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

charge their duties as faithful stewards of the people ? Then,
if they were, they could not shut their eyes, or rush blindly
oyExrcehalelciyusetrooscalid
hHeiswroiguhlat
no ,n
.wfirtiheonudt
the seeing
Chancellor ho w the
neither affirm nor deny the resolution of the right hon. gentle-
man opposite, but would only say he thought that resolution
ocfouthnter
uncalled for and unnecessary. The word " deficiency" had
evidently a disagreeable effect on the house. They had been
for a number of years accustomed to a surplus, and he (Mr.
Gladstone) had begun to hope that the word " deficiency" had
passed from their vocabulary as well as from their recollection.
The right hon. gentleman deprecated the form in which the
right hon. gentleman put his resolution. He said he could
not understand the meaning of the phrase " adjusting the
income and expenditure." He said there could be no adjust-
ment in a committee of supply or in a committee of ways and
means, and that as for a select committee it would be useless,
for its labours would not terminate until the end of the session.
Why, those words, adjustment of income and expenditure,
would seem, from the observations of the right hon. gentleman,
to be written in a foreign language, though, if they were, he
would probably understand them a great deal better—(alaugh)
—but he (Mr. Gladstone) yet hoped that the significance of
those words, in the genuine mother tongue, would be yet fully
impressed on the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman opposite invited them
to take measures that, at all events, there should be no
deficiency that the country should, like an honest man,
pay its debts—cut its cloth according to its measure. Did
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
threaten them with a deficiency or did he not ? He had met
them with au answer. But what sort of answer was it ? His
right hon. friend on Friday night said something about the
balance in future years—an answer which in effect gave but
little encouragement to the House of Commons. He said his
right hon. friend who had asked the house to vote away the
taxes of that year could not possibly escape—he would fain
say should not escape -from the obligation of holding out a
reasonable prospect that we should have it in our power to
balance income with expenditure. Again, he would refer to
those proceedings which were originally his own, yet, as they
had received the sanction of the Government and of Parlia-
ment, had now become matters of record. When, in the year
1853, we entered on a course of prospective finances—when
the Government sketch d the course of our finance onwards
to the year 1860, they did not shelter—they would not have
been permitted to shelter—themselves under such doctrines
as had been set up that night by his right hon. friend. His
right hon. friend said he could estimate the receipts of future
years, but be could not estimate the expenditure. Did he
think he would advance his character as a financial minister
by the adoption of such a maxim? (A laugh.) Again, ho said
he could estimate the revenues of future years, Could he
estimate the consumption of commodities by a growing popu-
lation—the consumption of tea and sugar in future years?
He (Mr. Gladstone) did not know. Those gentlemen who had
been Chancellors of the Exchequer had had very sad experi-
ence of the task of estimating the quantity of commodities
which would be consumed in future years by the population.
Why, if it came to that, he would say that he could not esti-
mate the receipts of future years, tor,' they could only do
that by asseming the contingencies of ordinary years as their
guide for what would happen in years to come. (Cries of
" Well, well," behind Ministers.) You can ? Why, then, by
the same method they might estimate the expenditure of fu-
ture years. (Opposition cheers.) Yet his right hon. friend
said he could estimate the receipts of future years, but he
could not estimate the expenditure. It did appear to him
when his right hon. friend stood up in his place and made
that statement, that he was trifling with the house, and using
them like children. (" Oh, oh," from behind Ministers;
and loud Opposition cheers.) That, he frankly owned, was
his opinion. (Hear, hear.) What, sir, not estimate the ex-
penditure ! Not within many millions ! whether it would be
fifty millions or five, (" Oh, oh," from behind Ministers.)
You can, then, estimate whether it would be fifty millions or
five. He begged them to be patient, for they would find he
was not speaking without good reason. It might be seen
that the course of observation had been established by ex-
perience just as much in regard to expenditure as in regard
to the revenue of this country; and the expenditure of the
country, apart from the contingencies of war, did not fluctu-
ate more than, not so much, as the revenue. What, then,
did his right hon. friend ? He set down the expenditure of
the present year as amounting to 65,500,000/. ; he then made
an allegation that there would be a deficiency of 5,000,000/.
in the year 1858-9 ; he took the receipts of the year 1857-8,
and then compared the expenditure of the following year
1858-9 with the expenditure of the year 1853, which was
6,000,000/. less than this present year. (Hear, hear,) Now,
what had the right hon. gentleman shown that
would justify
him in that course ? Take it for what it was worth. Still
the house had a right to know what was the value that at-
tached to these figures, He would say they were a pure and
perfect delusion. He asked him whether he or any Minister
of the Government could compare the expenditure of .1858-9
with the expenditure of 1853 ? Did he honestly believe that
the expenditure of 1858-9 would be that of 1853 ? Did he
believe that ? No, the house might wait long for an answer.
He did not believe it; and, if they allowed the statement
made by his right hon. friend to go forth to the country, they
were practising a delusion on the country. Why, there was
a sum of 1,760,0001. which had been added to the mis-
cellaneoas estimates and services of the country since
1853. His right hon, friend knew that the great bulk
of that was in the shape of a permanent charge, and
that what of it was in the shape of temporary charges
would in all probability be succeeded by other temporary
charges to at least a like amount. Every year the expendi-
ture had been rapidly increasing. Did his right hon. friend
wish them to believe that it would be reduced by the amount
of 1,760,0001 iu 1858-9 ? If his right hon, friend saw his way
to that, then ho was not so trifling with the house, but if he
knew, as he (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that the great bulk of
that was in the shape of a permanent charge, and that ex-
penditure was steadily increasing, then he said his right lion,
frie,,d was trifling with the house. Again, if the sum of
1,760 000/. could be dispensed with in the year 1858-9, he
wanted to know why it could not also be dispensed with in
the year 1857-8 ? He did not ask hisright hon. friend to refer
the miscellaneous estimates to a select committee ; he knew
too well what that would come to. lie would not seek to
transfer to other shoulders duties undertaken by the Govern-
ment, and which they were not able adequately to perform,
but ho wished to send them back to the Government, that
they alight try their hand on them again, and if they failed,
then others might come to their relief. What he asked was,
whether his right hon. friend really believed there would be
a reduction of 1,760,0001.? He (Mr. Gladstone) believed there
were not two opinions on the subject on either side of the
house. The reference to the expenditure of 1853 was purely
illusive. The house had nothing to do with the expenditure of
1853. He wished they bad. But he believed that the house,
by vigilance and firmness, might produce an impression on
the expenditure. Bat he was not so sanguine as to believe
that they were going back to the expenditure of 1853. Ho
believed that, looking at the wants of the country, it was
more likely there would be an increase in 1858-9 on the ex-
penditure as compared with that of 1857-8. He was not going
to state his reasons for that opinion For the militia he found
400,000/. put down—a sum which, he must say, was much
below the average charge; but he believed that would
be much below the charge for future years. He found
no fault with the Government for the lowness of that
charge. The militia was embodied during the war, and he
thought it quite rational that the charge should be low the
year after the war ; but he believed it would be increased for
future years. The Persian war appeared for the sum of,
260,0001. Beyond that they only knew this, that they were
at the commencement of that war. We had already one ex-
pensive expedition in the Persian Gulf; another expedition
was ready to start for India; if he was not misinformed, we
were at present sending out expensive stores to that coun-
try ; and we had another expensive expedition approaching
Persia through Affghauistan. He remembered the Chinese
war, that it was at first put down at 150,0Q0/. The cost of
that war was recovered from China ; ho hoped that the cost
of this war might be recovered from the enemy. But this
he remembered, that the cost of that Chinese war amounted
to several millions before it came to a c'ose. Of China now
the house had heard nothing. They knew that they were at
war in that quarter, that destructive services were going on,
and that the Government were sending out men. But his
right hon friend said he was still pressed with the war con-
tracts. Ho would ask him how he stood for stores and ma-
terials He knew that every department was bursting with
stores and materials, and the Government knew not where to
lay out money. But then we were going on with a war, and
the expenditure on that head would increase. As to the-
coastguard the figures a ere not very clear ; but, as far as he
could understand them, there had been an increase of from
70,0001. to 80,000/, compared with what had been the usual
cost. But, then, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated
that the expense of that service would only come on gradu-
ally, that at first it would be light, and that at last there
would be a considerable increase. There, then, it seemed
they had another source of increased expenditure. His
right hon. friend rather estimated the receipts for future
years under the head of miscellaneous receipts at an extraor-
dinary amount. The average amount from that sour,
in the years ending with 1854 was 790,000/., but his
right hon. friend took them at 1,200.000/. for the present
year, and 1,400,000/. for the year following. How that
would happen he did not know. He rather feared a decline
iu these receipts next year as compared with the receipts of
this year. He wished the house to take into consideration
that the miscellaneous estimates were in a course of rapid
growth, notwithstanding all the transfers which had been
made from that head to others ; for, in the memory of many
who were now present, they had increased from 2,000,0001. to
6,003,000/. Since the year 1853, notwithstanding what had
been transferred to other heads, they bad increased a sum of
1,750,000/. What probability, then, was there of a diminu-
tion for future years ? That increase is due, I fear, partly to
the extravagance of the house ; but it was due, also, to the
necessity of meeting the advancing demands of society, and
the house might now look for a steady increase. If they were
to look at that matter honestly, let them take it as a matter of
account, and bring the receipts and expenditure into a state
of adjustment; and then, looking at the increasing wants of
the public, whether, with the extravagance of the house, they
were not more likely to entail an increase than a diminution
•
of expenditure. He would grant there were some small ser.
vices on which there might be a gain. He believed that in
the military department there were some small heaxls of ex-
pense where, without any vigorous attempts at diminution,
they might expect to attain to it. He was not disputing that
they must expect to see an increase upon expenditure ; yet he
must say that, although expenditure had increased
before, it
had greatly increased of late years from that kind of legislation
which, he would not say threw contempt on the house, but

sue if I misconstrue the words—that we are to adjust the
estimated income and expenditure of the years 1838-9 and
1859-60 in the manner which shall appear best calculated to
secure the country against the risk of a deficiency in those
years. I will assume that that is the meaning of his reso-
lution.
Mr. DISRAELI—I beg to say that that is not its
meaning.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Perhaps
the right hon. gentleman will explain what he dons mean ?
Mr. DISRAELI— I thought the wording of the reso-
lution was extremely clear, When I ask the house to
resolve that it would be expedient, before sanctioning the
financial arrangements for the ensuing year, to adjust the
estimated income and expenditure, I do not refer to the
estimated income and expenditure of the years 18584 and
1859-60, but allude particularly to the estimated income
and expenditure of the present year. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Then
what the right hon. gentleman proposes i., that we should
adjust the estimated income and expenditure of the pre-
sent year in such a manner as should appear best calcu-
lated to secure the country against the risk of a deficiency
in the two following years. I confess I had some difficulty
as to the construction of the terms of his resolution, but I
was rather desirous of saving his logic at the expense of
his grammar. The right hon. gentleman, on the other
hand, appears to wish to sacrifice his logic and save his
grammar ; for by what process of adjustment of the income
and expenditure of the current year we are to guard the
country against the risk of a deficiency in the two follow-
ing years lamat a loss to imagine. The right hon. gen-
tleman is perfectly aware—he stated, indeed, in the course
of his speech—that by lew the commissioners of the
national debt are hound to apply to the reduction of the
debt the surplus of each separate year; and therefore if
there were a sureAus in the present yell- it could not be
handed over te, supply the deficiency of subsequent years,
but must be exhausted within the current year. But,
assuming an adjustment of the estimated income and ex-
pentlit-are of the ensuing year to be expedient, how is it
to be, carried out? Ido not think that a discussion such
as that of to-night is likely to have a ver. adjusting effect.
(A laugh.) The house itself cannot undertake the ad-
justment of the income and expenditure, and if that duty
is to be performed in a workmen-like and. efficient manner
the right honourable gentleman must .move the appoint-
ment of a select committee. There must be an ad-
j ustineet committee." I presume the first step would
be to refer the army and navy estimates ; the civil
service estieaeiess would follow, and so the process of ad-
justment IliPl-p.roceed through all the items of income
and expen ks. Judging from the progress which for-
mer coneinittees have made with similar inquiries, I think
I might venture to predict with considerable confidence
that the report of the adjustment committee would not be
presented much before the end of the session. The last
committee upon the estimates sat two or three sessions;
but, living the new committee credit for extraordinary
dlligence, industry, and research, I think we could hardly
'expect their report before the end of the session. Even
then, however, the process of adjustment would not be
completed, because the house itself would have to consider
and, if possible, agree to the report, and all this before
the financial arrangements for the ensuing year are sane-
Honed. Meanwhile, what would happen to the income
tax? By law the war income tax is continued for another
year. Unless some Act of Parliament to the contrary be
passed by the Legislature before the Ist of April next, the
collection of the tax must continue. Well, then, while
the right hon. gentleman's committee was adjusting taxa-
tion the taxpayer would be paying his war ninepence up
to the end of the present session, and thus the process
which is suggested for the relief of! the taxpayer would be
Bound a principal means of aggravating the burden of the
taxpayer. I trust then that, upon a consideration of ihis
resolution and of the effect it would have as regards either
the adjustment of income and expenditure or the question
of the extinction of the income tax, the house will see that
no practical benefit can result from its adoption, and that
it will agree to the motion which I had the honour of mak-
ing that the Speaker do leave the chair, and that we enter
at once upon a consideration of the resolutions relating to
the income tax and the tea and sugar duties, and that we
commence at once a revision of the taxation of the country
in reference to its altered position by a transition from war
to peace. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman having resumed his seat, a
sliglat pause ensued, during which cries of " Divide !"
and " Question !" were heard.
rhe SPEAKER having read the resolution,
Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said—Sir, I have been under
the belief that the question raised by the budget of her Ma-
jesty's Government would excite very great interest in this
house. lam still impressed with that belief, but perhaps the
reluctance of hon. members to address the house may be in.
tended to convey to me that they have a right to hear my
sentiments upon this question. There is no man in this
house who is so deeply concerned in the question which is
now raised as myself. I have stood at that table and have
addressed the House of Commons, and I have received, on the
part of the Government to which I belonged, the assent of the
House of Commons to financial plans which are in every point
contradictory to those which are now proposed. (Hear.) How
is it that hon. gentlemen still sitting on those (the Treasury)
benches find a facility for giving assent to contradictory pro
positions it is not for me to say, but of this I feel convinced,
that if I may assume to exist in the House of Commons the
same feelings which existed four years ago—l do not mean as
to questions which were the subject of party contentions, but
as to the duty of balancing income and expenditure—if we
respect the express pledges which were given to the country
on the subject of the income tax—if this house which I now
address be the same house which then accepted the proposi-
tions of the Government when we held out certain expecta-
tions to the people of England, when with those expectations
we imposed the income tax upon the people of Ireland, when
We obtained an opportunity for the settlement of many diffi-
cult and thorny questions on account of the expectations so
held out—(hear)—if this be the same House of Commons still
governed by the same motives, still sensible of the same obli-
gations, then !I feel a great confidence in the vote which this
house will give upon the present occasion. (Hear.) Ify right
hon. friend who has just sat down has, I am bound to say,
in the speech he has delivered, entirely, candidly, ingenuously
corresponded with the description I have given of his
financial plan. Everything for which we have been labour-
ing during the last fifteen years is, I do not say destroyed,
because the destruction of the results of 15 years' labour is
not the work of a single day—but everything in regard to
finance for which we have been labouring during the last 15
years is in principle condemned alike by the speech as by
the plans of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Why, sir, for several years before 1841 it was the
misfortune of this country that there arose a series of defi-
ciencies in the revenue. We recollect what it cost us to re-
pair those deficiencies. We thought that from that time the
principle had been established that it was the first duty of the
House of Commons to provide a revenue adequate to meet the
demands of the public service. (Hear, hear.) ;We will see,
by and by, what are the views of my right hon. friend upon
the subject of the balance of income and expenditure. We
thought we had been simplifying and consolidating our finan-
cial laws. Upon three separate occasions—in 1842, again in
1845, and in 1853—with the general assent of Parliament--
for it was no party question—great efforts have been made by
successive Governments to cousolidate our financial laws, and
we removed from our customs' tariff more hundreds of articles
than I dare venture to mention. By that means we set a
great portion of our trade entirely free, which I believe has
been the main cause of its subsequent vast expansion. (Hear,
hear.) But what stys the Chancellor of the Exchequer ?
Does he approve that simplification ? No ; but he has done
ties—he has disinterre told Arthur Young—(a laugh)—he has
brought Arthur Young before us, and Arthur Young says that
to load an infinity of articles with taxes infinitely small is the
perfection of finance. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That, how-
ever, is a total condemnation of thelabours of Parliament during
he last 15 years. (Hear, hear.) In 1853 this house gave its
solemn assent to this principle—that the income tax, while it
continued at all, should be continued for opecial purposes—
(hear, hear)—namely, for the purpose of introducing
great improvements into our financial system—of re-
lieving the mass of the people from heavy burdens.
Therefore, although the tax in itself was grievous, inquisi-
torial, unequal, a tax which it was desirable to get rid of, yet
Parliament agreed to tolerate it for a further time, but onl
for that one purpose—(hear)—which mitigated the recol-
lection of the hardship of the tax by associating with it a re-
collection still more pungent of the blessings to be
wrought
out for the mass of the people through its instrumentality
(Hear, hear.) What has become of that principle in the
hands of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ? With what beneficial change does he propose to
associate the coutinuance of the income tax? (Hear.) my
right hon, friend has not avoided the subject. His candour
and ingenuousness forbade him to avoid it. He scorned to
escape it—he discussed the subject of indirect taxation—he
knew there were three matters respecting which much feeling
prevails in the country as to the expediency of the existing
law. The right hon. gentleman knew there was the tax on
Raper, which it is urged is not only a heavy burden upon
literature, not only a burden upon the manufacturers, but a
restraint upon the extension of rural labour, to which the
manufacture is so well adapted, (Hear, hear.) He took the
tax upon insurances, which is a scandal to England. (Hear.)
lie took alsu the tax on wine, which he knows to be the
greatest impediment to our enlarged intercourse with France ;
and hoW did the right hon. gentleman deal with those sub-
je_t,i flow does he propose to associate the continuance of
the "(Ana tax with the iecol'ection of a benefit conferred ?
Ho said that the duty on paper was not a bad duty, that the
tax uPon'insurances was a good one, and as to the duties on
wine he would discuss them another day. (" Hear, hear,"
and a laugh.) ask, then,
whether I use the language of
exaggeration, or the]
right honourable frienar4go of truth, when I state that my
he completely in his speech thrown
overboard, condemned, repudiated as far as the act of
one year can go—principles osft finance which were intro.
diced amid difficulties end
extensively applied when the
generllarty
niggles, which were first
opposite was iu power,
and applied with the
asrperoval of that party,
as well as of the party os thriigs
sae thef house. With
respect to all those things my ht friend —I will not
hapraevet:ascechrist,anfodr as yet
say destroys all the benefits which
he has only had one opportunity to
he
• has done pretty well, and I am certain that if the Cha!nbeeultl
who may succeed him should follow his ex-
ample, or
the Exchequer
ample, or if he himself continue:3,4x labour inalis vocat*
as he promises to do i this, loa
sedulously in future yea as
those labours should obtain the sanction of the IluousfaCnottruif.
mons, at the cud of the next 15 years you evil]. find but few
relics of the great efforts and gi eel achievements of the last 15
• years. (Hear.) To pass from the speech to the Budget I
am sorrio find that, owing to what circumstances
th cannot
tell, it '
'urlifilaide the means of propagating ioughout
the mild axl pixies of impressions as to matters of fact which
are tottainn )undedf lam quite sure it 'was not the inten-
tieu Of the bou gentleman to produce any such effect,
but I am quiteas certain that such effects have been produced,
-,and that the'production-of them is owing to the inadvertent
• use he has made of
sion in the country figlee
ures in his statement. The impres-
s. that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had tak en 0ff11,970"/. of taxes,
slim 9,120,000/. was on,' account of income tax, leavi,g
and that of this
a eurplus of 980,000/Oat that the right -hon. gentleman had
held out no hopeincome tax would be taken off in
1850. He believed that this was the exact impression which
the right hon. gentleman's explanation of the budget had pro-
pagated. The country believed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was about to repeal 11,900,0001. of taxes, and
that be would still leave a surplus of 980,000/. If this foun-
d ttion were cut away from the right hon. gentleman, the
whole merits of his plans were cut away with it
Bet this
large remission of 11,970,000 did not depend upon the
Chancellor of the Exchequer or upon the House of Commons,
hat sum consisted of taxes which were granted for the par.

poses of war and for the tine of th) war. The taxes upon
property and income, tea, coffee, and sugar, would lapse by
Act of Parliament. These taxes, making 4,470,0001., were
dependent upon Acts of Parliament, the repeal of which was
net due to the grace and favour of the Parliament of this
session, but which expired by virtue of the construction of
the Acts of Parliament under which they were levied. This
'sum of 4,470,000/. made a considerable hole in the right hon.
gentleman's remission of 11,970,0001. It was believed by
the country and by the House of Commons that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was going to grant a remission of
9,000,000. of income tax applicable to the year 1857-58, and
that there would be a surplus of 900,0001. The house had
heard a good deal of criticism, if not cavil, that night from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the practicability of
balancing Income and expenditure, It was certainly a con-
venient course to leave future years to destitution, and,
When called for an account, to say that it was impossible to
balance income and expenditure. He contended that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to give away
4,600,000/. of income tax for the year 1857-58. The gift for
1858 59 would be 9,120,000/., and it was on the score of that
liberality in respect of 1858-59 that the right honourable
gentleman would now be called to account. (Hear,
hear) The right honourable gentleman proposed to remit
half the ninepenny income tax for the present year, and the
whole ninepence in the next year, but in fact deducting
1,460,0001. on account of tea and sugar, he would really only
remit 3,184,000/. The total amount of remission which they
would therefore enjoy under the plan of the Government
would be 7,654,0001., and the total amount of remission it
invited this house to enact, and which would take effect partly
in this year and partly in the next, would be 7,224,000/. ; but
the total remission to be enjoyed in 1857-58 was 3,184,000/.
Under these circumstances ho (Mr. Gladstone) thought he was
justified in the statements he had made, that a most exten-
sive misapprehension of the facts had gone abroad throughout
the country. If it were true that we were about to surrender
9,000,0001. of income tax, and if it were also true that while
they made this surrender for their own benefit, they were
going to keep their hands off from the tea and sugar of the
poor, he ventured to say the opposition to the budget of the
Government would have been of a very light and airy charac-
ter. (Hear.) But he would not admit the surplus of 900,0001 ,
whieh had been referred to by his right hon. friend, when
he recollected that they had two wars proceeding in the East,
and that the right lion. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) had not yet called upon the house to vote, nor told
them what they would have to vote to the extent of one farthing
for the China war either in 1857 or 1858, while in respect to the
Persian war his right hon. friend confined himself to the con-
venient course of keeping, at least, a year in arrear of the
charge. (Hear.) If the House of Commons had any regard
for its constitutional duties it would never allow the Persian
war to be conducted en such a principle. (Hear.) He, for
one, gave notice that he did not understand it to be his func-
tion, as a representative of the English people, to come there
and allow wars to be begun and carried on by the Govern
ment while the discussion of such wars was to be escaped by
no estimate of their charge was to be sub-
mitted until they were brought to a close. (Hear, hear.) But
if hon members were not to conform to such an estimate of
their duties, it was plain they would have to invite or to
urge, or, if that had not the required effect, to endeavour to
coerce the Government into submitting an estimate of the
probable charges of the Persian war, so that they might exa-
mine them before the fact, and not after it. That being the
case, so far from thinking that 900,000/, surplus was a sum
immodest for the right hon. gentleman to ask, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) thought it was au extremely narrow sum for the pur-
pose ; but he could not regard it as a surplus bona fide fa-.
vourable. He saw plainly they had two wars going on, and
that it was incumbent on them to assume the whole charge
of one and the half of the other. He, therefore, contended
that 11,930,000/, of taxes were not repealed, that 9,000,0001.
income tax were not remitted by the proposals of the right
hon. gentleman—(hear)--and that a surplus of 900,0001, did
not remain under them. So much for the description of the
budget of the Government, and of the remissions it proposed
to effect. The right hon. gentleman the member for Buck-
inghamshire spoke of the difficulties attendant upon pro-
spective finance, and no doubt they were serious. With
regard, however, to his (Mr. Gladstone's) plan of 1853,
he felt it was justified and required by the circumstances
wader which it was proposed. At any rate, as it was
proposed by the Government and accepted by Parlia-
ment ; and especially as it was accepted by the very Par-
liament 'in which they were now discussing the budget
of 1857 it was a great deal too late to say they had no means
of estimating the expenditure of the future. His right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the Parlia-
ment of 1853, and probably in his remarks he did not consi-
der the severity of the censure he was bestowing upon his
colleagues ; he did not recollect that in 1853 the Government
did pretend to form an estimate of the revenue of future
years. (Hear, hear.) What they ought to do was to inquire
whether the proceedings of the Government were reasonable;
and if reasonable, they were bound to abide by them, or to
show why and how far they were justified in departing from
them. One word with regard to what followed the proceed.
ings of 1853. Had he (Mr. Gladstone) been capable, for the
sake of some temporary advantage, of coining down to the
house and making demands at the cost of future years, he
should have been the veriest charlatan and the basest swindler
who ever stood at the table, for ho thought there was no
more solemn obligation than that under which a Finance
Minister stood to the people of England. (Hear, hear.) So
far as experience had thrown a light upon his plans, there was
every reason to believe that the expectations held out would
have been more than realised. In April, 1853, a probable
surplus over the expenditure was shown, amounting to about
500,000/., and at the close of that year there was a surplus
of 3,000,000/. In contemplating the expenditure of 1854 he
(Mr. Gladstone) was able to say that had it not been for the
war the Government would have confidently calculated upon
a surplus of nearly 2,000,000/. ; and he had no reason to
doubt, as far as the ordinary circumstances of the country
would have influenced the revenue and ex; enditure, that
the expectations held out would have been fully realised,
(Hear, hear.) The duty of the house was to inquire can-
didly and dispassionately into the intervening circumstances
--as to the amount of difficulty which they had laid upon
the Government—and then to consider whether that diffi-
culty was or was not sufficient to absolve them from the
pledge they had given to the people of England. (Hear,
hear.) He contended that the circumstances which had inter-
vened would not suffice to absolve them from their pledges,
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend stated an item, as it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Gladstone), rather inaccurately; for he
said they had not only incurred a new charge for debt, but
had likewise abandoned a good deal of revenue since 1853.
The right hon. gentleman gave the sum of 760,0001. taxation
abandoned since that year, which he afterwards, on sugges-
tion, reduced to 475,0001., but still contended they were
worsened since 1853, not only by the debt created, but by
475,000/. permanent debt. Ho must say that he reversed
the statement of his right lion, friend, who appeared altoge-
ther to have forgotten the spirit dues. (Hear, hear.) The
right lion, gentleman himself told them the spirit dues brought
in 1,500,0001. a-year. Out of that sum 460,0001. was levied
ia 1853, and the consequence was that 1,640,0001. of new re-
venue had been created since. Therefore, deducting the sum
abandoned, he found an absolute balance in excess of the
permanent revenue imposed, since 1853, of about 600,0001.
a-year, and that applied to the additional charge left the
real increase of the permanent burden at 650,0001. a-year.
That alteration was brought about since 1853, and it repre-
sented what might he called the permanent financial loss of
the country in consequence of taxing and borrowing in con-
nection with the war. He thought it must be plain to the
house that it was not an item of such magnitude as wenn en-
able them to escape from the promises they had given and
the expectations they had held out to the people in 1853,
and by which promises and expectations they had raised their
own political credit and prosperity at the moment, and like-
wise added to the stability of the finances of the country
during the war, (Hear, hear.) As the person upon whom,
more than upon any other, the weight of the promises given
in that year might b.) said to rest, he (Mr. Gladstone) must
say that the charges incurred did not, in his opinion, absolve
him in honour or in conscience from the duty of straining
every nerve still to maintain these promises, and fulfil them to
the satisfaction of the people, He now came to the question
*inflected with the essential merits of the budget.
In his opinion there were in the beget four fatal
flaws flaws and faults which ho felt bound to say
nothing could induce him to tolerate. That objection was
based upon the existing expenditure, lie subscribed to what
had been said by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire on the subject of our military expenditure.
Ho deprecated any rash proceeding—any wholesale proceed-
ings—but he agreed with the right hon. gentleman in ex-
pressing a conviction that much reduction could be effected
safely and prudently, and yet the establishments remain in a
state of perfect efficiency. The right hon. gentleman had,
however, expressed his opinion so fully that he had no de-
sire to add to what he said. In the royal speech, delivered
on the 3d of February, Parliament was assured that the esti-
mates were framed with a due regard to economy. His opi-
nion of estimates was, that they ought to be drawn accord-
ing to the judgment and conscience of the Government, and
not according to any pressure or inconvenience which, from
political circumstances, they might anticipate. He took this
the earliest opportunity of saying that when it was proposed
the Speaker should leave the chair to go into committee of
supply, it was his intention to propose a motion 'to tnis pur-
pose ; that in order to secure to the country that relief from
taxation which it wasjustificd in expecting, it would bo ne-
cessary, in the judgment of the house, to revise, and further
to reduce, the expenditure of the country. Ho claimed no
authority in matters of finance, but he claimed such atten-
tion as an earnest ap, lication of his mind and a conscientious
judgment upon this subject could entitle him to. Ho must
say that he had never known a time when the financial pro-
spects of the country were so mixed up as they then were
ca withuti
ePolitical
hpai
;toes
opi affairs and pledges of the Administration—nor
,tiicedefoirtswuecich choensaidemraeteitonasrodumeaueny,dasiffik,-
Ideuvreinegeethaeundexext
pfievnediturethe n
years, to preserve
eo
balance Commons, between
h
Was e
asked, aware of the mode and of the rate at which pendditeutureilsh.adobn•
a future
.engeowin lie would our ex-
not now enter into
any
occasion it would be his duty to do
thofe C had ful-
so, and to consider whether the Government
filled its special obligations of
Controlling
expendi-
ture of the country, and of checking the House
when it showed an undue disposition to
expenditure. He
s
would, however, call their attention to a few facts.
From
1842 to 1853, in these 12 years,
which were years of im-
provement and social deyeloprnent—such was the expendi-
ture of the country, that there was no increase—at least an
increase of a sum very trivial, In 1853 the expenditure was
greater than in 1842 by only 234,00/. ; and he believed in
1853, which was not au inactive year, the expenditure was
less than in 1842. Since 1842 a change had passed over the
spirit of our dream—a change in the temper of the Govern-
ment—in the temper of the departments—in the temper of
the House of Commons and of the country. Do not let
them seek to shift the blame from their own shoulders, He

something far from flattery. Considering the prospects held
out to them for the year 1858-9 by his right hon. friend, and
the certainty of a deficiency accruing for that year, he for one
would not be responsible for it. He was astonished that a
Government, which had been associated with many beneficial
measures, should now be so negligent as to sanction a state-
ment which departed so far from the first principles of finance.
He must lay, shortly, before the house the prospects then
before them. In the years 1858-9 the estimated income was
66,365,000/. The house would recollect his right hon. friend
had suggested the project of a sinking fund. Many
members of the house objected to that arrangement. They
told him that if peace came he would find that people did not
,
like the sinking fund; they would make suggestions for its
alteration, they wo old
question its expediency, they would
find a way to throw it over or to evade it. That prophecy
was laughed at by his right hon. friend at that time, but it
had been fulfilled. Those persons bad made their appear-
ance, but he (Mr. Gladstone) scarcely expected to find them
with his right hon. friend as their standard bearer. (Cheers.)
Ho would not listen to their prayers—who laughed at their
forebodings—who ridiculed their prophecies, now came for-
ward and said he thought it a very legitimate proposal to ap-
propriate this sinking fund for the next three years. (Hear,
hear.)

believed it was the natural and the necessary result of war.
If they were governed by pure reason, no doubt the argu-
ment would be that when a larger expenditure than usual
was needed for the purposes of war, they ought to be more
economical in other respects. But instead of this, practi-
cally the case was just the reverse. In time of war, we
contracted the ha its of extravagance. (Hear, hear.) War
of necessity implied reckless expenditure. It was useless to
complain, for it was in vain to attempt to control this ex-
penditure—nothing worth naming could be done. But not
stewards
cornelyastehae warbut the civil expenditure of the country was in-
-the temper of the House of Commons was infected
by that expenditure, and they saw the i esult from 1842
that notwithstaud'
to 1853 ; in t
duty as
e. But, 'whath
the latter year they discharged their first
to the people of England, and showed
greater than in
was not'ug the increase of population the ex-
penditureforlB42-12 years be-
at the estimates for oa!lted them, was the case now ? Look
diture of 1853; in 12 6.7' as compared with the expen-
-in the four years froyears the growth was only 234,000/.
7,000,0001. To be surt"e 1853 to 1857 it was no less than
the expenses of collectinsouitthing must be said for ow included; but still, after revenue, which were
there was au increase of 6090,411kiing this deduction,
expenses of the country; 3,600,0,;‘,.t0 the permanent
ue/ bik the • •
estimates, 1,750,000/. civil service., and about military
defraying the additional charges of the public • 750,0001. for
debt N
that was, he submitted, a state of things calculated .
to ow
rise to the most serious reflections. He believed thisst .give
went vioold be new to the country ;the public rabid
haaante-
ot
yet ea i • lised the fact to itself. Without speaking of the addition
of expenditure by war, there was au enormously increased ex- 1.
pencliture in the last four years. Were they prepared to die. ) :

Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—What I pro-
posed was the postponement of the commencement of it by
three years. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said he felt anything rather than dis-
satisfied with the explanation as far as the purpose of his
argument was concerned. He (Ur. Gladstone) had thought
before that his right hon. friend really did propose to pay
something, but now it seemed he was disposed to pay nothing
—(hear, hear, and laughter)—but leave it to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer three years hence to commence it. He (Mr.
Gladstone) thought he knew what that proposal meant. In
1855 there was a patriotic Government that would not under-
take to pay, but proposed a postponement. They had
aycon-
tracted an obligation which they never acknowledged, and
then they postponed their obligation for tliree years, It was
needless to anticipate what would be the rZsult of such a pro-
position, Fl ing, then, an income, in 1858-9, pr 66,365,0004,

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURMAY EVENING; FEBRUARY 21, lgsl.

he was going, in 1859, to abandon a sum of £5,300,000. He
would still have 61,600,000/4 and, according to the last ar-
rangement, his expenditure would be 66,724,000/. It was quite
true they might have adverse or prosperous harvests—they
might have favourable or unfavourable turns in their wars
with Persia and China ; but they had no right to expect
to be able to fill up that deficiency, The proposal of his
right hon. friend would leave them in the year 1860 with a
deficiency of about 5,000,0001. sterling. He (Mr. Gladstone)
must go on further • ' because his right bon, friend did not
abandon the income tax. He claimed credit with those who
wished to see the termination of the income tax, which he
(Mr. Gladstone) wished to see—(cheers)—and did not com-
mit themselves as he (Mr. Gladstone) did to their desire to
realise such a state of expenditure and income as should bring
about such a result. But he had added to the income tax—
he had lessened greatly the probability of its termination.
For a long period after the institution of the tax it was in.
creased at the uniform rate of 7d., and the country was at
last convinced that 7d. was a rate of perpetuity, when, in
1848, the right hon. baronet the present First Lord of the
Admiralty said that the 7d. must be perpetuate& (Sir C
Wood expressed his dissent.) He (Mr. Gladstone) begged
his pardon ; he thought it was se. (Hear, hear.) Well,
then, in 1853 what did they do? They wanted to show to
the country that Parliament had resolved that the income
tax should lose its permanent character, and they invited
Parliament to fix its legislative decline. By the act then
passed, the tax was to be reduced from 6d. to 5d., and in
1860 it was to cease altogether. (Cheers.) Without fettering
the judgment of the house, the Government of that day were
labouring to bring the relation of income and expenditure
into such a condition that Parliament might at that period
put an end to the income tax. His right hon. friend bad ex.
actly cancelled the vote of the temporary character of the in-
Come tax, doing all that lay in his power to make the tax
permanent. Whilst his right hon. friend thus marked it as a
permanent tax, he did not offer to reconstruct it. Unlike the
Government of 1853, be had done what he could do to saddle
the tax upon the people of this country for ever, (Cheers )
His right hon. friend had shown them what he thought
with regard to the prospect of the termination of the
income tax, but ho (Mr. Gladstone) would state what his
opinion was upon this point. The Government of 1853
laid their ftnancial scheme before Parliament, not with a
view to its being an arbitrary imposition of taxes, but as
proceeding from an actual income and expenditure, and
ethaenses being made by the law, and
house such a state of things in
thetoh
income tax to cease. The result
thentl hBe6yl reliedas uponw o
exhibitingu uponldenable certain
was a balance of income over expenditure. His right hon.
friend said there was nothing to prejudice the termination of
the tax—that in 1859-60 the changes proposed were not very
important, nor were they in 1360-61; but he had a deficiency
to start with of five millions and a half. He would lose then
1,000,000/. upon Exchequer Bonds and 2,460,000/. upon in-
come tax. There would be a further loss of between 500,000/.
and 600,000/. oa tea and sugar. In fact, his whole loss at
ttat time would amount to 4,600,000/. The gain at same
period would be 3.460,000/., and his right hon. friend would
tnea be arming only 1000,0007_ to his former deficiency—a
trifling sum, with which he (Mr. Gladstone) owned he need
not concern himself—making his whole deficiency a sum of
6,400,000/. In the following year the right hon. gentleman
would lose one-half of his income tax, amounting to three
millions and a half, and he had no gain to state against it.
Therefore in the year 1861 the account would stand thus :
the deficiency of 5,500,000/, in the year 1857.8 would be in-
creased in 1860 to 6,400,0001, and in 1861 he would lose
3,500,000/. more, making his whole deficiency a sum of
about 8,600,000/., or very nearly that which was known as
the war niuepence.
After this it was for the house to con-
sider whether he was right in his belief that the real question
raised to-night was whether all the pledges given and held
out in 1853 were to be cast to the winds—(hear, hear)—and,
secondly, whether, by a course of improvident expenditure
and reckless finance, they were to charge the country in the
meantime with a growing deficiency ; and whether it would
not be absolutely necessary permanently to embody an income
tax, uniformly raised, into our system of finance, in order to
pay the public creditor, and preserve the solvency of the
national treasury. (Cheers.) There was one other subject
to which he (Mr. Gladstone) was compelled to allude to-night,
and he was sorry to say it was one of the most painful parts
of the whole subject to him. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
It appeared to be not so important to some gentlemen who
sat behind the Ministerial benches. (Cheers.) The subject to
which he alluded was that of indirect taxation. He had
spoken of the speech of his right hon. friend as having been
most unhappily calculated to convey untrue impressions to
the country with respect to the removal of the income-tax—
(hear)—and not only with regard to that, but to the fatal
deficiency that was likely to take place in the public revenue,
and he had to express his regret that that speech conveyed
untrue expressions as regarded the important subject of in-
direct taxation. It was the first time in his recollection that
he had heard proposals made from the Treasury beech of the
nature he had listened to. He would go back to three Chan-
cellors of the Exchequer, Ho would go back to Sir R. Peel
and to the right hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring.)
Every one of them, however different their politics might be,
had given one and the same account of the beneficial effects
which had been produced by the remission of indirect taxes,
and though the right hon. member for Portsmouth had been
compelled, by the pressure of circumstances, to make an in-
crease in the indirect taxes, he had done so no doubt with
reluctance, and remembered it no doubt with regret. Sir
R. Peel came into power, and, backed by an overwhelming
majority and the popular feeling, he destroyed prohibition,
he liberated trade, and reduceduties, and was not versed
in the philosophy of Arthur Young. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth, although
he had, as he (Mr. Gladstone) had before stated,.in some case
increased the indirect taxes, in no case increased them on
articles of consumption. The right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire, when leader of the House
of Commons, and representative of Lord Derby's Govern-
ment, and possessing the full confidence of those behind
him, bore testimony to the immense advantage of the re•
mission of indirect taxation, Without going further, then,
and passing over the next link, they found the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer adopting a different strain,
and already in his place in the house questioning the effi-
ciency and the propriety of the work, Well, then, what had
been the effect of the operation of that house with respect to
the remission of these taxes ? He held in his h and a paper
so remarkable that every man who loved truth or humanity,
and was desirous .that his fellow creatures should enjoy all
those benefits which it was iu the power of a good Govern-
ment to bestow, would not hesitate to yield their judgment
and their heart to results so extraordinary. It appeared,
then, that from 1842 to 1846 the British Parliament had,
when a Conservative Government was in office, remittedtaxes
to the amount of 8,050,0007. From the year,lB47 to the year
1851, when his noble friend the member for the City of Lon-
don was in office, the taxes remitted amounted to 5,310,000/. ;
and from 1851 to 1854 they amounted to 4,655,000/. ; mak-
ing the total of taxes thus remitted 21,985,000/. Tne next
taxation imposed within the same period amounted to
7,500,000/., leaving 14,485,000/. net remission of taxes.
And the great bulk of the gain, what was it ? It was so mach
addition to the comforts, and so much deduction from the
privations, of humanity. (Cheers.) During the same period,
whilst the taxes had decreased by seven millions, the revenue
had increased by the same sum, for in 1842, the first year of
that period, the revenue was 46,965,000/., whilst in 1853 it
was 54,430,000/. It tle.refere was not too much to say that
the remission of 22,000,000/. of taxation had not cost the
country a single 'farthing. If, then, that was the effect of
that blessed work, what was he to say of him who began the
undoing of it. (Hear, hear.) What was the right hon.
gentleman going to do I So far as they could judge from his
statement on Friday last, it would appear that his innocent
and harmless budget was going to remit, rather than increase,
the taxes upon tea and sugar. The case stood thus—the war
tax upon tea upon the sth of next April, would, as the law
now stood, fall from Is. 9d. to ls. 3d. His right honourable
friend proposed to raise it again to ls. 7d., and then he took
credit to himself for a reduction in that duty of 20, Now,
it appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that so far from
there being a reduction of 2d,, there was an actual
054,000/. The ls. per cwt, upon sugar
increase of 4d., and the effect would be an advance in the year
t hon. gentleman being calculated as
plBr
05p70- 8e
e,
du p
by
yn t
thee a o
glh,
upon 7,250,000 cwt., gave 362,0001., which, being added to
the tea duties, gavea result of 1,416,0007., which hisright hon.
friend proposed to extract from the consumers of tea and sugar
in this kingdom during the ensuing year. ; and that sum was to
be increased in the year 1858-9 to 2,000,000/, He (Mr. Glad.
stone) believed it to be the pride of the Liberal party of this
country to assist in the remission of indirect taxes, (Hear.) He
trusted that they would, in the present instance, adhere to that
their pride ; and, with regard to the house generally, he would
beg them to consider well the position in which they were
the income-tax themselves
placed. He remembered well when Sir R. Peel, after having
stated the deficiency iu the revenue, turned round to his party,
and having announced his intention to take off 140,0001. of in-
adni rsewc
et
rteadx. e
hheer
eappealed
te oc
objections
ms
toto
saddle
income tax to meet the deficieeeY, and that appeal was nobly
rae_taxupowin
other
hhaenr
grounds, and the Parliament of 1841, to a man, stood firm, and
took upon themselves and the wealthier classes between
5,000,000/. and 6,000,000/. of taxation, in order to lighten the
burdens of the less wealthy classes, besides 1,400,000/. of indi-
rect taxes. The house was then called upon to
admit 1,400,009/,
of indirect taxes; they were called upon now to impose them. ,
They were then called upon to take new burdens upon them-
selves, in order to relieve the great masses of the country; they
were now called upon to take the burdens off the shoulders of
the wealthier classes in orderehat they might put in tirect taxes
upon the tea and sugar ccnsumed by every labouring family in
the kingdom. He (Mr. Gladstone) could only say, for his part,
that he entertained the most decided opinion on this question,
and nothing should prevent him from giving every constitu-
tional opposition to the carrying out of the financial scheme
now proposed ; and, before the Speaker left the chair, he
should call upon the house not to impose more duties
upon tea and sugar. With regard to the bearing of his opi-
nion upon the motion then before the house, he said, if they
were to have additional taxes upon tea and sugar, that was a
prima facie case that they were to have a deficiency. He
frankly said that this motion of the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) appeared to him to be in conformity with the
declaration he made en the first night of the session, and that
motion afforded to him (Mr. Gladstone) a practical mode of
doing good to the public. He maintained that the proposals
of the Government showed clearly a course of increasing de-
ficiency—a deficiency unparalleled in anything ho could re.
member in public life for 25 years. It was the first duty of
the House of Commons to say that they will have no de-
ficiency, and when they had once said that their way would
be clear. Upon a former night he (Mr. Gladstone) ventured
to lament the extreme deadue.ss of the public mind on the
subject of expenditure, and to express his opinion of the
largeness our expenditure was assuming ; and he said now,
if this motion should be lost, he should be driven to make a
motion upon expenditure. That was one of his motives for
supporting the motion of the right hon. gentleman. The other
motive was that he thought it was entirely in support of
those pledges a,
•-•Y which he thought himself bound, and by
which he also thought those gentlemen who sat on the Go-
vernment benches were bound. He felt it to be perfectly
practicable by a wise economy, and by an appeal Co tie good
sense of the Commons of England, to reduce- taxation, and to
enable them to maintain a surplus income, and give that
largo relief in 1860, which, as far as was in their power, they
premised to give in 1853, He might be right or might be
wrong—his judgment might err, like that of other men—but
this was the first time—not the first time he dad heard a de-
ficiency recommended by the Government—but that he had
hear(' such a proposition as that of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer—a plan which seemed to him (Mr. Gladstone) to
threaten to land them in financial confusion. At any rate it
was their duty to strip the veil from a statement which cer-
tainly conveyed false impressions to the country. It was their
duty to bear testimony in open day to the principles of truth
and honesty ; it was a Public obligation to strip the veil from
every scheme that tended to do away with these principles.
That duty ho had now endeavoured to discharge, and in con-
clusion he would say that no considerati )n could induce him
to put forward a financial scheme which was not based upon
those principles—principles which were intimately associated
not only with the credit and honour, but even with the
safety, of this empire. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. J. WILSON was sure he should not appeal to the
house in vain for its indulgence. While he could not follow
his right hon. friend through the whole of the subject upon
which he had touched, he would endeavour to place before
the house in a clear and succinct form what he deemed to be
the errors of the right hon. gentleman. There were some
topics upon which his right hon. friend and the Chancellor
of the Zxchequcr, in cowmen with all the raombero of tko

Government, and a great majority of the house were agreed.
It had been put very strongly by him that the house should,
if 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
of the advantage arising from the repeal of indirect taxes ;
that was the very subject they were discussing, and formed
the main topic of the speech of his right hon. friend. With
'respect to the sugar duties, in what condition were they
during the glorious career of Sir R. Peel ?'.'The lowest duty
was 14s per owt, 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 givingthe
quotation from Mr. A. Young, justified the proposition
which he madeto 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 1854 when the right
hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer? Did
they think it necessary to supply all the means for carrying
on the war by direct Oration. 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
not 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
the contrary, that there must be a present increase ; and
he proceeded to adopt the precise course 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 is. 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 he 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
were. For the next year they amounted to 3,671,0001. ;
for the following year they amounted to 4,824,000/. ; and
for the third year to 4,707,0001. Was not that expenditure
just as ranch war expenditure as any which they had had
during the war? Was not the money which they were
now called upon to pay expended for the purposes 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. (Hear.) *hat was their position at the
commencement of the present financial year ? They had
an income tax of 16d. in the pound, producing 16 millions.
There would have been a loss of three millions upon the
tea and sugar duties. It became the duty of the Govern-
ment to consider how the war expenditure should be met.
If the Government bad 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 (Mr. Disraeli) had candidly
admitted, could not be made available. Situated as his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was,
what did 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 necessary during the two following years, and ac-
cordingly he took off the 9d. 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 Chancellor 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 (Hr. 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 expenditure of
1853-4 ? What the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really
stated was this : he gave the probable income of 1858-9 as
62,300,000/. Now the expenditure of 1853-4, including all
the cost of collection, was only 55,860,0001., so that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had left a margin over and
above the year 1853-4 of no less than between seven and
eight millions sterling. But, said his right hon. friend (Mr.
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 he 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 1853-4, which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer did not take as a standard of expenditure, but selected
from the fact that that was the last and highest year of
peace expenditure, amounted to 55,840,000/., to which
must be added a sum of 2,435,0001. for charges consequent
upon the war, making a total expenditure of 58,276,0001.,
and leaving a surplus of 4,034,000/. over and above the
estimated expenditure of 1853-4. 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 had been considered, or to fix what the esti-
mated 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 (Mr. Gladstone) proposed, within two years, to re-
duce the income tax to 6d.' and in two years more to 5d.,
but within 12 months of his making that statement be
was obliged to raise it twice, besides imposing additional
indirect taxes. (Cheers.) Who, after that example, and
with the experience of financiers before Lim, would hazard
a calculation as to the probable position of the country the
year after next? (Hear, hear.) They had, according to
that estimate, even supposing they ha paid the bonds and
the sinking fund, still a margin of one and a half millions
over the estimates. Again, for the years 1859-60 the esti-
mated income was 62,620,0001., the estimated expenditure
58,731,0001., leaving a margin of 3,889,0001. 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 years 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.
His right hon. friend, in referring to the items of building
and construction, said that no reduction could be made in
them, but he (Mr. Wilson) thought that those were the very
points upon which reduction was practicable, for when
once buildings were put up, er ships constructed, there
was no further expense. On the whole, he could not but
think that his right hen. friend the ex-Chancellor .of the
Exchequer (Hr. 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 rondo 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 thatlay the incon-
venience, and, as he thought, the injustice with which they
were treating the Chancellorof the Exchequer. They bad, in
the first instance, pressed him to produce bis budget before
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 h deficit ? All in fact
that the right hon. gentleman had done had been with the
view of preventing a deficit. It was urged that he ought
to have provided fora possible increase of the expenditure
of the next two years ; but he need hardly ask them whe-
ther the house would have been disposed to consent to ad-
ditional taxation. It was not fair to say that his right
hon. friend had done anything to render less possible
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 hy others
in a period of war. Then, his right hon. friend the mem-
ber for the University of Oxford had 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 very
much depend upon the state of the market when it takes
place. They might repeal duties at a time when such re-
peal would have no beneficial effect whatever on the inte-
rests of the consumer-4e 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
wdhiauhl adopted erdig ought to t. o
friend
u
Exchequer)that h a had hadta taken
a u beeng great
awte
pllai advisedua
t u i
fuponurm himselfthe subject,
u whanadt
way the markets would be affected by the duties which he
savedpr he
idm;
fromand thethe
imputationscourse he Lad
a
who had last spoken had cast upon him in regard to the
backward movement he had made respecting these indirect
taxes. He (Hr. 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 obliga-
tions cast upon them. On the contrary, it would do a great
deal to modify their difficulties, and to enable them to
meet these obligations. There were two points in the
againstif any deficiencies
should arise, in
and
future t
wuriaslic yb ea
was
bN y nwo,
Now,
light hon. gentleman's resolution which he hoped would
be met by a negative. The first was that they should so
arrange their income and expenditure in the present year
as to
was the house pr.epared to supply this year the deficiencies
of
future
years,
means certain. If it was not, the proposition of the right
hon. gentleman must fall to the ground. Again, were they
prepared to say that they were now in a condition to do
more than they were doing for the purpose of securing
provide
the final extinction of the income tax in 1860 ? He thought,
after they had been so frequently disapr ointed on this sub-
ject, it would be very unwise to come to a solemn resolu-
tion to that effect at present. When Sir R. Peel renewed
the tax in 1845, for three years, he did not pledge himself
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

commercial distress, and the conseqtirMee was, not only
that the House of Commons was not in it condition to
abandon the income tax, but tligt the Chancel!:,r of the
Exchequer had to impose an addition to it, and also to
create a debt of 6,00"',0001. Was that any encouragement
to them to pass now a resolution like that before the
house The result of the calculations with regard to the
proceeds of the succession duty also showed how futile it
was to enter into computations and speculations as to
what the expenditure and income would be at a future
period. All they could do was, to avoid doing any-
thing in the meantime, either by unnecessary expen-
diture, or, by unnecessary or hasty additions to taxa-
tion, to endanger the settlement which the country
and the house had set their hearts upon. Beyond that
he contended no Government had power to go. (Hear.)
Having been enabled to apply himself effectually to
this subject, he trusted that what he had stated would
be received as his sincere convictions. He only wished he
had been in;a condition to have done more justice to it.
(Cheers.)
Mr. LAING said the hon. gentleman who had just sat
down had asked what practical object any member on that
(the Ministerial) side of the house proposed to himself in
voting for the motion of the fight hon. gentleman oppo-
site. He now rose to answer that question. He proposed
to entertain the object which was entertained in 1848,
when the Ministers in that year having brought in a
budget containing estimates which were considered by the
house excessive, that budget was sent back to them for re-
vision, and a new budget was proposed with estimates
framed with greater attention and care, which gave the
country for many years to come a saving of no less than
between 2,000,0001. and 3,000,0001. in the amount of the
annual expenditure. (near ) Mr. Gladstone had stated the
remarkable fact that from 1842 to 1843, the expen litnre
of this country had remained stationary, while in the four
years from 1853 to 1i57 the ordinary permanent ex-
penditure had increased between 5,000,0001. and 6,000,0001.
sterling. It was therefore quite time for every one who
called himself a practical reformer to bestir himself in order
to resist this increasing expenditure. The more ho looked
upon the estimates the less encouragement he felt iu the
hope that the revenue would next year come up to the ex-
penditure. Comparing the estimates of 1843 with those
of the present year he found that whereas the charge for
manufactories, docks, and steam-engine factories had in
that year amounted to 2,700,0001., the estimate for the
present year amounted to 3,800,0001.—being an increase of
1,100,0001., or about 45 per cent. of the whole expenditure
of 1853. It was now proposed to expend on new military
and naval erections 1,506,000/., whereas the amount
charged under the same head in 1853 had been only
951,000/. He did not see why such expenditure should be
incurred, and though the annihilation of the Russian fleet
and the general results of the war went to show that it was
not now required.
On the motion of Ur. JAMES AI`GREGOR the debate
was then adjourned.
The Reformatory Schools Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on next Friday fortnight.
The lonian Subjects Commission Bill passed through
committee.

The Public Health Supplemental Bill (1357) passed
through committee without discussion. _ _ _

The Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill was brought in, and
ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
Mr. MAGUIRE moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the act for lighting, cleansing, and watching cities
and corponite and market towns in Ireland.