The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

supposing there is no gentleman who sits opposite, or at
least upon the bench immediately before me, who does not
frankly regard this motion as one which, if carried, would
render it impossible for the Government to continue to hold
office. (Cheers.) I have no doubt my right hon. friend
who spoke last is the only member hete who holds that
peculiar form of opinion he has expressed. (No, no.) Let
us, then, understand what the motion is. Is it aimed at
the treaty with France or is it not ? (Cheers.) Is it pos-
sible to hold that a motionwhich denounces any addition to
an existing deficiency by parting with revenue can be
thought compatible with a treaty which does add to the
deficiency by parting with considerable revenue ? (Cheers,)
It is a motion aimed in terms—and I interpret its spirit
solely from its terms—it is aimed at the life and substance
of the treaty. (Cheers.) But more than that, I will en-
deavour to point out why I also say the motion repudiates
the commercial legislation of the last 18 months. (Cheers,
and "No.") Hon. gentlemen say "No." Permit me
respectfully to suggest that I am to be followed in the de-
bate by their leader, and he will have an opportunity of
conveying the " No" to which they wish to give utterance
in a manner quite es effective for their purpose; and much
more agreeable to the house generally. (Cheers and a laugh.)
The doctrine laid down is that it is not expedient to add to
existing deficiencies by diminishing- the ordinary revenue.
That is the doctrine laid down in the motion, and that doc-
trine, I say, is fatal to every great and beneficial change
that has been made in this country in connexion with the
revenue for the last 18 years. I will endeavour to prove that
in a short and simple manner, and, without referring to all
operations during a number of years, will refer only to three
great crises. Putting aside the greatest of those events—
the Corn Law and the Navigation Laws, which had no per-
ceptible connexion with finance—l will refer to those great
occasions when we dealt largely with the finances of the
country in the sense of propositions of commerciaireform-
-1842, 1845, and 1853. I was glad to hear, when the hon.
member for Birmingham last night said we were treading
in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel, that some members opposite
cried "No." It showed that we have arrived at last at a
time when it is admitted that those principles and that po-
licy constitute not the decoration of a name or of a party,
but a great national inheritance for which contending par-
ties may honourably strive. (Loud cheers.) That is a
great mark of progress, when we recollect what has taken
place within the memory of us all, when we remember that
the changes of 1842 and those which followed led the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks to denounce a Con-
servative Government as an "organised hypocrisy." Take
that as a starting point, and then realise the fact that the
two sides of the house are now contesting who shall be
the exponents, who shall be the champions, of theist
principles. It is a proof of the great progress that has
been made, and the only question remaining now is
which of the two sides of this house is endeavouring to
continuo that progress, and which is to resist it. (Cheers.)
I will refer to each of those three years-1812, 1845,
and 1853—in order to show that in every substantial
and important financial change you will find the prin-
ciples to be precisely the same as those upon which
the present Government has founded the scheme which
is now before the house and the country. (Cheers.) I
shall place them iu the sharpest contract with the motion
which you are invited to adopt to-night, which my right
hon. friend who spoke last is about to support with his vote,
and which declares that it is " not expedient to add to the
existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue."
In 1812 there was, as there is now, an existing deficiency
of £2,570,000. Sir R. Peel added to that existing deficiency
by diminishing the ordinary revenue. He took from the
ordinary revenue by the remissions he made a sum of
£1,210,000. He thereby swelled the deficiency to £3,783,000,
and he them laid on new taxes, of which the it ma tax was
nine-tenths, to the amount of £1,380,000, thus obtaining a
surplus of £600,000. I think that is rather like the opera-
tion which you are now asked to sanction. (Cheers,) In
1845 there was one point of difference, and you will your-
selves judge whether it is vital, or whether, as I think, it
is comparatively unimportant, if it does not make out a
stronger case. In that year Sir R. Peel did not add to an
existing deficiency, but he created a deficiency by convert-
ing a surplus into a deficit. He had in 1845 a surplus of
£1,420,000. He converted it into a deficit bylarge remissions
which involved a loss to the revenue of more than£3,502,000.
In that way he created a deficiency of £2,082,000. By re-
newing the income tax he obtained ways and means to the
extent of £2,600,000, and so secured a surplus of £518,000.
I think that again was rather like the operation of 1842.
In 1853, when substantially, though in less arduous cir-
cumstances, most of us who are here present heard all these
dismal prophecies, there was again an existing deficiency of
£1,968,000. We again added to the existing deficiency by
diminishing the ordinary revenue to the extent 0f£1,656,000.
In that way we increased the deficiency to no less a sum
than £3,624,000. We supplied that deficiency by new
charges that were estimated to yield—but, in point of fact,
they yielded more—£4,o9o,ooo, and so obtained a surplus
within a few thousands the same as that which is now
proposed—a surplus of £466,000. In each and all of
these cases you pursued precisely for every substantial and
practical purpose the same course. You either found or
you created a deficiency ; you aggravated when you did not
create it; you had it to deal with in each case ; you dealt
with it after diminishing the ordinary revenue by the im
position of new taxes, and that is the essence and founda-
tion of the scheme now before you, as compared and con-
trasted with those rival schemes of which some faint glim-
merings have been obtained from one or two of the less
cautious of the speeches which have been delivered in the
course of the present debate. (Hear, hear.) I may observe
that 18,53 was so far distinguished from the other cases that
in that year not only did we add to an existing deficiency
and impose new taxes, but the House of Commons, by so
strong and so prevalent a feeling both in the house and in
the country that no one ventured to raise a general issue,
effected the operation by means of some indirect taxes laid
upon spirits, but mainly by direct taxation, and in no in-
considerable degree by an extension of the income tax itself.
(Hear.) I contend, therefore, that by demonstration, and net
merely by loose assertion, it is clear beyond all doubt or
areuments, and in the rigid logic of figures themselves, that
the plan we are now proposing, not as we describe it, but
as described in a hostile motion, corresponds in every point
with the measures of 1842, 1815, and 1853. (Cheers.) If
that be so, the issue is a very short and simple one, be-
cause the question is, will the house stand by those mea-
sures,—will it endeavour to develop by further application
the principles upon which they were founded, or will it,
on the contrary, at this time of day, declare that it sees
cause to renounce those doctrines, and to adopt instead
of them the opposite principle, that it is "not expedient
to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the
ordinary revenue ?" So far I have quoted the words of
the motion, but I will add on my own account, " for the
purpose of making those investments on the part of the
public which a long, a sure, and now an unquestioned ex-
perience has proved to be almost beyond all other invest-
ments fruitful, wholesome, and reproductive." (Cheers.)
It may be said that that there is one important point of
difference between the circumstances of the present year
and those of the years to which I have referred, and that is
that the deficiency with which we have to deal is much
larger than it was upon any of those occasions. That is
perfectly true ; but, on the other hand, let the house reflect
whether there are not special circumstances of the most co-
gent character which almost compel Parliament, by the
force of equity and justice, to recognize the claims of trade,
of industry, and of the population at large to remissions of
taxation. I shall mention two. One of them is tho falling
in of £2,000,000 and more of annuities, with respect to which
I think it will be admitted that some question at least arises
whether they are merely to be added to the means of meet-
ing an enormous and constantly growing expenditure, or
whether they mark an epoch at which we ought te endea-
vour to apply afresh the principles which we applied with
sneh good effect before. The other relates to the extraordi-
nary resources which we shall derive during the present
year from what may be called casual receipts that cannot
recur. Take the single case of tho sums we are going to
obtain from the malt and hop credits. I have no difficult y
in justifying the application of those sums under the eir-
stances to the services of the year, partly because they may
in some sense be set against the really extraordinary expen-
diture to which we are liable on account of the military ex-
pedition to China, but mainly because we intend to make a
reproductiive use of the money. (Hear, hear.) Just look
how the case stands. We are going.to apply from extra-
ordinary sources to the services of the year a sum of
£1,400,000. That is only £700,000 leas than the whole
amount we are to lose by remissions of taxation ; in other
words £700,000 is the whole extent for the services of the
present year to which the ordinary revenue is really to be a
loser on account of the remissions we are making, and that
£700,000 represents three-fourths of a penny, or the differ-
ence between 9d. and 10d. in the income tax. But I must
object altogether to the assumptions of those who exclaim
against the reduction of indirect taxes as an irretrievable
loss to the revenue. The receipts from indirect taxes con-
stantly increase, and they increase the faster, and mainly
because we reduce. (Hear, hear.) The receipts from indirect
taxes will be larger in the present year, apart from the ope-
ration of the treaty with France, than they have been, I
believe, in any past year within our recollection—certainly
at which they
in any year since the imposition of
ofamthoeuinnteom e tax. l'he
difference is enormous between
stood when the income tax was first imposed, and the amount
'
ot
dwo ehsi enhotthefoyllhoawvethbeaetn
hreaciasuedsebwy
ejupdroicpioous
se raehmoitsseiraonton of
is. But
this kind in the present year it is therefore to
e repeated
el v 8 e4r y 2
Youyear.
fllielsBe4rse,fionrinlBs4p6r,awethiciachllywians
perhaps the greatest year of the wh
ole In 1849 you re-
•
went You ocnominmelnBc4e2d,
In 1803 you made an
of taxation, chiefly indirect.
u returned to the
pealed the navigation laws. In 1850 y
o
t
other large remission of taxation. Between 1812 and 1853
were not less than seven or eight years in which you
made these alterations, and what has happened since ? For
seven years, owing to the circumstances, we will suppose, of
the time, the application of the principle has been intermit-
ted altogether ; and then comes a year when you have an
extraordinary relief from the public debt, and when you are
going to apply extraordinary means to the services of the
year. With an interval of seven years since you hive done
anything for the further application of your principle, is it
strange that you should be asked to recur to a beneficial
practice? You may tell me that this is a year of great ex-
penditure, and that therefore it is an unfit year ; but do
you who say that promise me that there will be greater re-
lief from that expenditure next year? (Hear, hear.) If
it were a year of great expenditure, with the prospect of
immediate relief, I grant you it might be better to undergo
the inconvenience, and forego the benefit, and wait for a
year or a couple of years before proposing what we propose
to do now. But what is the spirit shown on the other side,
not by all gentlemen opposite, but by the mover of this
motion, whom I take as an excellent specimen of the dis-
tinguished class to which he belongs ? What is the spirit
which he shows, and what is the spirit of his motion with
regard to expenditure? Does this motion recognise it, as I
believe it is generally recognised on this side of the house—
as far as it is approved—as a necessity, but a painful neces-
sity, to which we submit because we think high interests
require it—(cheers)—but from which we are desirous to
escape—(cheers)—from which we hope to escape, and from
which we are determined to keep in our own hands the
means of escaping? (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in
which the expenditure is supported on this side of the house;
but is that the spirit of the hon. mover On the contrary,
he pours contempt on times of economy—he fears we shall
get back to those times to which he applies the miserable
epithet of " cheeseparing"—(cheers)—he seems to give
countenance to the discreditable assertion that Ministers and
Parliament belong to this cheeseparing economy. Why,
who have been the Ministers during whose time economy
has been most in vogue? (Hear, hear.) Ido not speak of
those who live and sit on this bench, I speak only of the
dead. The Duke of Wellington—(cheers)—than. whose
Administration none did more for economy—Lord Grey,
Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel. Those are the men
under whom, by whose countenance, and by whose labour
rules of thrift were applied to the expenditure of the State;
and those are the men whom the mover of thic motion,
partly by its terms, and partly by the language by which
he expounds them, thinks fit to throw a slur as cheese-
paring economists. (Loud cheers.) I have admitted that
it is impossible to expect a rapid return for this benefit ;
that we have entered—though I trust that the estimates for
the present year are exceptional—on a high level of expen-
diture. But, being on that high level of expenditure, and
having heavy burdens to bear, can we not strengthen our-
selves for the task by means which in former years were
found so efficacious, and again apply the principles which