The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-20 00:00:00

THE

stem e he could see no reason whatever for the exemption
which no w existed.
Mr. GLADSTONE, who was listened to with marked
attention- sail—Sir, I am glad to hear, from the general
- •
tone of convepetion this evening that the feeling of the
house je levourable to the general spirit of the proposals of
the right hon; gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
With respect to the imposition of the penny stamp on all
cheques, I am aware that this is a point upon which much
difference of opiniou has existed. I have not doubt that
the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will receive, both from London and from the country,
supplied by those who are most competent to give a
practical opinion, will enlarge the means of forming
a correct judgment. which he already possesses, and will
enable him to persevere with this part of his
proposal on a still fuller knowledge of the question,
or to withdraw it without any discredit. (Hear.) Under
the circumstance supposed, it would be no discredit to
withdraw it. (Hear.) With respect to the equalisation
of the spirit duties, I feel bound to tender my thanks to
the right hon. gentleman. I can well recollect that upon
every occasion that the increase of the spirit duties in Ire-
land has been proposed by a Minister of Finance, there
have been many dismal vaticinations preferred by Irish
members. (Hear, and laughter.) We have been told that
the only consequence would be an irnineuse increase of
illicit distillation, and a total failure of any anticipations
which might have been entertained in regard to an aug-
mentation of the revenue. (Hear.) In 1812, those who
thus prophesied, uttered their prophecies with perfect
truth. Sir U. Peel proposed an increase of duty amount-
ing to is. per gallon ; and it will be in the recollection of
the house that that is. duty was remitted in 1813, on ac-
count of a decided belief that it furnished a. stimulus to
illicit distillation. It was natural that similar :inticipa-
tions should again be entertained. I was myself the first
person ten years later, to revive the proposal to augment
that duty, because I had arrived at the conclusion that
those evils which had formerly defeated the measure could ,
then be contended with and overcome. Our success on
that occasion was perfect, and my right hon. friend oppo-
site, who raised the Irish spirit duty to the point at which
it now stands, has found out on all occasions his expects- I
tions from that increase justified. (Hear.) It is time we
should remove what is a blot and a mischief in our fiscal
arrangements, and establish a uniform rate. It is a prac-
tical question as to whether there may not still be a point
at which you might revive illicit distillation ; but no
doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conferred on
that subject with the heads of the revenue department,
and there are no persons in this country more competent to I
give him information upon which he may found his j udg-
ment with the utmost reliance. I trust the time has
come when the landlords of Ireland, acting on more
enlightened views than formerly, are prepared to unite
heartily with the Government in setting themselves
agein-I illicit distillation—(hear, hear)—because it is on
their influence we must very much depend for the success
of this measure. I rejoice to see that in Scotland it has
been the co-operation of the landlords with the Govern-
ment in discountenancing illicit distillation that has led
almost to the extinction of that vicious and demoralising
practice in that country. (Hear, hear.) As to the larger
portion of the deficiency which is connected with the ob-
ligation to discharge the public debt, of course I cannot
pretend to look with sanguine hope and pleasure upon ar-
rangements, the substance and pith of which consists in
postponing the obligation to discharge it. It would have
been infinitely moregratifying to me if the Govern ment had
been in a condition, and the house in a disposition to take
some bolder measure for the purpose of liquidating that
during the present year. At the same time we must not
expect too much from the Government. (Hear, hear, and
cheers.) We must not, however, expect from them more
than can fairly be thought to lie within their power.
(Hear.) Looking at the political division of parties, the
events of last year, and the mode in which this deficiency
has beau brought about, I do not feel that I, for one, have
any right to complain. (Hear, hear.) Much has been said
to-night on the subject of the income-tax, and the right
hon. gentleman, perhaps, if he had thought fit to make the
proposal, might have obtained the sanction of the com-
mittee to some augmentation of the income-tax. But the
right hon. gentleman has distinctly, on this occasion, as on
some former occasions, expressed his own conviction, and
the conviction of his Government, that it is desirable that
we should not, if we can avoid it, disappoint the expecta-
tions of the country—that the period will soon arrive when
the income tax will reach its determination. I con-
cur in these views of the right honourable gentle-
man, and I can appreciate the disposition which the
Government has shown to avoid preferring a request for
the augmentation of the income tax at the present time,
although the preesuro upon them, and the inducements
to such a course have been considerable, because they are
unwilling to raise in the country the belief that those rea-
sonabie expectations are to be disappointed. (Hear.) There
are gentlemen in this house, as appears from the discussion
'o-night, who look ferward with eagerness and desire to
the extinction of the income tax. But let us not forget
that which is a 'natter of the greatest weight and import-
ance—if these expectations are ever to be practically rea-
lised—viz , that the real impediment to the extinction of
the income tax does not consist in the change of circum- ,
stances which has occurred since 1853, in connection with
the war. It is true that the war has made a permanent ad-
dition to your burdens to the extent of about a million
and a quarter per annum perhaps, but no one will say
that the change of the circumstances of the country to
that extent is a sufficient cause for the postponement of
those expectations which we have taught the people to en-
tertain with regard to the extinction of the income tax.
That really resides in the expenditure of the country. Be-
fore 1852 the expenditurewas oor 51 millions per annum.
Since that time we have thrown into the statement the
cost of collecting the revenue, and probably if we were to
estimate cost we should say the expenditure of the country
was 54 or 55 millions per annum. But, Sir, what is the
expenditure ot the country now. My right hon. friend
and his colleagues have effected some reductions, aid apart
from all charges connected with the reduction of the debt,
I understood him to say that he estimated at 63,600,0001.
the regular and ordinary expenditure of this country for
the year. (Hear.) If then we have made an augmentation
in the permanent expenditure amounting to 8 or 9 millions
a year, out of which only 2 millions is connected with the
permanent and annual charge entailed by war, it neces-
sarily follows that we have some 7 or 8 millions a year
added to the permanent expenditure of the country during
the period referred to, apart from war obligations, and if
there be such an additional expenditure, it needs no wizard
to determine where we are to find the true obstacle to the
extinction of the income tax. (Applause.) Amongst
the various hon. gentlemen who have addressed us, one
has cried out for the extinction of the paper duty, another
for the abo ition of the hop duty, and another for the ex-
tinction of the malt tax. Some of these claims are reason-
able, and some of them are unreasonable. But owing to
the state of our expenditure, we are not only precluded
from reducing the debt, but we are likewise precluded
from carrying forward those beneficial changes in our com-
mercial legislation—of which some yet remain to be accom-
plished—which have proved of such immense benefit and
advantage to all classes of this country. At the present
moment it would be unreasonable to make large demands
upon the Government. (Hear, beer.) The right hon.
gentleman says truly that a real reduction of the expendi
tore, if it be voted wisely and safely, must be voted deli-
berately ; and 'it is but fair that the Government should
ask for the leisure of the recess in order to be able to give
its atteutioa properly to such a subject. (Hear.) But let
us place it fairly and fully before our own minds. More
than ever let us consider that, if we mean the extinction
of the income tax, we must seriously review the whole
subject of the expenditure of the country. (Hear, hear.)
I do hope that the circumstances of the country may be
favourable to it when the right hon. gentleman and his col-
leagues come to consider the subject, and I trust that
when the Government shall again meet Parliament in
another session, after the recess, we may find that we are
not only disposed in words to recognise our obligations to
the country on the subject of the income tax, but that we
have some prospect of bringing the scale of our expenditure
down to such dimensions as may give a practical character
to oar expectations, and enable us to cherish reasonable
hope of being able to confer on the country, at an early
date, the realisation of that inestimable benefit. (Hear.)
Mr. SLANEY said, if the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) hoped that they were to get rid of the income
tax without adding to their taxation in any other shape, he
cordially joined with him ; but if they took the income
tax, and placed an equal amount of taxation on articles of
consumption, that would be a great hardship to the
humbler classes, whose consumption of taxable articles
was larger iu proportion than in the case of the more opu-
lentclasses. (Hear, hear.) He congratulated the right lion.
gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) on his able financial statement,
and expressed his general concurrence in the sentimetits
he had expressed, except in so far as he had understood
him to hope for the cessation of the income-tax, although
it should be partially or altogether substituted by taxes of
another nature.
Mr. NE WDEGATE had been a member of the income-
tax committee, and as such had some knowledge of the sub-
ject, and he felt convinced that the people of this country
would never be satisfied till that odious impost was totally
abolished. (Hear, hear.) As to the substitutes for the tax,
that was a large question which would well engage the
attention of the Government during the recess. He thought
the Government, for its financial scheme, was entitled to
the thanks of the country. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had understood his position, the position of the Go-
vernment, and the expectations which the country enter-
tained. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. CARD WELL said he was sorry he could not alto-
gether concur in the manner in which the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed to treat the two millions ot Exchequer-
bonds. Those bonds were raised to anticipate a half-year
of the war income-tax, and if they were to be remitted, it
should be out of the income-tax, and it was before the
expiration of the income-tax that they could alone expect
to do so. If ho understood the right hon. gentleman
aright, they were to have a re-borrowing, with a declining
income-tax, the debt to be thrown on the years 1862 and
1863. Well, if we could not afford the repayment now,
what would be our position then? No doubt, as corn-
pared with this year, there would be a gain of three
millions; for there would be the falling in of the Long
Annuities, amounting to two millions, and an additional
taxation of one million. On the other hand, however, the
income-tax would have ceased, and that amounted to
more than six millions. That year, therefore, would be
worse by three millions than this. With respect to the
proposal to lay an increased duty on spirits, that
was a proposal which every one must cordially approve,
and which their friends from Ireland had only opposed
with a qualified degree of opposition which was to bo ex-
pected from representatives of the country. With respect
to another point, the stamp daty on cheques, it must be
admitted that, to a Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was
a most inviting proposal, especially as the receipt tax had
turned out so satisfactory. There would be a great resis-
tance
to it, however, and he should not be at all surprised
if it did not ultimately pass into law. On the whole,
however, he was happy to concur in the proposals of the
right hon. gentleman ; and he could only have wished that
he had retained an income-tax of 2d for one year longer,
which would have met the payment of the Exchequer-
bonds, and provided for the total extinction of the income-
tax iu 1t460
believe 3 f
Mr. M. T. BASS said he coul I not join in the anticipa-
tions
extinctionwel regulated
lof t
hein, c
it
tme-
wouldt a x
biu e 1860. nor dobjectionable.id
Indeed, he should he sorry to see the income-tax entirely
removed from out fiscal system. His object iu tieing was I
to say a few words with d
regar to the stamp duty on
cheques, as to wdtiah it se
ber for Kenda.l had taken seemed to tin that the hon. wom-
en but one side of the question into
view- Now that morn• lug he (Mr. Bass) had drawn a
cheque in Staffordshire for 2/. 12s and on that cheque
was a penny stamp. It seemed hared that a should
be paid in Staffordshire on a draft for suclii)enani'y amount,
whereas a cheque drawn in London for I,oo'l, should be
exempt from all duty. (Hear, hear.) He
quite approved
of the proposal.
Mr. w. WILLIAMS said his principal objeetion to the
financial statement of the right hon. gentleman was the
great increase of expenditure. The amount of the budget
of 1652-3, when the Earl of Derby was Prime Minister,
was 50,790,0001 yet in a time of peace that sum had been
increased to 63,000,000/., and making every allowance for
the cost of collectiou of the revenue, there was still an iu