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

MAY 22, 1860,

increase the deficit which will have to be encountered in tho
year 1861.-62. (Hear, hear.) In.the same year the Fo-
reign-Office and the Colonial-office had been found to be

dangerous for inhabitation. Plans haVe been framed; and
I expected that this year we should have seen the erection
of a new Foreign-office, if not also of a Colonial-office. But

no, it is not so ; but if the expenditure 'does not fall upon
this year it must fall upon the diminished resources of 1861-
2. Therefore I say that, following the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's own figures, and only slowing for those cor-
rections which are absolutely necessary to make, and which
have not been denied by the right hon. gentleman's col-
leagues; even for the present year there will not only not be a
surplus of £464,000, but there will be no surplus at all ; and,
as it does not need the gift of prophecy to show, there will
be a considerable deficiency, even supposing the Chancellor
of the Exchequer's calculations to be correct. Again, we
must remember another element of danger. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer calculated upon a loss upon French wines
of £1,700,000; but, in consequence of increased consump-
tion, it would be only £1,100,000. To make up that loss
the consumption of French wine must increase in the course
of three-quarters of a year no less than 35 per cent., and
that without affecting—for if it did it would alter the whole
balance—without affecting the consumption of beer or
spirits. (Hear.) Then; again, as to the trifling articles
amounting to £910,000, a net estimate of loss upon a gross
hiss of £1,040,000 ; and yet Ido net know where the great
increase of consumption is come from, seeing that, upon a
greater portion of those articles the duties are remitted alto-
gether. (Hear, hear.) Now, before I ptoceed further,
this is, perhaps, a convenient time to deal with the finan •
cial prospects of 1861-2. lam assuming that the expen-
diture for 1861-2 will be no greater than that of the present
year—that is, £70,100,000 ; and the amount by which it is
under-estimated, £230,000, makes it £70,330,000. The re-
venue of 1860-1 is £70,564,000. From that sum we have
to deduct the malt and hop credits, which will
not be available again, £1,400,000 ; the Spanish
Payment, £250,00©; the loss upon the tariff, according to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £700,000; and another
sum of £150,000, being the difference of the balance of in-
come tax for the first quarter of a year. These sums taken
together make £2,500,000 ; and therefore, supposing all
other things to remain as they are, the surplus in 1861-2
will be less or the deficiency greater by that amount,reducing
the amount of the income for 1861-2 to £68,064,000, leaving
a deficiency of £2,266,000. That is, supposing the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's calculations are all correct, that
no reserve for China be necessary, that there be no charge
for building offices, no charge for fortifications—admitting
none of these matters which are postponed from this year,
and must fall into some succeeding year; admitting the
continuance for another year of the income tax and the
war duties on tea and sugar, giving him every source of
revenue upon which he has calculated, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's scheme will lead to a deficiency in 1861-2
of £2,268,000. (Hear.) I did state, as the noble earl has
remarked, to the deputation which I saw on Saturday that
I would not ask your lordships to reject this bill unless I
could show that upon the statement of the Chancellor of
Exchequer himself there was every probability that in
1861••2 there would be a deficiency approaching t0£2,000,000.
have shown you it must be £2,000,000, and will probably
be much more. (Hear.) I said I would not only confine my-
self to the faets and figures of the right hon. gentleman,
but upon the various points of the budget to which I ob-
ject I would produce the sanction of his high authority.
And first, my lords, as to the pledges, to use the right hon.
gentleman's own terms in 1853, that measures should be
taken, or, as he phrased it, every nerve should be strained,
to take off the income tax in 1860. lam not finding fault
with him for not taking off the income tax in 1860, because
I know circumstances have been too strong; but what
I am contending for is this, that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had no right to say that the large falling
in of £2,400,000 afforded him means, or could be made
a justification, for taking off a corresponding amount of
indirect taxation, inasmuch as that very sum was known
to be about to fall in during the present year, and
had been assumed by him as a main reason for removing
the income-tax in 1860. (Hear.) Listen to the statement
of Mr. Gladstone in 1853
" How are we to obtain a rational prospect of being able
to part with the income-tax in 1860 . . . estimated tax,
£6,140,000 ; new sources of income, £2,549,000 ? Then we
come to the anticipated reductions of charge, which of
course will be as effectual to the purpose in view as positive
additions to the revenue. The first of those reductions of
charge is that on the Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents., which
we owe to the wise measure of the right hon. member for
Cambridge in 1844. That measure will bring to
the account £624,000 Then in 1859-60
there will fall in the hcavy burden of the Long Annuities,
and of another large portion of our terminable annuities.
The first of these is £1,292,000, the second £854,000; to-
gether they will operate a relief of £2,146,000. Adding
this amount to the sum of £3,813,000
there will be an available increase of means of no less an
'amount than £5,959, against the £6,140,000 of income-tax,
which will be the total amount of that tax at that period.
In the years 1860-61 half of the income-tax at sd. will be
available. The balance will be applicable as respects the
following year. The committee may now judge whether
I have beeil justified in the language I have used with re-
spect to the surrender of the income-tax." •
The motion then made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was, that in April, 1860, except as to the collection of
moneys then due, the said rates and duties shall cease and
determine. That was in 1853, and, no doubt, the circum-
stances have since altered. But, in 1857, and this sup-
ports me in another argument, viz., as to the necessity of
looking ahead and providing not only for the service of the
present year, but for future years, the following motion
was made by Mr. Disraeli, as an amendment to the finan-
cial statement of the right hon. gentleman now Home Sec.'
retary

"That in the opinion of this house it would be expe-
dient, before sanctioning the financial arrangements for the
ensuing year, to adjust the estimated income and expen-
diture in the manner which shall appear best calculated to
secure the country against the risk of a deficiency in the
years 1858.9 and 1859-60, and to provide for such a balance
of revenue and charge respectively in the year 1860 as may
place it in the power of Parliament at that period, without
embarrassment to the finances, altogether to remit the in-
come tax."
That motion was supported by the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and I must say in the speech he then made he
bore somewhat hardly upon his new colleague who then
filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must now
also do him the justice to say that the budget he has now
brought forward is very much in accordance with the views
he then expressed, but if he had endeavoured to frame a
budget in such a manner as to negative every proposition
laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
could not have done so more faithfully and successfully
than he has done. (Hear, hear.) What were the main points
of Sir G. Lewis's budget in 1857 ? That it was not ex-
pedient to abolish the paper duties ; that it was not expe-
dient to do away with the wine duties ; and that it was
of great importance that you should not so reduce the tariff
to a small number of articles ae to diminish the number of
articles over which the taxation of the country was spread.
The budget of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer goes
upon the principle that you should abolish the paper duties,
that you should abolish the wine duties, and that you should
simplify the tariff so as to make it comprise the smallest
number of articles possible ; and his predecessor in office bad
the satisfaction of sitting behind him and hearing these
principles enunciated, and of giving to them, of course, his
cordial approbation, (Laughter.) As lam going back to
the question of pledges, your lordships will observe the
language in which Mr. Gladstone commenced his speech on
that occasion :
•,
" I have stood at that box, air, and have addressed the
House of Commons, and I have received on the part of the
Government to which I belonged the assent of the House of
Commons to financial plans which were in every point con-
tradictory to those which are now proposed. How it is that
hon. gentlemen still sitting onthose (the Treasury) benches
find such facility for giving assent to contradictory propo
sitions it is not for me to say—(much laughter)—but of
this I am convinced, that if I may assume to exist in this
House of Commons the same feelings which existed four
years ago—l do not mean as to questions which were the
subjects of party contentions, but as to the duty of balancing
income and expenditure—the express pledges which were
given to the country on the%subject of the income-tax will
be rigorously maintained."
Well, my lords, it was hinted, meekly hinted—that there
were circumstances previois to 1857 which might modify
these pledges. No. He would not listen to any such pro-
posal. True, he did own that he had been deceived in his
estimate of the Succession Duty, respecting which I may
say that there has never been a more gross and signal failure
in a financial point of view, while, at the same time, upon
those luckless individuals who have become subjected
to the tax it has pressed with the utmost seve-
rity. (Cheers.) In 1857 there had been a failure
in Mr. Gladstone's expectations respecting the Suc-
cession Duty, and there was also the trifle of the
Russian war. Mr. Gladstone was not then Chancellor of
the Exchequer, but Sir Cornewall Lewis was. Then with
fervid eloquence the right hon. gentleman exclaimed that
those circumstances were not sufficient to absolve the house
from those pledges, and that, as the person upon whom they
most pressed, he should not feel absolved, in honour or in con-
science, from the duty of straining every nerve still to uphold
and carry out those pledges. Was 1857 the last occasion on
which this language fell from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer P By no means ; for when may right hon. friend, being
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward that
comprehensive scheme which came to its final termination
in 1860, proposing not to interfere with the fall of the income
tax, the right hon. gentleman quite concurred with him :
" It is perfectly true," he said, " that the war has made a
permanent addition to your burdens of about £1,250,000 per
annum ; but no one will say that a change in the circum-
stances of the country to that extent is of itself sufficient to
cause an ebandonment of the expectations which the coun-
try has been taught to entertain with regard to the extinc-
tion of the income tax."
Up to 1858, therefore, we find the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer declaring that he was bound by the most solemn
pledges that he must positively redeem those pledges, that
he depended on the falling-in of the Long Annuities to en-
able him to reduce the income tax ; and now, when these
annuities have fallen in, he feels it to be his first duty to
apply the amount in the remission of indirect duties, and
not of income tax. (Cheers.) There is something more.
The right hon. gentleman says, in reference always to this
reduction of the income-tax :

"An hon. member, I think very naturally, cries out for
the abolition of the paper duty; another gentleman calls for
the extinction of the hop duty ; another speaks in a most
touching mar of the advantages to be derived from the