The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-24 00:00:00

ki44114,,L.1 t4i,t La 4,4 t. 1.6 we hewed oil Fri-
th/4 night from illy right hon. friend the member for the
University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone.) I was one of the
col'eagues of my right hon. friend when he brought for-
ward his budget of 1353, alai I W 35 nog of ly perfectly
quiescent, but I was warm, and I may say, au ardent

supporter of the pl in which he then laid„ down. My
right hon. friend says that the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer has totally departed from the principles on which
that budget was founded—that he wishes as far as in

him lies to destroy those principles, and that he wishes
to falsify the promise then hEld out in the most solemn
manner that in the year 1,360 the income tax should cease.
These are grave charges—affecting not only the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, but affecting every one of the

members of that Cabinet of which my right bon. friend

was then the organ. None of the members of that Cabi-

net who now remain in office having risen to defend the

budget, with the knowledge which they have of its

details and its purpose, it is incumbent upon me to dis-
prove 149 far as I am able the charges which have been

advanced by my right hon. friend.

In doing so I only

go so far as to say that I think it right to go at once into
committee of ways and means without assenting to the
proposition of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Disraeli.) I concur generally in the principles on which

the Chancellor of the Excb.equer has founded his budget.
Into all the details of hir, proposition I am not bound to

enter. lam still leas bound to enter into a particular
vote of supply, beer.use the question which the Chancel-
lor of the Excbr,qucr has brought forward, I believe in
conformity ',lth the opinions of this house, is this, that
we eballF.rst take into consideration the ways and means;
that vre shall endeavour to decide what is the prospect
at leP' ,t of our revenue and expenditure, and what are
th'. taxes with which we are to meet that expenditure.
..Now, sir, it appears to me, and I think the house gene-
ra ly will concur in this opinion, that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in the present year, had no ordinary dif-

ficulties to contend with. He had upon him, in the first
place, the obligation of checking, as far as ho was able,

that inclination to extravagant expenditure, which, under
'the name of efficient establishments, is so strongly re-

commended by the militaty and naval department-. In

the next place he had to consider the genera desire of
the country, fOunded upon what wag, I think, a fair and
equitable interpretation of the act which passed at the
commencement of the war, that what is called " the war

9J." shoul I cease, not at the time at which the technical
terms of the act had fixed, but on the sth of April altar

the termination or actual conclusion of the war.

In the

next place there rested upon him the obligation of endea-
voUrinq, as far as possible, not to place any obstacle in the
way of the total abolition of the income tax in 1860.

(Hear.) Besides all these oLligations, there was another,
which, 1 believe, notwithstanding all that has been said,
he was quite willing to perform as far as the condition of
the finances would allow —the obligation not to press

hardly upon the great articles of consumption, and
thus cramp the industry and fetter the means of the in-

•
dustrious &uses. Now this was the position of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not think he has
done ill in proposing that "the war ninepence" should
be at once abolished—that instead of fivepence, seven-
pence should be for a certain period the limit of the
income tax, and that arrangements should be made for
paying off the debts which the country and Parliament
are bound to discharge. But what says my right hon.
. .

friend the member for the university of Oxford ? I
think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in this situa-
tion—that if he had proposed a very considerable remis-
sion of taxation, such remissions as have been proposed
in former years—ft might have been said, "You are
parting h the ways and means which furnish the re-
venue, and you will thereby make it impossible to pro-
vide for the cessation of the income tax at the end of three
years." If, on the other hand, he had provided for the
due supply of the revenue, so tl,at after the three years
by retaining in the hands of the Government those taxes
which must furnish that revenue, he woul f then obvi-
ously have been open to the charge that he had not fol-
lowed in the track of his predecessors, which since 1842
has so greatly relieved the trade and industry of the
country. Bat what I should not have expected is, that
these two charges, so opposite and so inconsistent, should
have come from the same person, have been uttered by
the same voice and in the same speech in the course of
one discussion. With regard to the remission of duties,
it is obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could
hardly make any great remission c ussistently with keep-
ing up the revenue, so as to be able to remit the income
tax in the year 1860. (Hear, hear.) It was proclaimed
in 1853, after a great deal of discussion had taken place,
that two alternatives were then open to the house—tbe
one, that of endeavouring to reconstruct the income tax,
and maks it more equal and more just ; the other, that
of not pretending to amend the tax which nr. Pitt and
Lord Lansdowne, and many others, had declared them-
selves urable to amend, and that without attempting to
amend the tax, you should consider it as a Viz for an ex-
traordinary emergency, and provide for its cessation at a
c,trtain fixed period. Of these two alternatives the Par-
liament, at the request of the Government, and I believe,
entirely concurring with the Government, adopted th
last. But then if you adopted this al- ernative, you must
take care to supply the revenue—you must take care
that if you arrive at the year 18110, these sources of
revenue may not have been so injured that you will find
it a matter of positive necessity t ) keep up that tax.
(Hear.) In the Sear 1845, when Sir 11. Peel ',laced his
alternative before us, he said, " The tlx has now lasted
for three years, and you may reduce it or allow the tex
to expire ; the halt-year which is still due will furnish
means by which you may provide fir the requirements
of the year, but that is not the course which I would re.
commend ; the c curse which I recommend is, that you
should take off many of our duties, that you should
lower many others which I think are injurious to the
people of this country. Bat if you do so, you must
preserve the income tax." Tite house chose to maintain
the income tax. Well, sir, that is very much our al-
ternative at the present moment. It would have been
utterly inconsistent in my right hen. friend the Chancel-
-1 it of the Exchequer—there would hare been some ground
for the accusation of an insidious purpose on his part of
breaking that promise which has been given for the abo-
lition of the income tax —if he had come forward and
said, "Here are the tea and sugar duties, which I can
part with at once—here are many other taxes of a most
it jnrious kind, and I will make a great remission." That
would not have been consistent with keeping faith with
the public on the subject of the income tax. The ground
r.ow taken is, that there is a departure from the policy
adopted 15 years ago—that of abolishing and reducing a
vast number of small duties, thus simplifying the revenue
and collecting that revenue by means of fewer hands.
Now, I think my right hon. friend the member for the
University of Oxford, when he made that statement, gave
a very imperfect account of the policy adopted 15 years
ago. It was a statement likely to be agreeable to the
hon. gentlemen opposite, whose cheers he appears to be
somewhat desirous of obtaining. No doubt there
were proposals to simplify the revenue—either to ab dish
or to reduce to a very small amount a great number of
small dilate". But that was not the principal merit of the
budget of Sir R. Peel—that was not its chief feature—
anti I think some part of that policy with.regard to many
small articles was of a questionable character. What I
and others approved of in that budget—and I may count
my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
. amongst them, because he has always admired the prin-
ciple of the great philosophers who have laid down the
doctrines of free trade—what we approved of in that
budget was the principle laid do mn that th, re was to be
a great diminution of protective duties—(hear)---that
differential duties were to a considerable degree abolished
—that protection would thils in a great degree be taken
away, and that the road would be open for a much larger
and greater change. (Cheers) At that time many of
my constituents came to me on the subject. The ope-
makers complained that protection was taken from them;
the boot and shoe makers said they would have no
protection for their industry ; persons engaged in the
manufacture of straw plait in the midland counties said
that their protection would be removed ; the fishermen
in the north who were engaged in the herring fishery
made a similar complaint ; and numerons complaints of
he like nature were made by a number of n-leer it t :rests.
My answer to them was—and it was the answer which
Sir R. Peel himself in 1847 considered a just one—" All
these things must be taken together ; if protection is
bmken in upon with regard to a number of articles ma-
nufactured by artisans, other protected interests must
finally be forced to yield. It might be a natural policy
in the eyes of many, although I think a mistaken one,
to protect all interests—to protect the shuttle as well
as the plough—to protect the fisherman al nig with the
Rugar planter. But if you apply the principles of free
trade, and take away protection from a number of smaller
interests, you will bring down the destruction of the
"Le ',Paella." (Hear, le-ar.) I said to those who ap-
lled to me, " Don't complain that while you cannot sell
your boots and shoes, or your ropes, at protection
prices, you are obliged to pay an increased price for
par corn ; because
you may depend upon it that before
long the day will
arrive when these protected interests
must give way too,
abolished the syeteruaonfdf these small monopolies being
win
in
time visit
trade, the groat principle of
competition,
and in sugar." eTi,.6,,lsttathe great dealers in corn
~eatue to pass, and the
great merit of they policy of 184tthewaes
establishment
it firmly dealt
to
we all,s
with the question, and led
oabliehment of free
trace, the principles of which
eoritnheearly all,
of us acknowledged at the commencement of resent
a free-'mdse
I'arliament. Now a'lc, has my right hon. friend de-
parted from these principles I Having been I
all his life, has he in any
_wee' • noredthis .
Polley, or in-
augurated a new policy ? Far from it ;he has done
nothing of the kind. I certainly should have been willing
to spare a good part of his speech. Ido not concur with
him in the observations which he made with respect to
fire insurance, the tcx on which is most excessive and
oppressive. (Hear.) I do not agree with his observations
on the paper duty. I consider these duties of Excise to be
iu themselves of a most injurious nature. (Cheers.)They
atop, and
prevent, and decrease manufactures—they en.
haute prices ; and it is no consolation to be told, when
a page of Shakepere or of Milton has a lex upon the
paper before it is printed, that the old woman in the cot-
tage is affected, and injurioa-ly affected, by the same im-
post, inasmuch as the wrapper which contains her ounce
of tea is taxed also. (Hear.) With respect to insurance
and paper, I should be glad to see the duties reduced to
avt ry small amount. I quite concur in the policy, al-
most the eeceesity, of not touching upon these large sub-
jects of revenue, when the mind of the house and the
mind of the country is fixed upon the income tax. (Hear.)
But I am sorry to find that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer pronounced a kind of panegyric on those tax3s,
as it they were meritorious ones. Ido not think it was
necessary to disinter Arthur Young to give evidence on

tit ig

Which flea ilet, bitten to 016 Favpoila rvmionto
and I concur with the right hon. gentleman oppisite

(Mr. Disraeli), when he said we need not eropl,;y- our-
selves in disquisitions on direct and indirect taxes, because,
unhappily, we know that both to a great extent must be
imposed upon and paid by the people. (hear.) My right
hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford says
that the Clianeell'm of the Exchequer ds really endeavour-

ing to de!eat that understanding which ',ls come to in I
1853, that in the year 1860 we should see an end of the
income tax. I hold it to be a very great point of public po-
licy to adhere to the expectation which was then held out.
(Cheers.) I recollect how many gentlemen thei e were who
thought it would be possible to make a distinction between
permanent and precarious income; I remember how many
there were who objected to the succession tax; and I
think, unless some overpowering necessity should arise,
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860 would not
be justified in continuing in operation a tax which ought
to cease at the end of that year. (Cheers.) lam of opinion
that it is a great weapon—the most powerful financial
weapon yen possess for a time of war. (Hear.) The
experience of the last war has shown us this fact as
strongly as did the experience of the French war. You
collect an immense revenue by this means. It is perhaps
a species of confiscation, because yon take away from a
man that which he has at the moment, without inquiry
from what source he derived it, or how long he is
likely
to enjoy it. But you take it as the means of obtaining
national security in time of peril and of war, and you
are justified in so doing. You must either abandon the
tax after a certain time, or attempt its reconstruction,
which I do not believe any financial abilities could ac-
complish in a satisfactory manner. lam therefore most
desirous that the tax should come to an end in the year
1860. (Cheers.) I confess I cannot see how the Chan-
cell)r of the Exchequer has interposed any obstacle in
the way of the termination of the tax at thattime. (Hear )
Not only has he not done so, but in my opinion his ad-
dition of twopence in the present year and in the two
following years—and his proposal that further sums
should be levied on tea and sugar than are imposed in
the budget of 1853—seem to me to be specially intended
to carry that budget into effect. (Cheers. We have be-
fore us a return showing the amount of liabilities incurred
in respect of the war ; and according to that statement
we shall have to pay in the years 1857-8-9 no less than
6,000,0001. Exchequer bonds. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer is parbuing that course because he has asked
us to assent to the payment of 2,000,0001. of these Ex-
_

chequer bills falling due in the present year—a proposi-
tion to which we gave our unanimous assent. Besides
these Exchequer bills we shell have to pay in respect to
the principal of the debt no less than 9,250,000/, Al-
together we shall have to pay in these three years the
sum of 13,202,0001. Now, if we are to effect that ob-
ject, I ask lo what means could the Chancellor of the
Exchequer resort except keeping up taxes somewhat
higher than the act of Parliament would justify, and
thus obtaining means to do that which has never been
done before—that which my right hon. friend, the mem
bar for the University of Oxford, particularly recom-
mends—namely, the paying off of a considerable portion
of the debt of a war within a very short time atter the
commencement of that war. Therefore the policy
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from
being in opposition to the plan of my right hon. friend
the member for the University of Oxford, is in direct
conformity with it. A part of the charge of my right
hon. friend was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has shown an indifference upon the subject ; that he was
taxing those great articles of consumption, tea and sugar,
without necessity, Now, I wholly deny that there was
anything tending to show such an indication on the part
of the Chancel'or of the Exchequer. It was said, be-
sides, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really
misrepresented the whole case, and that while he re-
tained that to which he had a right, and which belonged
to the Exchequer, he talked of the taxes which were to
be remitted as if they were the gift of the Government,
and that the Government were about to remit the sum of
11,900,0001. Now, it is obvious that the only fair course
which tee Chancellor of the Exchequer can take is to lay
before the house and before committees of ways and
means and supply, the state of the country, to show them
what would be the operation of an act of Parliament,
and to propose to them the scheme which he thought
best for the country. It is not for him to say, "I grant to
the ciluntry 11,000,0001. of taxes. But I ask the house,
was there anything of that kind of boasting in my right
hon. friend's statement ? (Cheers.) You may make ob-
jection to his statement—you may say there will be a
deficiency in future years—you may dissent from hie
policy altogether ; but I defy any man to say that he
was guilty of boasting, or of any undue assumption.
I come n,-xt to those duties which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposes to keep up—the taxes on tea and
sugar—which he intends to keep up at too great an ex-
cess. From representations which have been made to
me by persons who are largely engaged in the tea trade,
whose petition I presented the other day, I am of opinion
that he will gain in the present year more than 1,000,0,0/.
beyond what the act of Parliament gives him. The
amount which he will obtain in the present year, ac-
oording to the act Pof arliament, is 4,000,0001., but by
his proposition he will receive 5,066,0001. In the year
1858-9, under the act of parliament he would receive
3,200,0001., but by his arrangement the amount will be
4,550,0001. In the three years, instead if receiving
10, 400,0001 , he will take 13,616,0001 , being an increase
in the duties on tea alone in the course of three years of
3,216,0001.. Now I think that is too much to impose
upon an article so generally useful as tea, in the course
of three years, f it the purpose of defraying the expenses
of the war, I should wish, therefore, that either by
adeptin,g the proposal of the persons engaged in trade,
of having ls. 4d. duty for each of the three years, or by
some similar scale, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should somewhat mitigate the pressure of that tax. And
on this subject I have to say that a statement has gone
forth, apparently on the authority of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and the Secretary for the Treasury,
which is altogether erroneous. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer is supposed to have stated that the stocks of
sugar were unusually low, and that the same in effect
was tree a, regarded tea.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that what he had stated was that difficulties at
Canton rendered it probable that the future supply of
tea might be short. Ile did not state that there was a
low stock of tea.
Lord J. RUSSELL—There was an ambiguity in the
phrase which has led to some mistake on that point. Them e
is an unusually large stock of tea in London at the present
time—l believe not loss than 87,000,00)tbs.—of which it is
probable that 10,030,0301b5. will pay duty within a mouth
after the Ist April. That being the case, the statement
with regard to the small quantity of tea is not correct.
The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to re-
duce the duty from ls. 9,1. to is. 76. The law says that
the reduction shall be 6d. per lb. Tho Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposes a reduction of only 26. Now Ido not
think the benefit of that 26. will go to the consumer. I be-
lieve it will go to the wholesale and retail dealers, and that,
such a small reduction will be of no advantage to the con-
sumer. (Hear.) I therefore hope that when we come to that
part of the budget in ways and means, my right hon. friend
will endeavour to render that proposal more palatable and
beneficial. (Cheers.) Now, sir, having pointed out the
exaggerated and somewhat erroneous charges of my
right hon. friend the member for the University of
Oxford, I will allude for a moment to his allegation that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was treating us like child-
ren. My right hoe. friend seems somewhat like au anxious
mother, who, having a favourite child in the cradle, dreams
that the child is fallinc, over a precipice, and screams out• in
affright for fear her beloved child should be lost. (Laugh-
ter.) There was really so much pathos in my right hon.
friend's statement, that nothing but a feeling of that kind
—some, not maternal, but paternal feeling, with respect to
the budget of 1853---could have induced him to take what
I conceive to be so discoloured and passionate a view of
this subject of bit ince and figures. (Laughter.) But as the
mother would find her child in the cradle safe, ant would
go back to bed in comfort, so I trust the division to-night,
whatever it may be, though it may
be entirely against my
right hon. friend's views, will find him delivered from that
delusion, and that his child is in safety and is not in that
danger which his fears represented. (Laughter.) I come
now, having dealt with the allegation of my right lion.
friend, to a very serious part of this question, which I do
not think we can decide according to the proposition of the
right hon. gentleman, and by the motion to-night, but
upon which I confess I feel serious apprehensions and hook
to the future with much anxiety—l mean that part which
regards not the ways and means, but the committee of
supply, and the votes to be taken in it. I think we cannot
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce the esti-
mates for 1858 and 1859—it would be utterly unreasonable
to do so ; but at the same time there is a question asked by
the right hon. gentleman opposite which was fairly raised
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the first night of
the budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us what
he proposed, and what would be the consequenc m of adopt-
ing his propositions for the present year. We were to have
about 65 millions of expenditure, and 66 millions of re-
venue, leaving about 900 0001. of surplus • but when my
6i2n.c3ocorlowoipll ble vwe
irlyl mn
outchmlaeks se iygnofnu
at unr eestimatecameday ho
; of
t
the expenditure of thoseyears, but if you will compare it with
the estimate and expenditnreof 1853,
you will see that you
can have a margin of 3,000,000/., if you can provide for the
service according to the expenditure of 1853." " But then,"
says the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, " if
that rule is so valuable, if the establishments in 1853 were
sufficient to support the honour and security of thocountry,
why is it that we cannot have them for 1857? (Hear, hear.)
Why are we to postpone our wisdom till 1858 ? How is it
that we are to say we will be lavish in 1557, but InlBsB we
shall be so wise, so prurient and economical, that everybody
will admit we shall balance the income and expenditures"
I will not revert to the estimates of 1853, but I cannot help,
as the right hon. gentleman referred to them, referring to
my Own extravagant estimates of 1818. Several gentlemen
high in office complained of the extravagance of those esti-
mates. I have boon looking at those estimates, and I dad
that they amounted, for the army, navy, and ordnance, to
17,842,0001., and for the militia to 151,0001., makine
17,996,030/. ; and, taking the whole estimates—the debt,
the civil service, and contingencies—the whole amount was
53,496,5111. If I add to that the estimatd for the collection
of the revenue and the civil service superannuation
4,710,000/., there was a total of 58,206,5 W. I find that
those extravagant estimates, which I was unable to perse-
vere in, which I was obliged to confess, not being of abso-
lute necessity, I would not attempt to go on with in the
face of the feeling of the house, were 5,018,010/. below the
estimates of the present year. If that is the case, I can-
not help thinking there may be some reduction in the esti-
mates of thethe present year. (Hear, hear.) Ido not blame
Chancellor of the Exchequer.know I the tr üble
every Chancellor of the Exchequer has to enforce
economy upon other
the Chancellor f departments ; but I say, not blandeg
when we come
too flie Exchequer, that I cannot bat think,
meeite,hat to the the question, not of committee of ways and
to look sharply
anyveiste of committee of supply, we ought
ytar. The ministerstfol rattily into the estimates for the next
to give for those estimates other than
may have reasons
c:Ilor of the Exchequer has than those which the Chan-
that may justify some that segeinvena.t There may be details
but I submit to the house that I tract Ulli LlSti fi ;
of peace. I trust that we are going to make that this is a period
Per-
sia, I trust that those foolish hostilities
with
(cheers)—will rot be continued; and that beingvi with
theCilina—
case,
seeing that we have an alliance with France, which, in
1848, when I produced those estimates, was a matter of
considerable doubt—seeing that we have made pea" with
I that great power which was lately our enemy, arta tiiit the