The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

Government, and agreat majority of thehouse were agreed.
[t had been put very strongly by him that the house Should,
f possible, carry out the implied contracts into which Par-
liament entered in 1853. In that they all agreed. He also
said that the house should not sanction a deficiency in the
revenue. That he believed to be equally the determina-
tion of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and, indeed, of every financier in that house. The
right hon. gentleman had also spoken in pathetic language
.f the advantage arising from the repeal of indirect taxes ;
.hat was the very subject they were discussing, and formed
.he main topic of the speech of his right hon. friend. With
,expect to the sugar duties, in what condition were they
luring the glorious career of Sir R. Peel ? The lowest duty
was 14s per cwt, and the highest was 23s 8d ; now the
highest duty was only 14s per cwt. It was only by the
greatest possible efforts —not so well supported. as they-
might have been by his right hon. friend, that this reduction
was effected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving the
quotation from Mr. A. Young, justified the proposition
which he made to the house, that the additional taxation
necessary for the war was fairly leviable from all classes of
taxes, whether direct or indirect. Beyond that, he did not
apply the principle or the maxim so propounded. But was
this a new principle they were propounding in times of
peace, with the obligations of war ? (Hear, hear.) They
could not argue this question as though they were entirely
liberated from all obligations arising from the war. How
did they meet the war expenditure in 18'14 when the right
hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer ? Did
,hey think it necessary to supply all the means for carrying
m the war by direct txation ? Did they not consider it
necessary, in justice to the interests of the general commu-
nity, to impose some indirect as well as direct taxes ? Was
tot the principle of the present budget the very same
which was found in the first war budget of his right hon.
friend? (Cheers.) In 1851 there was an increase of the
sugar duties, and a suspension of the fall of the tea duties.
The right hon. gentleman, in bringing forward his budget
for that year said that it was impossible to ask for any re-
duction in the revenue arising from the sugar duties; on
~he contrary, that there must be a present -increase ; and
he proceeded to adopt the precise comae which his right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was following
—(hear)—namely, suspending the reduction in the duties
upon sugar. In the following November, during' the short
session before Christmas, his right hon. friend, knowing
that the duty upon tea would fall to ls. 3d. in the follow-
ing April, suspended the fall of the duty. [An. hon. mem-
ber, " War, war."] True, it was a time of war ; but were
they not now talking of war ? (Hear.) In the very year
that he raised these duties be issued two millions of bonds
in anticipation of the payment of taxes. In the same year
he issued four more millions of bonds, making six millions
to be provided for. (Hear.) So that, although in a state
of peace, we were still burdened with the obligations aris-
ing from the war. A paper had been circulated among
the members of the house, showing what these obligations
wore. For the uextyear they amounted to 3,671,0001. ;
for the following year they amounted to 4,824,0001. ; and
for the third year to 4,707,0001. Was not that expenditure
just as much war expenditure as any which they had had
during the war? Was not the money which they were
low called upon to pay expended fdr the purpeses of the
war ? (Cheers.) The bonds were issued in discharge of
the obligations of the war, and they were now called upon:
to pay them. (floor.) What was their position at the
commencement of the present financial year? They bad
an income tax of 16d. in the pound, producing 16 millions.
There would have been a loss of three millions upon they
tea and sugar duties. It became the duty of the Govern-
ment to consider how the war expenditure should be met.
If the GovernMent had stood to their legal position--
which it was never their intention to do—there would have
been a surplus of five millions of income tax, which, as the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Hr. Disraeli) had candidly
admitted, could not be made available. Situated as his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was,
what Oid he determine, and, in his (Hr. Wilson's) opinion,
determine wisely to do ? He said, we don't require the 16d.
income tax during the first year, but additional taxation
will be necessarx„during the two following years, and ac-
cordingly he took off the 93. income tax, and asked the
house to sanction the suspension of the reduction of duties
on tea and sugar for the two following years. That ap-
peared to him to be the course the most convenient for the
finances,of the country. His right hon. friend (Mr. Glad-
stone) had urged that because the Ch eicellor of the Exche-
quer relinquished the income tax for the present year, he
therefore gave up the income which belonged to the years
1858-9, and thereby caused a deficit ; but it appeared to
him (Mr. Wilson) that his right hon. friend had fallen into
a great error when he stated to the house that what the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had done was to take the in-
come of 1858-9 and balance it against the expeialiture of
1853-1? What the Chancellor of the Exchequer-had really
stated was this : ho gave the probable income of 1858-9 as
61,300,0001. Now the expenditure of 1853-4, including all
the cost of collection, was only 55,860,0001., so that the
Chancellor of the Exehequer had left a margin over and
ebove the year 1853-1 of no less than between seven and
eight millions sterling. But, said his right hon. friend (Hr.
Gladstone), does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to
tell the house that he is prepared to bring down the expendi-
ture of 1858-9 to the level of 1853.4, and then went on to
refer to charges in the civil service estimates, which, he
contended, were beyond the control of Government. He
(Hr. Wilson) was prepared to admit that those estimates
were beyond the control of Government; but ho would
state to the house what would be the finances of those
years In 1858-9 the income would probably be, as he before
stated 62,300,0001., taking the most limited and moderate
estimate, and making no allowance for the expansion of
trade, and the stimulus it would receive from the great
reduction of the income tax and other burdens. The ex-

penditure of 1833-4, which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer did not take as a standard of expenditure, but selected
from•the f 'et that that was the last and highest year of
peace expenditure, amounted to 55,840,0 rig., to which
must be added a sum of 2,43+,0`101. for charges consequent
upon the war, making a total expenditure of 158,276,0.10'.,
end leaving a surplus of 4.031,0001. over and above the
estimated expenditure of 1353-4. That surplus, no doubt,
would have to be charged with the payment of 2,000,0001.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in a position to
hazard an opinion to the house before the estimates of the
present year bad been considered, or to fix what the esti-
mate 1 expenditure of the next year would be. Who, he
might ask, would be so bold, situated as the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was, to do so? In 1853 his right hon.
friend (Hr. Gladstone) proposed, within two years, to re-
duce Vie income tax to Gd.' and in two years more to 5d.,
but within 12 months of his making that statement he
was obliged to raise it twice, besides imposing additional
indirect taxes: (Cheers.) Who, after that example, and
with the experience of financiers before him, would hazard
a calculation as to the probable position of the country the
year after next? (Elea; hear.) They had, according to
that estimate, even supposing they ha I paid the bonds and
the sinking fund, still a margin of ono and a half millions
over the estimates. Again, for the years 1859,-60 the eeti-
mated income was 62,620,0001., the estimated expenditure
53,731,0001., leaving' a margin of 3;889,000/. But his
right honourable friend throughout his address insisted
upon fastening upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
expenditure of the present year as the basis of expenditure
for all yeers to
.come—(hear, hear)—but supposing they
were discussing this question a year ago -it was a year of
peace, and we had reduced our expenditure—yet would it,
he asked, be fair to take it as a criterion for all years to
'come ? We are now, to a great extent, in the same posi-
tion, for it was utterly impossible for the different depart-
ments of the slate to be reduced within a year or two of
the conclusion of a great war to the lowest possible point.
Ws right hon. friend, in referring to the items of building
and construction, said that no reduction could be math in
them, but he (Mr. Wilson) thought that these were the very
points upon which reduction was practicable, for when
once buildings were put up, or ships constructed, •there
was no further expense. Ou the whole, ho could not but
think that his right hon. friend the ex-Chancellor of the
Exchequer (.Ur. Gladstone) bad shown his usual fair-
ness throughout his speech, and more particularly in
insisting upon the present year's estimates as ' the only
standard for future years. He must indeed say, after
listening to his right hon. friend's speech with the greatest
attention and admiration, that he could not at that mo-
ment understand very, clearly what his real views were,
and what the fault that he found with the budget. Was
it that Government had repealed too many taxes or too
few ? (Hear.) Did he complain that Government was
about to leave the finances in a deficit, or unnecessarily to
burden the ; • role with taxation? 'These questions, he con-
ceived, were the very basis of all subsequent inquiry.
That house was not, he imagined, a debating club. It
was supposed to be practically at work to raise means for
securing by income the expenditure of the country. His
hon. and learned friend had certainly made one practical ob-
servation when he said he objected to the amount of the
estimates. That, however, was a qUestion which the House
of Commons would have to decide, and in th,atlay the inc )n-
-venience, and, as he thought, the injustice with which they
were treating the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had, in
the first instance, pressed him to produce his budget beft.re
they had decided what the expenditure should be, and
they then blamed him for asking more money than they
deemed necessary. His right hon. friend insisted that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was landing them in a deficit.
But how ? Was it by repealing the 9d. income tax? He
scarcely thought so, because that appeared to have given
universal satisfaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had added 2d. more to the income tax for the two follow-
ing years. Would that step involve a deficit? All in fact
that the sight hon. gentleman had done hadbeen with the
view of preventing a deficit. It wile urged that he ought
to have provided fora possible increase of the expenditure
I of the next two years ; but he need hardli ask them whe-
ther the house would have been disposed to'cenisent to ad-
ditional taxation. It was not fair to say that hisss
right
hon. hon. friend had done anything to render less t
the repeal of the income tax in 1860. (Hear, hear,) No
doubt the occurrence of. the war might have had the
effect of rendering its repeal more remote, and his right
hon. friend had the misfortune to be obliged to provide
in a time of peace for obligations created by Others
in a period of war. Then, his right hon. friend the mem-
ber for the University of Oxford bad referred in eloquent
language to the operation of the repeal of indirect taxes in
some of the more populous districts of the country • but
he must admit. that the consequences of such a repeal
much depend upon the state of the market when it takes
place. They might repeal duties at a time when such ree
peal would have no beneficial effect whatever on the inte-
rests of the consumer—he meant when the stock of com-
modities was low, and when the reduction of the duty
merely went to swell the profit of the producer or importer.
He believed his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had been well advised upon the subject, and
that he had taken groat pains to inform himself in what
way the markets would be affected by the duties which he
proposed ; and the course he had adopted ought to have
saved him from the imputations which his right hon. friend
who had last spoken had cast upon him in regard to the
backward movement he had made respecting these indirect
taxes. He (Mr. Wilson) believed the effect of the budget
to be that, while it provided effectually and fully for all the
income and expenditure of the year, it did nothing what-
ever to impair the prospects which Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer might have in coming years of meeting the oblige-
tfbne cast upon them. On the contrary, it would do a groat
deal to modify their difficulties, and to enable them to
meet these obligations. There were two points in the
right hem gentleman's resolution which he hoped would
• e met by a negative. The first was that they should so
o -e their income and expenditure in the present year
arrange !e against deficiencies in future years. Now,
as to proVue, snared to supply this year the deficiencies
was the house - should arise, and which was by no
of future years, if an, not, the proposition of the right
means certain. If it was ground. Again, were they
hon. gentleman must fall to le vin a condition to do
prepared to say that they were no.
more •than they were doing for the t. em rpqo securing
thought
the final extinction of the income tax in 18e. •on this sub-
,
after they had been so frequently disam ointea resolu-
ject, it would be very unwise to come to a solemn . ed
Lion to that effect at present. When Sir R. Peel relies; .
the tax iu 1845, for three years, he.clid not pledge hiceselt
absolutely to its then coming to an end, but he expressed
a hope that they would then be able to dispense with it.
But what was the result ? In the first year the Irish
famine came; in the next that famine became more severe
and extensive; and in the following year there was great ,