meetings. Holding different opinions,
I must protest against these doctrines, lest they should
begin to gain hold of the opinion of the people. It is a
prevalent delusion that the non-payment of the dividends
would only affect the rich. I remember the late Lord
Ashburton called attention to the subject, and I see by a
return on the subject that five-sixths of the persons en-
titled to dividends received them for amounts not ex-
ceeding 50Z, and that a third received them for amounts
not exceeding 51. That is some index to the class of
persons whose sole dependence, perhaps, is on public
faith being inviolably maintained. It is not the rich
who make such investments, but widows, orphans, re-
tired officers, and even artisans. I ask the House to
consider what would be the effect on a large class like
this of any failure, or of any apprehension of failure, in
the payment of the dividends?—(Hear, hear.) Do not
believe that the rich would be the sufferers. The
evil would affect that far more extensive class whose
existence ought to be the principal object of our
solicitude and care.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I should
like to know if the circumstances of the country
justify complaint as to the pressure of taxation? I be-
lieve directly the reverse. I agree with those who be-
lieve that the result of recent legislation has been the
improvement of the well being of the people and of the
means of this country, and that the people are richer
and more able to pay than formerly the burdens which
still exist. No doubt an Hon. Member whom I see op-
posite—the Hon. Member for Warwickshire—has ar-
gued, in a pamphlet, that the apparent prosperity of the
country is maintained by a gradual abstraction of the
capital of manufacturers and merchants, to the universal
distress of the labouring population, who aro suffer-
ing from want of employment and short wages. I can
understand such arguments from Honourable Members
holding these opinions; but when they proceed from
those who agree with us that the country has derived
benefit from our legislation, if their assertions be true, it
is an utter condemnation of the policy which has been
pursued. We were told, some eight or ten years ago,
that what pressed on industry and prevented the accu-
mulation of capital in the country was, not the
amount of taxation paid to the Exchequer, but the in-
direct effect produced by the existence of monopoly
and protection. The principal monopolies and protec-
tive duties have been removed, and the community at
large hove derived a corresponding benefit.—(Hear,
hoar.) The Honourable Member for Montrose
told us the other night that the effect had been to put
into the pockets of the community at large a sum of
100,000,000/. per annum on the price of their food alone.
I remember the Noble Lord the Member for. Stamford tell-
ing us that 6,000,000/. had been taken from the pockets
of the aericulturists and transferred to those of other
classes. I do not pretend to say what is the precise
amount of the benefit derived by the abolition of mono-
poly, but whatever it may be, at least the community is
richer than before, and better able to pay the taxation
that remains. Even if they were to pay to the Ex-
chequer 60.000 0001. or 100,000.0001, they would not be
worse off than they were before the abolition of the corn-
laws, if the calculation of the Hen. Member. for Mon-
trose is to be relied on. If they have benefited to that
extent, and if they have also benefited to the extent of
10,000,0004 of taxation, since reduced, it follows, not
as a matter of opiuion, but of demonstration, that the
pressure of taxation must be infinitely less on the
community now than it was ten years ago.—(Hear,
hear.) I say again I am not afraid of hearing such
doctrines as those I referred to argued in this House.
Honourable Members know better than to entertain
or encourage opinions which can only spread delusior if
allowed to go uncuntradicted to the public, and which,
if acted on, can only lead to consequences fatal to the
national credit and national faith.—(Hear.) I hope
the House will pardon me these remarks.—(Hear.) I
speak warmly because I feel warmly the danger of such
a course.—(Hear.) When I was told that I ought to
repeal or reduce taxation, even though it might prodace
difficulties and embarrassment, and when I heard the
lion. Member for Southwark attack the maintenance of
the national credit, I thought it was time for those who
bold different opinions to stand boldly forward and de-
clare them.—(Hear, hear.) I know it may be unpopular
to do so, but I must say that holding, however unwor-
thily, a responsible office connected with the financial
affairs of the country, I feel it to be my duty to make
this early protest, and to call on those who agree with
me here and elsewhere to aid in counteracting opinions
so dishonest and destructive.—(Cheers.) Since I last
addressed the House on this subjectl have had an oppor-
tunity of reconsidering the statement I made, and I
have found no reason for changing my estimate of the
probable income and probable expenditure of the ensuing
year. If I were to make a change according to the
opinions of some, I might propose en alteration to some
small extent in the items of receipt, and add to some
small extent to the receipts of customs; or if the anti-
cipetions of the Hon. Qentlemou the gember for Here.