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

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition in
favour of this bill.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL—
THE BUDGET.

Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said—My lords, I rise to move the second reading of
this important bill, the successor of that one which was
moved last year under circumstances of a somewhat diffee
rent character. At that time an amendment was moved by
'de Ale "lord, *hose— formef "eettneetion with the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as wellas his present connec-
tion with the Treasury, gave great weight to any motion of
his on a bill like the present. On that occasion your lord-
ships' house was crowded and great excitement prevailed,
and therefore I felt it to be necessary, even at the risk of
seeming tedious to your lordships, to go at length into all
the details of the bill, to meet by anticipation every objec-
tion which I thought it probable might be made, and to
make every appeal that I humbly could to your lordships
to take that course which I thought most expedient and
prudent with respect to so important a bill. And I cannot
help believing that the arguments I then used must have
had some effect, for we find ourselves this year met to !is-
cuss the same bill under somewhat different circumstances.
Until this morning no notice whatever was given of any
motion adverse to the bill. A statement, if I might be allowed
to mention it, has been made in another place to the effect
that it was not likely any opposition would in this house be
offered to the bill, and if I am not mistaken the noble earl
the leader of the party opposite stated at a City entertain-
ment that it was not his intention, should the bill pass the
Commons, to offer it any further opposition in this house.
For these reasons I do not now, certainly, anticipate the re-
jection of the bill. A noble duke has, it is true, given notice
of rejection, but I can hardly believe him to be serious in so
suddenly adopting what your lordships must feel would be a
most serious step for this house to take, thus placing your-
self in opposition to the other House of Parliament, and on
grounds which, until I hear them again stated and strength-
ened, I can hardly believe to be tenable. The notice of the
noble duke has already excited great alarm among the mer-
cantile community, but I cannot believe that alarm to be
well founded. I am rather inclined to assume that the noble
duke put his notice on the paper merely for the purpose of
giving spirit to the debate, or possibly with a view of show-
ing that his confidence was not quite unlimited in the noble
earl who is generally considered to be the leader of the party.
The noble duke perhaps wishes to show that he can take
his own course with respect to a great question, but I can
hardly imagine that he means to press his amendment to a
division. With this conviction I shall confine myself to.a
simple statement of the objects of the bill, and of the prin-
cipal reasons which have induced the Government to re-
commend it to the other house of Parliament, reserving to
myself the right of replying at greater length should any
arguments be put forth in the debate requiring, in my judg
ment, more detailed observation. I beg to say, however,
that I do not take this course Is ith any view of deprecating
discussion; on the contrary, I think it desirable that the
measure should be most fully debated, but I think, in the
first instance, the calm I have indicated will be the most
convenient tai the house. It 18 not my intention to go over
every point of the bill in detail, but will merely recall a few
circumstances connected with the budget of last year. The
deficiency then was £850,003, and if you added x 550,000
loss, which would have occurred from the repeal of the
paper duties, there would have been a total deficiency of
£1,700,000. Now. the best way to show the comparative
importance of this deficiency will be to mention one fact. It
was Mr. Huskisson who stated that the consequences of a
bad harvest Were equiValent to a loss of 7 per cent. on a re-
venue of 50 millions, so that aecord,ng to that calculation
we should last year, instead of a deficiency of £1,700,000,
with so bad a harvest as we had, have had a deficiency of
seven millions. I think the comparison is very satisfactory,
for it will not be necessary to go farther than to state that
we paid 24 millions for foreign corn t > show how deficient
was last year's harvest. I might also, however, quote
the opinions of the persons most conversant with agri-
culture, that seldom has there been seen a greater de•
ciency of food, both for man and beast. 1 think
it, therefore, a satisfactory proof of the. beneficial
effects of our commercial legislation during later years
that a sufficient supply of food should hate been ensured
under such very unfavourable circumstances. I sin also
satisfied that the actual amount of deficiency shows that if
we had not a good but even an average harvest, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would not have over-estimated but
considerably under-estimated his resources. With regard
to the pre, ent bill, the calculations of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were made after the mode adopted by all previ-
ous Chancellors of the Exchequer, and which I suppose
will be continued by all his successors—namely, that of
making careful comparisons of the opinions of heads of de-
partments, and of all persons conversant with the facts ; and
it appears to me the most sensible way of approaching the
question. The calculations of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer gave in round numbers a surplus of about two millions,
and I apprehend that the amount of that surplus is not now
to be called in question. As a general rule, so long as a
Minister is permitted to retain his office his calculations are
accepted as correct; and in addition, I have to mention that
a right hon. gentleman who lately held the office frankly
admitted the Government calculations to be correct, and has
proposed to reduce the surplus by an amount much greater
than the reduction submitted by the Government. Having,
then, this surplus to dispose of, the Government have de-
termined to distribute it in the following manner. In the
first place, it is proposed to reduce the income tax from 10d.
to 9d. in the pound. I am happy to propose that reduction,
and I am sure my satisfactio will be shared by your lord-
lords-(hear)—my only regret being that a still further re-
duction cannot be conveniently made. (Hear.) It would
have been no doubt agreeable to many, both in and out of
Parliament, if we could have proposed a reduction in the
duty on tea, an article in which the community is so gene-
rally interested. Some attempts have been made to show '
that the duties on tea and sugar press more heavily on the
poorer than on the richer classes ; but my answer to this is
that four years ago, Sir G. Lewis, who was then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, made a statement to the effect
that 60 per cent. of the tea and sugar duties were paid by
the richer classes, leaving only 40 per cent. to fall on the
poor, and that statement was adopted by the leader of the
Opposition. I am inclined, therefore, to rely on that state-
ment. The reasons why we do not propose any reduction in
the tea and sugar duties I shall now briefly explain. In the
first place, your lordships are aware that a very small re-
duction of duty does not produce a proportionate reduction
in price, and very small would be the amount which we
could have spared under any circumstances, besides which
the cost of collection would remain the same. We did not
think, therefore, there was any urgency for such a reduction
of the tea duty as we could have tide ; and with respect to
that on sugar, I do not believe that any proposal came from
any quarter for its removal. There is another small item
in this bill which it will not be necessary to dilate on. The
only object in re-arranging the duty is to protect the revenue,
and prevent the adulteration which has become so general in
an article of almost universal consumption. I now come to
the question of the abolition of the excise duty on raper.
Last year I detained your lordships for nearly an hour in
describing the disadvantages of that tax, and I cannot help
thinking the statement must have had some effect, for no
answer tending to show that the tax was not injurious to
the manufacturer, that it did not prevent competition, or to
deny that it was a tax which entered into the price of every
article that was wrapped in paper, has been attempted
since. I showed also how injurious was its operation with
regard to the diffusion of cheap literature among the people.
I showed conclusively that it increased a hundredfold the
price of educational and useful books, whilst it did not in
the slightest degree stop the circulation of those deleterious
works which are only too widely circulated among
the people. I do not intend to go over all that
ground again. The arguments for and against re-
peal have been long before the public. Nearly 30
years ago, a commission presided over by one of
the ablest of our financiers condemned the tax. Since then
an abstract resolution recommending its abolition passed
the House of Commons, which resolution was supported by
many of our leading public men, including Lord Stanley and
• Sir E. B. Lytton, who, in spite of all the considerations of
party, has so nobly supported his previously expressed con-
victions. On that occasion nothing was expressed but con-
demnation of the tax—expressed, too, in the strongest and
most decisive language. The bill came to this house and was
rejected—upon what grounds I will shortly state to your
lordships. It was said that subsequently to the introduc-
tion of the budget there had happened events which made
the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer improt-
vident, sod that there was in fact no surplus reYenuter.,7
deal with, consequently that it would not be wise to g
of money which ought to be kept in the exchequ e-r,e and
therefore the House of Commons should have anotherort
portunity of making the financial arrangement f he
Those were some of the arguments used last
ryhaowever, the
were not used by the Government. This year, r, butytheaery.
Government has a sufficient surplus to enraobwleilul s
btoo pnroo risk
the abolition of the paper duties, and
in doing so. Your lordships might have
objected to the
repeal of this tax—not upon its merits, but upon
.different
grounds. This question was now the only bone of conten-
tipn, between the, two Houses of Parliament. and therefore I
'think it will be wise, instead of dealing with any other tax,
that we should take the- earliest opportunity-of dealing-with
it.
.(Hear, hear.) There is only one other point to which
I will now refer. I have hitherto considered the substance

of the bill, I will now speak of the form, and I think there
is not a noble lord present who will suggest that the form is
not perfectly constitutional. In 1787 Mr. Pitt introduced a
measure which repealed and imposed taxes based upon 3,500
resolutions, and the bill included a schedule of 61 pages.
The bill was obje • ed to in this house and a great debate arose,
but in the en it was agreed to. Again, in 1808, Mr. Pitt pur-
sued the same course, and with the same result. Ameasure of
the same kind was passed in every year from 1809 to 1822 ;
therefore as to the course now followed being .a constitutional
of dealing
T with Nihthisbeing h
the subject
tee
aosfe finance
will
nowtherer
can mode
doubtewhatever.
remind your
lordships of what passed last year. '
Your lordships rejected
the bill, whether wisely or not I will not now attempt to
argue, and the reasons for doing so were of a very unusual
character. No doubt there was some excitement created in
the other house, but upon the whole, the conduct of the
other house last year was singularly moderate, and nobody
can deny that that was in consequence of the proposal of
the Government to refer the matter to a select committee,
That committee was appointed ; and Mr. Walpole, who was
Home Secretary in the Government of the noble earl oppo-
site, was selected for chairman. The report of the com-
mittee showed that the House of Commons has the power
of instituting a tax for any period of time, and that they
have the power to combine in one bill several taxes or mat-
ters relating to finance. This bill, therefore, is Warned
strictly in accordance with the recommendations of
;hat select committee, which recommendations were em
bodied in certain resolutions, and were proposed by the
Prime Minister in the other house, and unanimously agreed
to. (Hear, hear.) The Government thought the only re-
spectful course for the House of Commons to take would be
to act in pursuance with the recommendations of that com-
mittee. The bill is not framed or brought forward with the
idea that it would be disrespectful to the House of Lords,
or with a view of showing insult to this house. At the same
time it was thought respectful to the House of Commons
that their position to repeal or maintain taxes should be
clearly defined. I believe your lordships will see that it is
more respectful to present the measure in this form than to
have brought up a bill for the repeal of the paper duties
singly, when the house had rejected the repeal of that tax
last year. Whether this house has a right in particular
cases and in times of great emergency to deal with the
finances proposed by the other house is a question of great
importance; but at any rate, even admitting that, it will
be more convenient that at e should have before us the com-
plete and whole financial arrangements at one time, than
that we should have in various bills the great financial
scheme of the year. Whatever may be the result of this
debate it will leave the position of both houses the same as
last year, and this house will have the right to reject a
money bill, but not to alter it. (Hear, hear.) This house
is in a position to reject a money bill in times of great emer-
gency, and in that case to leave theoountry to say whether
the taxes should be imposed or repealed. I hope the noble
duke will withdraw his amendment—at any rate that, if he
persists in moving it, it will not receive the sanction of your
lordships. By passing this measure their lordships will
attain three great objects : we shall be able to complete
that commercial legislation which has been so universally
useful in developing the industry. and unshackling the en-
terprise of this country, thereby increasing to an incredible
degree the sources of both indirect and direct taxation which
have afforded very large sums for meeting an increased
public expenditure. (Hear, hear.) In the second, we shall
take away the only question which remains between the
two houses, and which was likely to engender a bad feeling
between them. (Hear, hear.) And, thirdly, by passing
this bill we shall obtain a reduction of the income tax and
the repeal of the paper duties. (Hear.) But in doing that
it will not show an intention on the part of the Legislature
to increase the direct taxes for the means of carrying on the
expenditure of the country. For these reasons I beg leave
to move the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) [The
noble earl was throughout his speech very indistinctly
heard in the gallery.]
The Duke of RUTLAND, on rising to move the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, viz , that this bill be
read a second time this day six months, said he must throw
himself upon the indulgence of their lordships—an indul-
gence which was never refused. He had put this amend-
ment on the notice paper because he found no other motion
for negativing this bill—one which he believed if passed
would inflict very great injury upon the country. He
thought a longer notice ought to have been given by the
Government before proposing the second reading of a bill
of such vast importance, politically and financially, and
constitutionally. His objections to this bill were three-
fold. In the first place, he ventured to doubt whether
there would be a real and substantial surplus.
(Hear, hear.) Secondly, if there were a surplus, he
believed a majority of the other house and of their lordships
and the country were of opinion that there were other taxes
which if repealed would confer a greater benefit on the peo-
ple than taking the taxes off paper—(hear)—and thirdly,
the bill was in a shape which would paralyze their lord-
ships' action, and prevent their giving an attentive consi-
deration to a bill of this nature. His objections were greatly
strengthened by the very doubtful and hesitating manner in
which the noble earl had referred to a surplus revenue.
Since the budget had been introduced they had already di-
minished the surplus by £175,000; £150,000 in respect of
the Stade Dues, and £25,000 for increased interest on Ex-
chequer Bonds. Last year the calculations of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer were not sound, and some such
catastrophe as occurred last year might happen again. He
hoped the harvest would be better this year, but who could
say that it would be more abundant than in 1860 ? (Hear.)
Supposing there was a surplus, would any man of fair and
impartial spirit not admit that the labouring classes would
not be more benefited by taking off the extra tea duty than
by repealing the paper duty ? He felt persuaded the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer agreed with him on that point, be-
cause last year when he introduced his budget he expressed
the difficulty of his position in reference to it. (Hear.)
But 'with that boldness for which he was so remarkable,
and that ingenuity which no man could surpass, the right
hon. gentleman found out that the labouring- classes would
be benefited by a repeal of the paper duties, because all their
tea and sugar was wrapped in paper. (Hear.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer now came forward and recom-
mended this repeal on other grounds; and he had disco-
vered that in the reduction of a duty the consumer did not
get all the benefit to which he was entitled, and ho said
there would be a great extension of commerce by the repeal
of the paper duties, but all must feel that there would be a
greater increase to commerce by a reduction of the tea and
super duties. (Year.) If the price of tea were lowered it
would be brought more within the reach of the labouring
classes, and therefore that duty ought to be first diminished.
But he would ask at what time were they asked to take off
those duties ? Was the political horizon unclouded ? Were
they quite certain that there would not be war? Let them
look abroad and across the Atlantic, and what would they
see? A nation plunged in civil war, and cannon already
sounded and reverberated upon these shores. They knew
not whether this country would not be drawn into this quer.
rel, and they know not what demands would be made upon
this country. This was not a time then to give up without
the slightest necessity 11 million of revenue. If they looked
at Italy—lately emerged from revolution—what did they
behold ? Monarchies destroyed and a country almost with-
out any settled form of Government. There was a generous
and an exciteable people given up alternately as a prey to a
victorious army—to disbanded soldiers and desperate bri-
gands. (Hear.) And it was only yesterday that their lord-
ships heard with the deepest regret—however much they
might have differed from his views—that the great man who
bad kept together the elements of that divided and unhappy
country heel passed away. (Hear, hear.) How could they
now tell what the future of that country would be ? if they
looked nearer home, to the country which, as Mr. Cobden
had happily expressed it, was united to us by a few miles of
sett, what did they find ? Why, on the one hand they were
signing a treaty of commerce, and on the other both France
and England were grasping the hilts of their swords. Mr.
Cobden had lately returned from Paris, and his woids were
looked at with the greatest possible interest ; and it was only
yesterday that gentleman said he looked with the greatest
alarm at the naval preparations going on in France and
.Eng-
land ; and at the conclusion of hiss p eech in the City said, it
would be better to prom e for peace than to preparefor war.
He did not think there was one of their lordships who
would say, when France was the initiator of great o
keep
arma-
ments, that it was possible for this country not to
pace with her. (Hear, hear.) While upon this part of the
allowed to express his admira-
tion at the patriotic and subject perhaps
spirited reply recently given by the
noble lord at the head of the Government, in the other
the navy house, in the debate on
words wculd thrill through breast the
country.
every aat
country. e same now to the constitutional part of the
question and
to the position in which their lordships were
placed by the manner in which this bill had been sent up
to this house in one bill, by, he would not say the House of
Commons, or by her Majesty's Cfovernment, but he would
say by that overruling and powerful mind which seemed to
guide both the one and the other. The noble earl said they
were placed in a very different position this year to what
they were last year. Then the bill was sent up to repeal the
duty which their lordships decided, not in consequence of
its merits, but in consequence of there then being no surplus
to reject. They now had, he said, a surplus, and he hoped
they would not divide. He wanted to know why the bill
was not sent up as a separate measure, so that their lord
ships might pass a deliberate judgment on it. It must have
been the thought that their lordships would throw out the
bill that ineuced them to take an underhand step, tacking
it on to another bill and sending it to their lordships in such
a state that they were almost powerless to resist it, and that
they were unable to alter it, or it would be only optional to
adopt the course he (the Duke of Rutland) had proposed,
and reject it entirely. Among the precedents as to tacking
bills Lord Macaulay had been quoted, and it was observed
that he was in favour of tacking bills. The noble lord had
quoted a passage from Macaulay's " History" to the effect
that he was of opinion that the greatest evils occurred to a
country where a system of tacking bills existed. The noble
duke proceeded to say, he would call their lordships' atten-
tion for one moment to the position which the noble earl
asked them to occupy, and not to divide upon it. But what
was the use of a debate which was to have no practical end,
if the thing was already settled before the House of Com-
mons had sent up a bill which you cannot alter or amend.
He asked what was the use of his occupying their time in
addressing them. They were placed in more difficultyhb ey
the course which had been pursued than any
not
ye
body of men ; for they were told that they were
ventured
to
com-
petent to have an opinion, and if any of them n
d at the
express their views as the noble earl below him. m
%vs., till
Mansion-house, they were told that they should
en opinion in
the bill was before them before offering evention to the
reference to it. He would briefly
c'lle of Franco in re-
views that were entertained by theTpenop
h noble duke here
gard to retrospective debates.
correspondent of the
quoted a letter of the Paris n
to say, such was the
Times on the subject, and wentono
these retrospective de-
opinion of the people of Franrreown
ountry. He had
now
bates which took place in_ their c
inefficiently—laid his rea-
briefly—though he feared
sons before them tor the course he had taken, to show them
that this was not a that ought to become an act of
had only taken the part he had taken:be-
cause he could not find
Parliament. Ho any other noble lord was going to
move an amendment, bill
as he thought this
lordships and was so adverse
to the in
interests of theirof the country at
ventured at all events to ent
large that he er his protest
against • its passing. He now moved that this bill be read
asecond time this day six months,
The Earl of DERBY—No one who had the pleasure and
the honour of a personal acquaintance with my noble friend
can, for a single moment, doubt that the step he takes is
dictated by the most conscientious • motives, and with the
best intentions ; and no one can fail to see from the manner
in which he has moved this amendment, with so much
moderation and ability, that we must regret he does not
more frequently take an active part in our proceedings and
join in our debates. But, my lords, I must preface the few
observations I am about to offer by saying, in the first
instance, that notwithstanding the high respect which I
entertain, and which I believe your lordships all entertain,
of the opinions and character of my noble friend, notwith-
standing the able manner in which he has brought this

matter before us, he has not induced me to 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 whichthe 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, if that
surplus does exist, in my judgment, and I believe in the
judgment of many others, in the deliberate judgment' ef
the House of Commons, and I am not sure I am
incorrect in saying the deliberate judgment of h'er Ma-
jesty's :Government, there are 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 duty 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 view 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 surplus; but on the present occasion
that fact is universally admitted. I will not here atop, 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-
poet 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 £509,000. 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 an
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
(.f 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 yeas".
1860.61 but for the year 1861-62, a deficiency to the,
amount of £2,800,000. (esear, 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 hims.:lf, 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 they
Chancellor of the Exchequer bas not shown 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 sit made to
him of a million and a quarter by saving the paper duties..
The right hon. gentleman certainly made no difficulty about;
accepting 'air 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
pi oceeded 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 coarse 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 51,500,000 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, diminishing 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,
albemaa tvo wue
nhttilicoel jeofvt
wet nhe nee
riecirxo cf2:omoos thet,
yweearre nn oat
de he
fia
cnige
y, wt
no ut
hl de
f
we come to discuss the budget of this year, every one is
aOnnoOecxeasted £3,000,000. But when
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 ho
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 they had to
provide for a deficiency of £9,400,000, and nevertheless the
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
:ent veryt he first
d:ffi lases
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 ?"
Thisyear the right hon. gentleman says that there is no de-
ficiency at all, but a surplus of £1,900,000. lie managed
the thing as simply as Columbus managed the egg. The
deficiency last year was £9,400,000, assuming that the
ain-
come tax would fall to the ground, and that tea and sugar
duties bweasrtehdeucreigdhttohotnh.egirenotrledminaanry, adnedmonnosTraa!
(hear, hear)—and not only to contihnitlet,
righte hon.
ear
of last year ; but this year he proceedsoupsn a different
year only..
-
man imposed last year, and insp s d t
C r ea s o f assumption—thattbe penny ailnl
etohme
es et a
x dutieswh ie are
~otbubotenowec
ttaht itnhuee di u
tthoe tyhe
ae full
h wed a deficiency of
and £11,000,000, and
thereby 0
cinul tat: ccOmtehtaot
£9,400,000 in the one year,
body is
t(aHnseasr,hhasvaenexplirfedyowuhiacshsutpmr2dueed between £10,000,000
will
nd othPen the House of Commons lifts up
come. .(Hear.) A
in admiration and says, " What a.
its hands and its eyoes
axidaetfic.bieetnwcyeenlasatn
estimate
of
th Chancellor of the Exchequer
man
wonderful
be cajoled aa
wonderfuland tahmeocuoanc,ltuhsiooyii that if yourociviondteinliethrpolsue
(Laughter.) juggled by this
the Honse of Cons
year and a
transpare
year. I must permitted to say inpassing
surplus this
a very easy explanation of an •
that Chi
angives . extraordinary-
that IYappearsofcreating
tbeoe
• and of my noble friend the Controller of the Exche-
quer,
fluor, in which I anticipated a deficiency of between
13, n t
coonslike likewise
£'2,000,000 and £3,000,000, andmV noble friend a deficiency
of £10,000,000 or £11,000,000. But axe solution is this—
that my noble friend assumed that those oisnoxious taxes of
the additional Id. tax, and the
tea and sugar duties, would
be removed, and I continued. assumed that they would be
Our statements,
therefore, precisely tally. We made the
same estimate, and they would be perfectly correct if it had
not occurred in the meantime that the China war had come
to an end. Consequently it was M the power of the Govern-
ment and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a re--
duction in the exp lenditure and so give a small apparent
surplus. A.B I said before 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 Ea-
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. 1 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
otf 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 sty
in
depriving the country of a permanent source a revenue.cue
lam
(Hear, hear.) I. am glad that that gratifies the noble
not
opposite—(laughter)—(the Duke of Argyll). I always
going to discuss the merits of the paper duties.
one
which,
admitted that it was an objectional tax, and
with an overflowing exchequer, it might be desirable to re-
lieve the country from the pressure of; but I do not think
the repeal of the paper duty will produce those marvellous
effectsB
effects attributed to it by the noble earl, or that will give
that marvellous relief to commerce or to the community