The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

matter before us, he has not induced me tp come to the
practical conclusion at which he has arrived. At the same
time I must concur in a great portion of the noble duke's
objections to the bill now before your lordships. We are
not allowed, as my noble friend says, to have any deliberate
opinion or consideration; but I also concur with the noble
duke in thinking that the bill is objectionable in point of
form as well as in point of substance, because if that surplus
does exist which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates
with so much confidence, but of which serious doubts are
entertained by a very large proportion of the House of Com-
mons, and in which doubts I confess I share—l say-it that
surplus does exist, in my judgment, and I believe in the
judgment of many others, in the deliberate judgment of
the House of Commons, and I am not sure I am
incorrect in saying the deliberate judgment of her Ma-
jesty's:Government, there am other taxes which have a
greater claim at the hands of parliament for repeal than the
paper duty can be said to have. (Hear, hear.) There are
other taxes which operate more injuriously and with
greater hardship on the industry and comforts of the great
masses of the community. There are taxes which
have been. imposed for special and temporary purposes,
and which have consequently a far preferable claim over
the paper duly to be taken off, or at all events reduced, so
soon as the temporary exigencies for which they were im-
posed have ceased to exist. (Hear, hear.) I think the bill
objectionable in point of form, on the ground stated by
my noble friend, because it is sent to your lordship, and
sent deliberately with the s iew of precluding your lord-
ships from exercising upon it that deliberate judgment
which I think it is for the benefit and advantage of the con-
stitution, as it is for the honour of your lordship's house,
that you should be able to exercise on all matters sub-
mitted to you. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl
who introduced the bill has stated that last year
we were in a very different position to that which we are in
now ; that last year it might be a question of doubt whether
we had or had not a sirplus ; but on the present occasion
that fact is universally admitted. I will not here stop, my
lords, to take exception to the expression as to the fact of
the surplus being universally admitted. The fact is that it
is agreed in the House of Commons that in matters of this
kind the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best
authority on the subject, and that on his statement
we must be prepared to rely in our legislative
capacity, whatever our personal and private opinions
may be as to the soundness of the reasoning on the
subject. The conclusions at which he has arrived
my lords, I accept. The noble earl took great pains
to show that if it had not been for a very bad harvest the
anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with re-
gard to the revenue of last year would have been fully and
entirely borne out—though the noble earl did not take into
account the £BOO,OOO additional and unexpected Customs
revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer received.
(Hear, hear.) Now, my lords, in the first place, the time
when your lordships were discussing this measure was in
the month of July, at a time when it was clear
to every human being that we could not ex-
pact anything but a very bad harvest. (Hear,
hear.) Though in ordinary cases it would be perfectly
fair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reckon not
upon the circumstances of an unparalleled prosperity, but
upon an average harvest and an average revenue, yet I find
that at the period when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
brought forward his first budget, which I presume is the
one to which we are now directed—(a laugh)—about the
period when we were discussing this measure, and before
the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his second
or supplemental budget, it was perfectly clear that we must
expect nothing but a bad harvest. (Hear.) Perhaps the
noble earl will permit me to remind him also that at the
period when the budget was under consideration her Ma-
jesty's Government were under a doubt, which I believe was
shared in by no other human being in the kingdom, as to
whether we were likely to be at war with China, and the
provision taken in the budget for the China war was last
year the modest amount of £500,000. Now, at a subse-
quent period the Chancellor of the Exchequer found out that
that took place which all the world had foreseen, but to
which he had wilfully shut his eyes, and consequently it
was necessary that he should come down and ask for are
additional and supplementary vote of £3,800,000. That,
however, had not taken place when we discussed the ques-
tion ; but I hope your lordships will do me the honour to
recollect that I thought it my duty to fatigue your lordships
by a very lengthened analysis of the estimated expenditure
cf the country. I then assumed for the purpose of argu-
ment that all the calculations of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were perfectly correct—that he was not wrong
in any of his figures—that no unexpected circumstances
would arise to derange his calculations ; and on the faith of
that I took the liberty of showing to your lordships, and as.
I think proved to your lordships, that if circumstances re-
mained precisely the same the provisions of the budget itself
of last year were so contrived as to ensure, not for the year
1860-61 but for the year 1861-62, a deficiency to the
amount of £2,800,000. (Hear, hear.) And I rested my
support of the motion brought forward by my noble friend
not upon any supposed error in the calculations of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, but upon the fact that the
statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, as-
suming the correctness of all his figures, involved us in
a certain deficiency of £2,800,000 at the least for the year
1861-62. Well, my lords, under these circumstances your
lordships were induced to act, and I think very advanta-
geously for the country—(hear, hear)—and I believe the
country generally now consider that your lordships acted
very wisely—(hear)—to exercise an indisputable right—
(hear, hear)—and refused to accept an improvident sacri-
fice of permanent revenue. My lords, Ido not quite know
about her Majesty's Government; but lam afraid the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has not ahoy' a himself suffi-
ciently grateful to us—(hear, and a laugh)—because we cer-
tainly contributed very largely to diminish that enormous
deficiency which there would have been upon the revenue,,
not of 1860-61 but of 1861-62, by the present ani e made to
him of a million and a quarter by saving the paper duties.
The right hon. gentleman certainly made no difficulty about
accepting our gratuity,for he took advantage of the amount,
and at the same time protested that never were people so
ill-used as her Majesty's Government, or grossly affronted
as the House of Commons. Then, my lords, with a meek-
ness which is worthy of all praise, the right hon.gentleman
proceeded to frame a new budget to meet those altered cir-
cumstances, and in that new budget he took credit for the
£1,300,000 which was secured to him by the intervention
of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) How was the re-
mainder made up ? The remainder of the deficiency was
made up, so far as I can make out in figures, by a course of
proceeding which is of an exceptional character, but justi-
fied by the circumstances of the time, by withdrawing a
sum of no less than £1,500,000 from the balances in the Ex-
chequer, that is, in point of fact- practically increasing to
that amount the liabilities of the country, or, more properly
speaking, dimin:shing its assets to meet those liabilities.
That was the mode—in addition to the relief he got by the
retention of the paper duties—in which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer contrived to make both ends meet for the ser-
vice of last year. (Hear, hear.) What I stated on the
former occasion was,that the revenue of last year was made
out of odds and ends, waifs and strays, pickings here, antici-
pations from another quarter, and throwing into the service
of one year that which belonged to another year, that which
might be relied upon for the circumstances of that year,
but which,:if the circumstances were not changed, would
leave the revenue of , the next year in a deficiency to the
amount of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. But when
we come to discuss the budget of this year, every one is
thinking how the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pre-
pare to make up his deficiency. The right hon. gentleman
came down with the same courage and dexterity which he
exhibited in dealing with the budget of last year and deal-
ing with the budget of this year. Last year he astounded
the House of Commons by announcing that theyhsasd to
e
provide for a deficiency of £9,400,000, and nevertheless
right hon. gentleman proposed to take off taxes that would
have increased that deficiency to £12,400.000. He pro-
vided for that deficiency by the anticipation of revenue
from a variety of sources, partly on the faith of £250,000
he received from Spain, and partly from other sources, but
principally by the increase of the income tax by a ld., or
rather by an increased tax of 10d. in the pound, and this
income tax the right hon. gentleman contrived not only to
get for four quarters in the year, but he arranged so that
five quarters should be paid in one year. (Hear, hear.)
That of course was an operation that could not be defended ;
and then hon. gentlemen, noble lords, and the public gene-
rally are looking about saying, " What is the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to do with a deficiency of £5,900,000, and
many resources wanting to him which he had last year P''
Thisyear the right hon. gentleman says that there is no de-
ficiency at all, bat a surplus of £1,900,000. He managed
the thing as simply as Columbus managed the egg. The
deficiency last year was £9,400,000, assuming that the in-
come tax would fall to the ground, and that tea and sugar
duties" would be reduced to their ordinary and normal
amount. That was the right hon. gentleman's demonstra-
tion of last year • but this year he proceeds upon a different
assumption—that all these duties are to be continued—
(hear, hear)—and not only to continue, but with the in-
crease of the penny income tax which the right hon. gentle-
man imposed last year, and imposed for one year only.
and my
in of whichl:l noble
xi°
(Hear, hear.) If you assume, in the first inFtauce, that
taxes have expired which produced between L10,000,000_
and £11,000,000, and thereby showed a deficiency of
£9,400,000 in the one year, it is not very difficul to
et
to
the conclusion that if you continue those taxes toe ru
us lifts up
amount, they will also provide a surplus for th
come. (Hear.) And then the House of Comma what a
its hands and its eyes in admiration
and rliequer is."
wonderful man the Chancellor of the
ful bod is
• what andonder y
(Laughter.) But I likewise say
d juggled by this
the Home of Commons to be cajolp
last year and a
transparent fallacy of creatingear to
nation of an extraordinary-
pw a deficiency of between
a deficiencyrinitted to say in passing
tshuraptltuhsisthgiisvyeseaar.verly mettoyustexbep
Matt
between an estimate or
the Controller of the Exche-
te ears
discrepancy which appears
Inquinere,
and sugar duties, would
loorooo, =dray noble friend a deficienc
£2,000,000 and
(tihe tea
xu,000,000. i3ut the solution is this
, and
of £10,000,000
or £ll,.
assumed that those
that my noble friend obnoxious taxes of
the additional 1 •
be removed, I and assumed that they would be continued.
Our statements, therefore, precisely tally. We made the
and they
same estimate, would be perfectly correct if it had
not occurred in the meantime that the China war had oome
to an end. Consequently it was in the power of the Govern-
ment and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a re-
duction in the expenditure, and so give a small apparent
surplus. As I said before I shall
assume that the calcula-
tions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all correct, and
I shall not dispute whether the £750,500 which he calcu-
lates on receiving from China is likely to come into the Ex-
ch-quer or not, or whether he has not made an extraordi-
nary miscalculation with regard to the military and naval
expenditure of the country. I shall take the fact as it
stands. Then the question arises how that surplus of two
million is to be disposed of to the best advantage of the
country. I will assume the version of those who say the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt most fairly and im-
partially in dividing the relief between direct and indirect
taxation ; for if, on the one hand, he has taken off
the paper duty, he has, on the other hand, taken
off an equivalent amount from the income tax.. That is
true ; but the relief given, with regard to direct taxation,
consists in taking off the individual penny he put on the
year before, and the relief of indirect taxation cons sts in
denrivLig the country of a permanent source of revenue.
(Hear, hear.) lam glad that that gratifies the noble duke
opposite—(laughter)—(the Duke of Argyll). I am not
going to discuss the merits of the paper duties. I always
admitted that it was an objectional tax, and Erne which,
with an overflowing exchequer, it might be desire ible to re-
lieve the country from the pressure of ; but I do not think
the repeal of the paper duty will produce those -marvellous
effects attributed to it by the noble earl, or that. • it will give
that muyellotts relief to commerce or to the, ,ccullan'"i