The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-23 00:00:00

POST-OFFItE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

Lord STANLEY of ALDE ItLEY, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said its object was to afford additional
facilities to the working classes to economise their savings,
and thus render them better workmen and fathers of fami-
lies. It was found that the post-offices afforded admirable
machinery for the purpose, and as Government would be
security for the investments, the officials would, of course,
be under Government control. These banks would not
come into competition with the existing savings banks, as
they would only give 21 per cent. for deposits. He begged
to move the second reading of the bill.
Lord MON TEAGLE said he was old enough to recol-
lect when the old savings bank system was introduced. It
was established in 1817, and the banks were intended for
the benefit of the humble classes of society. The Legisla-
ture had placed checks upon them so as to prevent the
banks from being taken advantage of by persons in a higher
class of society, yet notwithstanding these restrictions the
amount of the deposits exceeded at that moment £40,000,000.
It was right that their lordships, should not shut their eyes
to the political and social consequence of the proposed change
in the system. The salaries of the officials connected with
savings banks amounted to £91,000, and the amount of the
security for the integrity of these persons was £700,000. He
did not think that postmasters in provincial towns were
persons capable of making the calculations for either the
increment or the deductions of the accounts of the depo-
sitors, any more than they were of solving a quadratic equa-
tion. But he had further objections to the bill. He was on
principle opposed to the system 'of centralisation attempted
by the measure, and he was likewise opposed to the Go-
vernment being allowed to have the command of so large a
sum of money as £40,000,000, and the time was when a pro-
posal of this kicd would have caused a great excitement of
public feeling. He did not intend to move an amendment
to the motion, but next year he should move for a committee
of inquiry into the working of the now banks as compared
with the old ones.

Lord REDESDALE said he thought the bill was ex-
tremely defective in one point, namely, that it would be im-
possible for country depositors to obtain from the local post-
masters the account of their deposits, and of the interest
they were entitled to, which every savings bank depositor
could now do. The bill would be troublesome and costly,
he feared, but the experiment was worthy of being tried for
two or three years, though ho quite apprehended that it
would eventually bo necessary to abandon it, in conse-
quence of the inextricable confusion it would create.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the bill
could not be carried out except with great cost and labour,
and that in a direction for which the Post-office was not
originally created. Ile did not believe there had been any
correct estimates made as to what would be the result of
this measure. If any estimates had been made they would
have been submitted to Parliament. The bill had several
weak points in it, which, as they had already been alluded
to, he would not now notice. Tho bill was one of very
great kepi-tame, and he trusted it would be most carefully
considered before receiving their lordships' E anction. (Hear.)

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, in reply, stated that
the estimates were so carefully made that while the Go-
vernment would be able to pay larger interest for the money
invested in those new savings banks, there would be a pro-
fit realised after defraying all the working expenses, and
giving such salaries as would be amply sufficient to secure
the services of a superior class of officials.

The bill was then read a second time.
DIVISION OF DIOCESES BILL.

Lord LYTTELTON nominated a select committee on
this bill, which was approved of.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the insertiot of
words to the effect, that before a new trial was granted the
Lord Chancellor should sec the lunatic.

The mo.ion was agreA to, and the bill was read a third
halo and passed.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
THE BUDGET.
On the motion for going into committee of ways and

means,
Mr. T. BARING rose and was received with loud cheers.
The hon. gentleman, who was very imperfectly heard in.the
gallery, said,—The night a budget is produced is not the
best time for discussing its merits or defects. Of course, the
committee must be taken in a great measure by surprise.
Much of the information so given could be previously
known only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The facts
must be assumed, many calculations require to be examined,
and it is not, therefore, surprising that a week ago the dis-
cussion which took place in this house was confined to sub-
stitutes for the remissions proposed by the right hon. gene
tleman. But when the character of the scheme is considered,
it must be seen that there is some necessity for discussing
its general nature and principles. (Hear.) I wish to explain
why I now venture to address the house instead of waiting
till we get into committee. In committee it is usual to con-
fine our observations to the particular resolution before us,
but, as the right hon. gentleman says it is his intention to
comprise all his financial proposals in one sole and entire
measure, he seems to require us to deal with them as a
whole. (Hear.) I must apologise to the house for venturing
to occupy its time, but there is such general interest felt in
the state of our financial concerns that, humble as I am, I
may be permitted t o express opinions which may be quite
erroneous, but which J sincerely entertain. (Hear.) I am
happy that wo live at a time when experience has shown
that a budget maybe modified or rejected without any
change in the position of the Ministry. (Hear.) I am glad
that we have seen budgets withdrawn and fresh ones in-
troduced. We have seen taxes remitted, or taxes the remis-
son of which, when proposed, has been refused, without
having any effect upon the Cabinet. In fact, a change of
the budget does not involve a change of Ministry, and I re
joice that it is so, because I think it would be most unpar-
donable obstinacy on the part of public, men to adhere to
the terms of a budget which was opposed to the wishes and
feelings of Parliament. It would be unfortunate for the free
exercise of the judgment of this house if the rejection of
any portion of a budget were to be construed into a vote of
want of confidence. I beg sincerely to disclaim any inten-
tion to convey such a censure in the course I am now taking.
It is desirable that the house and the country should per•
fectly understand not only our present financial position, but
our financial prospects ; and although:' am aware that I am
not competent to throw light on this important subject, yet
I think we.may ascertain not only what are the views of
Government, but what are the views of hon. gentlemen on
both sides. I assure the house I have not the presumption to
attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman through all the
statements and illustrations contained in his most able speech.
I am not about to weary the house with a reference to many
of the topics on which he touched, even although I may not
agree with them. Neither is it my wish to revert to past
legislation. 'My real object is to state my opinion as to our
present position and the wisdom of the right hon. gentle-
man's intended policy. I need notstherefore advert to the
commercial treaty with France—that is an accomplished
fact, and I heartily join, as I thnk we must all do, with the
right hon. gentleman in trusting that it may be successful
in promoting the mutual interests of the two countries, and
in removing any feelings of jealousy or animosity which may
at present exist between them. (Hear, hear.) But when the
right hon. gentleman himself said the treaty was a one-
sided instrument he really acknowledged the objection which
was entertainei to it on this side of the house—(hear)—in
addition to the objection founded on the loss of revenue it
would entail. The right hon. gentleman described the in-
jury sustained by the Exchequer last year, as compared
with the year preceding,, on account of the one being leap.
year and the other having two Sundays instead of one.
(Laughter.) In the firat place, we all know that, as regards
one great source of revenue, an ordinary year yields as
much income as a leap-year; and again, it must not be
thought the consumption of articles contributing to our Cus-
toms or Excise lies dormant during the Sundays. (Hear.)
If it were otherwise, what a godsend the abolition of Sun-
days would be to the Aachequer, (Laughter,) The right

` hon. gentleman says every day brings £100,600 to the reve-
nue ; so that, if there were no Sundays, according to this
calculation, you would gain, a total sum of £5,200,000 per
annum. But you can hardly rely on that reason as an ex-
planation of the deficiency. (Hoar.) The right hon. gentle-
man ascribed the increased importation of butter, cheese,
and similar commodities to the removal of duties ; but I
think it was due to a much sadder cause—namely, the
failure in the production of the articles of food required by
the people of this country. (Hear.) I will not enter into the
question whether great importations are always a test of
national prosperity ; nor, although, no doubt, when we im-
port gold, that gold must be paid for in our exports, whe-
ther the exportation of our home treasure to meet a sudden
demand, and the monetary difficulty consequent upon it, is
not in reality a national calamity. (Hear.) I only wish to
state, with every deference to theta from whom I differ, my
conviction that the provision which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer 'proposes to make for the future is neither safe,
wise, nor politic. (Hear.) I ask what was our position at
the termination of the last financial year ? The right hon.
gentleman stated the deficiency at £2,271,000, part of which
he said belonged to a previous year, although it had all still
to be paid for; and he told us that it was very gratifying
the result was such as it was. No doubt the case might
have been worse; but I confess that, although authorised
by Parliament, the mode in which the deficiency was met is
not satisfactory to my mind. It was met by the absorption
to a great extent of our available means for future purposes
—(hear)—and by an increase of the National Debt, besides
the continuance of the debt through the renewal of Exches
quer-bonds which had been promised to be paid off. All
this was done by the sanction of Parliament, and I do not
cenauretberight hon. gentleman in any way forthe course
he pursued ;
but I wish to explain that, if adopted as a per-
manent measure for meeting our permanent wants, it is
neither satisfactory nor safe. (Hear.) With that absorption
and that addition to the National Debt, is it wise to have re-
course to a remission of taxation of a character that cannot
restore and recuperate itself, and which cannot be reimposed
in case of need by any future Ministry ? (Hear, hear.) I
say, then, that the Government ought to have laeen warned
that the right course for them to follow was to retain taxa-
tion to such an extent as would ,secure us against every
exigency, and to reduce or remove only that portion of our
taxation which by increased consumption and the aug-
mented resources of the country might be restored to the
amount required by the public service. If there ever was
a moment when prudence would be dictated to a Parlia-
ment, looking to our foreign relations, looking to our home
concerns, to the state of our trade, and the uncertainty of
the future, I may be bold enough to say that is the time
when over- caution would be a virtue, and rashness a griev-
ous vice. (Hear.) But, assuming that we have perfect
peace both at home and abroad, and a good harvest next
autumn, let us consider what are the wants of the country,
and what the means by which it is proposed to meet them.
Our whole expenditure, we are told, is £69,900,000 for the
year. Now, that, I have no doubt, has been fixed as the
maximum point it can reach, because the budget shows that
we ought to be insured against any fresh demand of money.
I do not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pro-
pose to remit the duties which he proposes to take off if he
did not feel confident that under no circumstances whatever
could he have to call upon this house for further grants of
money. So I take that for granted. There are two items
which strike me as a little doubtful. I speak with diffidence
upon such a point, but, if lam not mistaken, our naval
affairs are in a state of transition. There are changes being
adopted in the form of construction and arming of ships
which must be very costly in their nature. I will not say
much about the money for fortifications, but the right hon.
gentleman must recollect, although he did not mention it
in his speech, that the interest upon these annuities, in pro-
portion as the money is expended,must increase the charges
upon the country. (Hear, hear.) Those are two items
-which are not, perhaps, of exceeding importance, but still
they are matters which suggest doubts as to the future ex-
penditure of the country. The total revenue is put at
£71,823,000, giving an apparent surplus of £1,900,000. Sup-
posing that all is prosperity and sunshine in this country
during the next year, I do not believe—although I speak
without authority upon that point—l do not believe that
the estimate of the right hon. gentleman as to the produce
of the Customs and Excise are at all exaggerated. But will
he tell us that there may not be such circumstances in this
country, such as a failure in the coming crops, such a ces-
sation of demand, such a stagnation of trado in the manu-
facturing districts, and loss in the agricultural districts, as
may materially diminish the revenue of this country ? I
do not make any charge against the right hon. gentleman,
but ho is aware how £600,000 disappeared last year from a
failure in the crop of hops and of malt. One may be per-
mitted to say that nothing can be more dangerous than to
reckon upon everything being in a state of perfect prospe-
rity when we know how much a partial adversity will cost
us. There is another item which appears to me of a doubt-
ful character—the £750,000 which the right hon. gentle-
man expects to receive from China. (Hear.) There is the
credit of £BOO,OOO of last year, which is, I suppose, to be pro-
vided out of balances in the Exchequer, or by Exchequer-
bonds. Then, on the other side, we have this £750,000. I
can't help thinking it would be rather the wiser course to
await the certainty of such a payment before we proceeded
to dispose of it. (Hear.) The right boa. gentleman calcu-
lates upon a surplus of £400,000, but if this £750,000 is not
paid there will be a deficiency of more than £300,000. Once
it is in our Exchequer, we can do what wo like with it ;
but, looking at the uncertainty of events in China, unless
I had been assured by the right hon. gentleman that the
whole cost of the China war will be met by the sums
already voted, I should have said, " Let us wait awhile.
The balance is not yot struck, and we may be called upon
to pay a good deal more than we at present expect." We ,
aro told we are to have the £750,000 clear, but I do not
clearly understand that point. The noble lord opppsito
told us that the amount which had already been received
from the Chinese Government was £250,000. We must
remember that of the 8,000,000 taela which the Chinese
Government has engaged to pay, about £650,000 is appli-
cable in the first instance to the payment of claims of Bri-
tish merchants. (Hear.) If only £250,000 has been re-
ceived, there is still £400,000 tc pay before the British Ex-
chequer can get a single' penny. Now, is China such a
speedy paymaster ; can she pay so rapidly ? In Lord Elgin's
despatch of Oct. 2.5 he says that to obtain a large indemnity
is simply impossible, and then he goes on to say that it will
be necessary to take 40 per cent. of the gross Customs'
revenue of China for about four years in order to provide
payment of the indemnities already claimed by Baron Gros
and himself. We may therefore calculate upon consider-
able uncertainty in the transmission of money froxn China
to the British Exchequer. Upon those considerations I,
for one, would rather say, " Let us pause in our remission
of taxation, or at least let us pause before we remit any
duty which is not of a character to be revived if once re-
mitted." (Hear, hear.) I believe that it is for the in-
, terests of the country and the promotion of real economy
that the Government should not be a needy Government,
and should not be compelled to borrow, nor to have re-
course to any shifts upon the occurrence of exigencies. The
right hon. gentleman has estimated that he has £1,900,000
to dispose of, and he does so by taking off Id. from the in-
come-tax for three-quarters of the year, and remitting the
►paper duties from October the Ist, or half a year's loss to
revenue. But for next year he gives up in reality the whole •
of these duties; he gives up £1,100,000 of income-tax and
£1,330,000 of paper duties, making together £2,400,000.
Upon the Ist of May, 1862, there will be another £1,000,000
of Exchequer-bonds falling due, which ought to be paid, and
whieh a promise had been given should be paid. Thus there
will be next year a reduction of £3,400,000 in our taxation,
and unless it can be shown to the house that there will be
a great reduction in our expenditure, I say it would be un-
wise to assent to such a sweeping reduction of our income.
(Hear, hear.) Now, upon what grounds can we expect a
large reduction of expenditure ? I should be very happy to
support any prudent measures of 'economy, but when it
comes to a question of economising in what is necessary
for the safety of the country, or for the maintenance of our
good faith, I doubt whether this house or the country would
assent to any reduction. (Hear, hear.) Weall hope there
may be no wars in Europe ; but can we be sure of it P Wdo
all trust that if war does break out,
from it ; but are there not in such cases measures opreucaat to
we may be
fexcepue
precau-
tion, measures which good faith andhonFour
require
d how could
take, which may entail large expenditure
roues;
pec
we
tmst
We
et
are
epeanbdoiutart
teowittakheouorff pdruetsieenst
once emitted could
whichfinanc i a:rod
wants' which
next year, we shall not
restore the penny of the income-tax we are now
4n
el;3eoroeeooa renewed.yyear,
and
(li e ar which,
hea
the
nf
the same i
have to
must add another penny to replace
only
yurred last year should arise in
about to revolt, but we
the void caused by the remission of the paper duties.
(Hear, hear.) We must again have recourse to an increase
of direct taxation, and whatever may be the comparative
merits of direct and 'indirect taxation, it must be borne in
mind that direct taxation might be pushed to such an extent
as to become not only unpopular, but impossible. (Hear.)
I cannot help recollecting that in 1853 the income tax was
7d. in the pound, and in 1860 it was 10d. with a forced col-
lection of an extra payment in that year. (Hear, hear.)
There is no doubt that direct taxation carried beyond its
ordinary limits presses on the power of consumption. And
there is another mischief about it. The house will recollect
that the income tax during the war was 16d. ; and by a
vote of this house it was, in April, 111R7
---.) reduced to 9d.
The year 1857 was a most calamitous year for all the inte-
rests of the country. Money was at one time 10 per cent.,
and yet, I believe, the revenue from all other sources was
wonderfully increased. So when you remove duties on con-
sumption you may, in replacing it' by direct taxation, de-
feat your own intention. (Hear., hear.) We do not take
into any account the probabilities of war—we do not want
to go to war with any country, and I hope no country Will
go to war with us, But how do we stand, even
of peace ? The operation of a bad harvest has already
diminished the revenue. Trade has been greatly affected
by the recent events in India, which have for a time
diminished
the means of consuming our manufacturesin that
empire. Our trade with the Vnited States has
a great extent st9ppod to
been disorganised, and _
by what has occurred in America. Only look at
the returns of the last tiro months, and see to what an ex-
tent our manufacturing interests have been affected
by these events. If the disorganisation continues you
cannot expect to see prosperity
, and employment revive
dist t• 4
in the manufacturing additions made to the
an.