The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

out of an expedition, but we did not know whether that ex-
pedition would end in a warlike or an amicable way—a ques-
tion, indeed, which I couid answer `SO minutes ago from pri-
vate information only. The noble lord's cheer, therefore,
was quite uncalled for. No doubt an expedition was or-
dered to be prepared, and some of your lordships seem to
think that we did not provide for the expense of that expe-
dition. That was not the case. Last year there was taken
a vote of credit for £850,000, and this year a similar vote of
£500,000 was put in the estimates. In addition
to this the army estimates include, for the pur-
poses of the Chinese expedition, a sum of £454,000,and the navy estimates a sum of £680,000, forming altoge-
ther as nearly as possible a sum of £2,500,000 provided for
hear.) Do your lordships
that expedition. (Hear,
think that it would have been wise to make an
enormous provision on that accrunt ? We have generally
been accustomed to do ton much in that direction. What
was the case in the Crimean war?—That we so much ex-
ceeded, what was necessary for the purposes of the a ar that
we ended by paying bat k £1,600,000 into the Exchequer. If
there is any one principle in finance which appears to me to
be sound and indisputable, it is that you should either have
a war budget or a peace budget. If your have a war budget,
everything is exceptional ; but if you have a peace budget,
it should be fouteed upon peace principles to this extent.
If there is any danger, if there is any cloud upon the hori-
zon it rests with the responsible Government to provide
those armaments, those numbers of men on land and at sea,
and those stores which may, in their opinion, be necessary
to provide against contingencies, and also to provide fur the
raising of the sums of money required to meet the expen-
diture occasioned by such preparations ; but if you go be-
yond that, and take large and undefined sums for large and
indefinite contingencies, you act contrary to sound princi-
ples, and you become liable to this great and practical in-
convenience,—that if, fortunately, you should be disap-
pointed in your fears, you have a sum of one, two, three, or
four million; whichever it may be, which, according to
the spirit of the law, should, at the end of the year, be ap-
plied to the reduction of the national debt. Now, I ask
your lordships whether it would have been wise at the be-
ginning of the year, when you were asking for an enormous
revenue of an almost unprecedented character, to burden
the people with additional taxes, the product of which
might possibly be applied merely to the discharge of debt ?
(Hear, hear.) My lords, lam aware of no other charge of
ins-providence which can be made against the original bud-
get; but it may be said that since its publication circum-
stallees have altered. (Hear, hear.) I know of one cir-
c*instance, which I will mention, and which tells against
me in this argument ; other matters have been referred to
as to which we were informed at the time the budget was
framed, and which were amply provided for. There was
the question of fortifications. A. commission had been
appointed to inquire what was necessary to be done
to defend our principal arsenals. We knew of the re-
port of that commission when the budget was framed ;
we know of it now, and I am happy to say that we
have at last got all the collateral information which will
enable her Majesty's Government to come to a decision
upon it. Well, one of these things will happen—either we
shall reject that report, and the finances will be completely
untouched, except as regards the large and unusual sum
taken for current purposes of fortification ; or we shall
adopt it in one of two ways. If we adopt it and come upon
the current revenue to provide the means necessary for car-
rying it out it is clear that it will require a greater provision
than the £BOO,OOO included in the estimates, or than the
£1,500,000 which my noble friend stated to the deputation
the other day was the amount of revenue which he was
going to save the country—and really when the noble lord
undertakes to teach the Government their duty, it is no
light matter to state estimates at half a million more than
their actual'amount; if, on the other hand, we determine to
adopt the report, and to borrow money for the purpose of
carrying out its recommendations, then the large vote for
fortifications which is already before the House of Commons
is sufficient, at any rate, to pay the interest of the money
which will be required during the present year. Since the
month of February the question of the China war has re-
mained in the same position in which it then stood, and
until this afternoon we could not tell whether there would
be peace or war ; nay, we now know nothing more, except
that from the tenour of a private telegram, there is reason
to fear that hostilities are likely to take place. We cannot,
however, tell whether the war will be short and successful,
and therefore rather a benefit to the finances of next year
than otherwise, in consequence of the indemnity to be ob-
tained from China, or whether it will be prolonged over
next year, and therefore require a budget for war. I am now
going to state the circumstances that tell against me. The
estimated surplus amounted to £460,000 Owing to there
being an error in the calculations of one of the departments
of the revenue amounting to £230,000, and to the absndon-
ment of taxes to the amount of £lBO,OOO, that surplus is
very nearly gone. (Hear, hear, from Lord Grey.) I am
glad to hear my noble friend cheer in a more cheerful man•
ner this time—(a laugh)—but has my noble friend any rea-
son to suppose that it is a perfectly unusual circumstance
that during the passage of a budget through the Houses of
Parliament the surplus should disappear ? I think that
if he will refer to the records of our proceedings he will
find a great many instances in which that has
occurred without the Government thinking it necessary
to modify their financial proposals in consequence. I will
give an instance. In the year 1853 the estimated surplus,
and more than the estimated surplus, utterly disappeared
before the financial measures were passed through this
House. I remember that two noble earls opposite opposed
in the strongest language the remission of the soap duties.
They pointed to the probability of our becoming engaged in
war with Russia, and said that under such circumstances
they could not allow such a Bill to pass. (" Hear, hear,"
from the .Opposition benches.) But they did allow it to
pass, and partly upon my representation. I begged them
not to alarm the country, not to disturb the trade of the
country, but to leave the responsibility where it ought to
fall until you turn out the Ministry—upon Her Majesty's
Executive Government; and what was the result ? Why,
at the end of that very year you had a surplus of £3,500,000.
(Cheers.) And will any one tell me that when the Russian
war did arrive, and two successive Governments had to
appeal to the people of this country, they found them less
able or less willing to give the lavish supplies which were
asked of them, because the year before we had remitted
taxes which pressed upon the trade and commerce of the
country ? (Hear, hear.) My lords, Ido not know whether
or not my noble friend will cheer what I am going to say,
but I am authorised by those most competent to form an
opinion to state that, looking at the principles upon which
the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year have
been prepared, looking at the fact that on the 31st of March
of this year there was a surplus of one million and a quar-
ter which was not taken into account in the financial state-
ment of February, and looking at the fact that the balances
are now two millions higher than they were at the same
period of last year, although at the end of that year there
was a surplus of a million and a quarter—taking all these
circumstances into consideration, they see no danger of
any deficiency in the revenue of the present year. (Cheers.)
I now come to the question of a prospective deficiency. In
very quiet times there is no great objection—although it is
a new system, and one which sprung up with the income-
tax—to making prospective arrangements ; but when you
have to deal with very uncertain circumstances the
adoption of such a course is utterly impossible. The
noble earl, in that speech to which I have already al-
luded, said that if Her Majesty's Government could show
that there would not be a deficiency of two millions
next year he would not vote for the motion of my
noble friend. lam afraid that I have no chance of obtain-
ing his vote, because I utterly decline to make any estimate
for next year. There would be no safety in doing so. No
doubt if you compare the two years, allowing for the loss
of taxation by the expiration of laws, what with the arrears
of the malt and hop duty and other fallings off, there will
be a deficiency of two millions ; but if you take the nominal
increase of revenue, and add to that the increase which has
always arisen upon any large remission of taxation, though
I make no estimate of what that may be, yet past experi-
ence shows that it is impossible to put it at less than a
million, and when you add to that the £250,000 saved by
the falling in of the Long Annuities, your deficiency,
without going into any other calculation, instead of being
62,000,000, will be reduced to somethi g like £750,000. I
saw it stated in a leading article of the Times the otherday,
that my noble friend the noble baron (Lord Monteagle) is
the pivot upon which the British constitution turns. I
was not aware of the fact before, and I venture to th nk, for
reasons which I will state, that he is not even the pivot
upon which this question turns. My noble friend is well

acquainted with financial subjects. Formerly a Chancellor

of the Exchequer himself, he has great knowledge and
great love of finance, and has been in the habit of bringing
his views upon it before your lordships, as it was natural
that he should do ; but with regard to the conduct of this
house as a house my noble friend is nothing more than any
other able and distinguished individual among your lord-
ships who sometimes takes part in your debates. He has
no pretensions to lead a great party; he can only attract
those whom his reasoning, his arguments, and his eloquence
convince. With respect to the noble earl opposite (Earl
Derby) the case is entirely different. I was surprised that,
in addressing the deputation to which I have so often re-
ferred, he seemed to dwell upon a distinction which he
supposed to arise from the motion for the rejection of this
bill being made, not by himself, but by the noble baron. Why
surely this is nut so insignificant a question that the noble
earl was waiting to see whether or not some independent mem-
ber of your lordships' house took it up 1 He must have had
in his own mind clear views as to whether it was of sufficient
importance for him to undertake it himself, or whether
he should leave it entirely loose. Well, my lords, I have
the greatest possible admiration for the ability, the
character, and the position of the noble earl ; I am not sure
that I have not almost been wanting in good taste in too
often alluding to the admiration which I have felt for those
qualities; but that feeling is not without exception. I have
the greatest respect for his gifts and attainments, but there
is one gift which he does not possess. 'that one gift is the
gift of prophecy, which no human being will say he pea.
seams. lie has indulged in prophecies with regard to trade,
navigation, and almost every question of finance ; and in
every instance his predictions have been signally unlucky.
I have alluded to the alarm he expressed with respect to the
remission of the soap duties. In the same year another
quoption troso. Dly right hen, friend Mr. Gladstone has ;

been incessantly taunted with the mistake ho made as to the
amount which the succession duty would produce. My
right hon. friend was not alone in his expectations of a large
return from the succession tax, because the noble lord him-
self proved by figures and details that that impost would
extract from the pockets of the unfortunate landowners a
sum of £4,000,000 sterling per annum, or much more than
double the amount which it has actually yielled. (Hear.)
In his speech on the Customs Duties Bill, on the 226 of
Juno, 1846, the noble lord said—
" I am about to deal with this measure chiefly on the score
of revenue, for I beg your lordships to observe that you
have at this moment a calculation of only a very small sur-
plus revenue, even with things as they are, for the service
of the current year; and if the calculations respecting the
revenue which I have made are accurate (and I have taken
every pains they should be so), those who are in office this
time 12 months, Whoever they may be, will bein great dan-
ger of experiencing a deficiency in the revenue. Yet, my
lords, it is under these circumstances that the Government
think it wise and politic to introduce a bill for the purpose
of reducing or repealing the duties on numerous most im -
portant articles. Duties altogether repealed, £55,879; a
reduction of duties by one-half on articles producing a re-
venue of £2,326,000, £1,283,121; duties on corn, £400,000.
I am aware that a certain increase in the consumption will
make up part of the loss, but that there will be a serious
defalcation of revenue arising from the reductions proposed
by this bill will readily be admitted on the part of Govern-
ment themselves."
That was spoken by the noble earl opposite in 1816, and
what is the answer to be given to it ? On the 22d of
February the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
" The right hon. gentleman who preceded me in office
made his financial statement, on the 9th of May last year.
He stated that he anticipated a surplus from_the erdinary
revenue of £76,000, and from extraordinary sources—
namely, money from China, of £700,000, making a total of
£776,000. By subsequent legislation foreign sugar was made
admissible into the country, and in nine months, from April
to December, the duty paid on the foreign sugar imported
amounted to £304,000. That, of course, is an item which
the right hon. gentleman could not calculate upon when he
made his financial statement, but adding the sum derived
from the sugar duties to that which the right hon. gentle-
man anticipated, it would give a surplus of only about a
million of money. If, however, hon. gentlemen will refer
to the balance-sheet of the sth of January, they will find
that the produce of the revenue far exceeds this calculation,
for the surplus amounts to £2,846,000. The produce of the
revenue since the sth of January has exceeded again, be-
yond all expectation, the produce of the corresponding
quarter, and I think the probability is that I should be fully
justified in stating that when the period comes to which the
calculations of the right hon. gentleman referred his calcu-
lations will be still more exceeded, and that the surplus of
the sth of April will be even still more considerable than
that which I have stated as the surplus on the sth of
January."
I say, then, that the noble lord, when ho comes forward as
the head of the great Conservative party and proposes to
support the motion of the noble baron, by which this house
will in effect take upon itself the financial duties that pro-
perly belong to the executive Government and the House
of Commons, surely ought to show that he has some fitness
,for the task. (Hear, hear.) The same noble lord, I find,
stated to the deputation, " We know nothing with regard
to the question of any substitute at all. I was not aware that
this repeal was taken as a substitute for any tax which
was imposed. It is part of the general financial statement
made by the Government, but I have never seen in any
quarter, and certainly not before the House of Lords, any
proposal of an alternative tax." My lords, it seems per-
fectly incredible that the noble earl, taking these duties
upon himself, should not appear to read the debates of
the House of Commons upon those matters of finance
which we are to correct, and should not even be informed
by his political friends in that house that motions were made
there by Conservative members and supported by all the
Conservative leaders, but which were rejected after long
debate by a decisive division. (Hear.) I now come to a more
extraordinary statement of the noble lord. He is reported to
have assigned, as a reason for not giving up the paper duty,
that it is not a declining but an increasing tax. I should
really like to have an explanation from the noble earl upon
this point. Does he not know that every Excise duty which
has been repealed of late years was an increasing, not a de-
clining duty ? Or does he mean to say that the course we
have taken in all these cases, which has, I think, been so
fruitful of benefit to the country, was a wrong course, and
one that ought not to be followed by any further remissions
of the same kind ? In his address to the deputation the
noble earl said :
" But you must allow me to recall to your recollection
that when in 1858 or 1859 (I forget which it was), I made
use of the expressions to which reference has been made by
Mr. Sergeant Parry, and when Mr. Disraeli in the same
year, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, assented to a resolu-
tion of the House of Commons, stating that this was, in
point of principle, an objectionable tax, we, at the same time,
objected to a further resolution which was proposed to be
added to it—namely, that the financial arrangements of the
country should be made in such a manner as to enable that
tax to be forthwith taken off, or some words similar to those,
and that that was a year in which, having considerable
means at our disposal, we preferred reducing the income
tax, and we preferred reducmg the tea and sugar duties.
We thought that the reduction of those two taxes was more
important than the taking off of the paper duties, and we
gave a preference to those two, and under those circum-
stances declined to take off the paper duties."
Now, Hansard is a book often consulted by your lordships
—(a laugh) —for we have many copies of it in our library ;
and if we resort to that authority we shall find that in
that year Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
of the noble earl's Government, made a long financial
statement, the pith of which was shortly this—that instead
of having a large surplus the Government had a deficiency,
and a deficiency of how much ? Why, of £l,ooo,ooo—(hear,
hear)—and instead of reducing the tea and sugar duties,
they borrowed a sum of money in order to meet that large
deficiency; they repealed certain acts of Parliament entail-
ing on them the obligation of their repaying other sums ;
and they also raised the duties on Irish spirits, on checks,
and stamps—the whole yielding them at the most an esti-
mated surplus not so great as that which the noble earl
thinks so small when it figures in Mr. Gladstone's budget.
(Hear, hear.) After that, I think the noble earl is really out
of court in advising your lordships to take a safe and pru-
dent step in financial matters. I believe there are on this
side of the house noble lords eminently fitted to deal with
financial questions, and no doubt there are noble lords oppo-
site who possess the same qualifications, although I am not
so well acquainted with them. But there must be others
who have come up to-day from the extreme end of the king-
Glom, and who are too attached to hunting, literature, and
other pursuits that are best carried on in the country to at-
tempt to master the principles or the details of finance.
These noble lords, knowing the vast information and expe-
rience of the noble earl opposite upon all other matters, may
think it perfectly safe on this occasion to put their con-
sciences in his hands. But if the noble earl's prophecies, as
nobody will deny, have always failed—if his knowledge of
finance is of the most limited description—if, indeed, that
subject is so repugnant to his capacious and well-stored
mind that he cannot for two consecutive years remember,
but, on the contrary, jumbles and confuses together all the
facts and figures of his own department as Prime Minister
and First Lord of the Treasury, then I think he places
noble lords on his own side in a difficult and even false po-
tion in respect to how they are to vote to-night. (Hear.)
My lords, I believe the amendment of which notice has
been given is not in accordance with the spirit of the con-
stitution ; nor do I think it consistent with the dictates
either of justice or wisdom. I shall very briefly state the
grounds of my opinion. The greatest of our debates since I
have had the honour of sitting in this house was one in
which a noble and learned lord, whom we all rejoice to see
as strong and vigorous now as then, took a leading part in
advising your lordships as to the course you should adopt.
(Hear, hear.) That noble and learned lord then laid
down the principles of constitutional law, and those
principles were sanctioned by this house. I of
course allude to the discussion on the question of life
peerages. (" Hear, hear," from the Earl of Derby.) He
told us it was of no use going back to ancient precedents--
it was of no use telling us that Coke and Blackstone and
other learned authors laid down the law of the subject in
the most distinct manner. They were of no authority.
We must come to the usage and practice of the constitution
since it has been defined and settled in its best days—viz.,
from the date of the revolution downwards. 'Well, this
house adopted that reasoning. It is unnecessary, there-
fore, now to quote any learned writers. I myself rather re-
gret this, because the other day I took occasion to read
Blackstone, Hatsell, and Hallam. I did not find anything
that really applied exactly to the case. I found they all
admit the real technical power of rejecting a money bill. I
found they go further, and speak of the unreasonable ex-
tent of the jealousy of the House of Commons at small and
trifling alterations. This showed more than any rule the
usage and custom of the House of Commons. They also
give as a reasonable ground of jealousy on the part of the
House of Commons that this house could not originate a
tax or indirectly charge the people of this country. If,
then, you cannot tax the community, I cannot see how by
rejecting a bill for the remission of a tax you don't practi-
cally charge the people. I know there may be a technical
difficulty, but as to the spirit of the thing, I conceive, if
you adopt the noble lord's advice to-night, you will to all
intents and purposes impose a burden on the people. The
legal technical right of rejecting I don't deny. The very
preamble of the bill shows it. The question being put four

times to your lordships house shows it. Legally and tech-
nically the Crown may reject a bill passed by the other two

. .. .
branches of the Legislature. That, to a certain degree, is
- - - -

guarded by the responsibility of the Minister. The Crown
undoubtedly has the technical right and prerogative to
create 100 peers to coerce this house; but for the Crown to
exercise that right would be a gross and flagrant violation of
the constitution. The House of Commons has, I should also
says by the power of stopping the supplies, a right to coerce
both this house and the Crown ; but in all these ins lances the
power is tempered by constitutional usage, it is tempered by
prudence. In every one of these instances, not excepting that
under consideration, it has been tempered by usage and cus-
tom. The noblebaron, I know, will produce certain meagre
precedents with regard to the rejection of bills certainly
affecting taxation and trade of one kind or another, but are
these at all equal to what he proposes to-day ?He proposes
now, on mere fiscal grounds as I understand, to reject a bill
repealing taxation forming part of the financial scheme sub-
mitted by the officers of the Crown, and therefore, with the
consent of the Crown, to the House of Commons, and
adopted by that house. I say, I know of no precedent for
the rejection of a bill remitting taxation, or even revising
taxation, which formed part of a whole financial scheme so
approved and recommended. If the noble baron can produce
such a precedent, I hope he will do so. My lords, even if I

~-