Page images
PDF
EPUB

observed, upon, other, articles consumed by the operative classes, and the Committee must have a better reason for continuing those high duties, which dimiminished the comforts of those classes, while the paper duties were remitted. On the subject of the resolution repealing these duties, he noticed the conflict of figures in which the question of a surplus was involved, indicating more than a doubt as to the existence of any excess of income over expenditure. In conclusion, he reiterated his objections to the form in which the resolutions were intended to be presented to the House of Lords, and expressed a hope that a majority of the House would still be found true to the principles it had adopted last year. Mr. Bright complained that Mr. Horsman had endeavoured needlessly to revive a subject which it was obvious that there was no wish on the part of many members to have imported into the question before the House. As to his objection to the combination of the resolutions in one Bill, Mr. Horsman, he said, would find in the journals of Parliament, no further back than 1801, 1802, and 1803, that the House of Commons had repeatedly, and almost constantly, taken the very course the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended. On the question of a surplus, his creed was, he said, always to believe a Chancellor of the Exchequer when he admitted a surplus; he assumed, therefore, that the surplus was a real one; the question then was whether the remission of duties was judicious and fair to the various interests of the country.

[blocks in formation]

the remission of the paper duties would give a greater relief to the industrious classes than the reduction of the war duties on tea and sugar. Mr. Fitzgerald had asserted that this was a political Budget, framed to conciliate him (Mr. Bright); but, though he admitted it was his Budget, because he approved it, the question was whether, in adopting the policy he had recommended, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone beyond his duty. He believed it was a Budget just for the Parliament to pass, and which would be beneficent to the people; he therefore gave it his hearty support. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be his duty to deal principally with the statements which impugned the figures he had submitted to the House; other matters which had been imported into the debate he should pretermit. At the same time, he could not help remarking upon the transposition of the constitutional duties of the Government and the House which had appeared on this occasion. The Government said they had a surplus of 2,000,000l., and they proposed to surrender 1,500,000l. of taxes, and this proposition had caused a number of members to rise up in arms. According to the doctrine of the Constitution, it was the duty of the Government to take care that too little was not asked for the public service, and the duty of the House to see that it did not grant too much. After replying to a few preliminary objections, he proceeded to consider the two questions—first, whether there was a surplus, and, secondly, how it was to be dealt with ; remarking that the opponents of the Budget were not agreed upon either question. Upon the first, he observed that it had been said it was the interest of the Government to make out a surplus; but there were others who had an interest in showing there was none; there were prophets last year who were as much pledged to a negative as he was to an affirmative. He then went through, in detail, the calculations upon which the arguments against a surplus were founded, pointing out their inaccuracies, and justifying his own calculations. He insisted that the estimate of the amount to be received from China was a sound one, and he demurred to the doctrine that the merchants were to be paid first. The estimates of the inland revenue had been framed with the concurrence of able and experienced officers, and he showed the cautious manner in which the produce of the income-tax had been computed. He remarked that the estimates were based upon the expectation of an ordinary season and ordinary circumstances, and he never had

a stronger conviction than that there was likely to be an excess over the estimated revenue. With regard to the second question, how the surplus was to be disposed of, he balanced the claims of tea and sugar on one hand and paper on the other. The reduction of the duties upon articles of popular consumption, he observed, was not the first object kept in view by Sir R. Peel in 1842, but the liberation and extension of trade; this principle lay at the root of our reformed financial policy, and had governed almost every Budget. In asking the House to consent to a resolution for the repeal of the paper duties, which would close the controversy of 1860, the Government had done that which would be approved, he believed, by those who brought a candid mind to the question before the House. Mr. Disraeli complained that the House had not been treated with frankness and candour by the Government, and warned the House to proceed with more caution than in respect to the last year's Budget. The deficiency of last year appeared, he said, to have been supplied by increasing the liabilities and diminishing the resources of the country, by diminishing the balances in the Exchequer, and increasing the debt. Addressing himself to the question of a surplus, he observed that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer confessed a surplus, it was not the business of the House to prove he was mistaken. It was founded upon estimates of the great branches of the revenue, and he (Mr. Disraeli) made it r rule not to question those estimates. They had, therefore, to deal with a surplus, though the mode by which it was arrived at was very peculiar, by the retention and renewal of war duties. The proposal was to repeal the duty on paper. He examined what he termed the pedigree of this question. It had been assumed that the House was pledged to repeal this duty; but he contended that it was not so pledged. The object of the motion of 1850 was to free the press from the taxes on knowledge, and that object had been accomplished; the result had been a vast multiplication of cheap newspapers, and the duty on paper then became a financial question. The alleged pledge of 1858 was, he contended, no pledge at all. There was an understood condition that the war duties should be first removed. We had now an incometax of 9d. and war taxes on tea and sugar; and if war taxes were left upon the people in time of peace, what prospect was there, that if an appeal were made to them hereafter, they would come forward and bear their share of the public burdens? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that the expenditure called for by the country was an obstacle to the repeal of the war taxes; but it was not the country nor the House that forced this expenditure upon the Government. He claimed for the House the privilege of expressing an opinion as to the distribution of a surplus of revenue for the relief of their constituents. The Opposition had shown no desire to embarrass the Government in their financial plans, but had supported

the Ministers of the Queen. Was the Minister, he asked, who had been so supported under difficulties, to grudge the House of Commons the power of considering how best the interests of their constituents and of the country could be served 2 He never could believe, he said, that the Minister would make so great a mistake. In the discharge of his duty, he would indicate the course which he would recommend the House to take. He should offer no opposition to the resolution as to the income-tax. With regard to the next resolution, for the renewal of the duties on tea and sugar, he proposed to direct his opposition to the war tax upon tea, and he prayed that the decision of the Committee of Ways and Means might be for the advantage of the people of this country and the maintenance of its commerce. Lord Palmerston said the only question, now that the surplus was admitted, was how it should be disposed of, and the proposition of which Mr. Disraeli had given notice was a fair question for consideration. He preferred the repeal of the duty on paper, which, in his opinion, was recommended by, among other considerations, its bearing on the relations between the two Houses. The House then went into Committee of Ways and Means, when, after considerable discussion, the resolution imposing the income-tax was agreed to without a division. The next step to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to move the continuance of the existing tea and sugar duties. But, previously to this, a pre

liminary discussion was raised upon a resolution proposed by Mr. Hubbard, who moved an amendment to the effect that it was not expedient to remit taxation to such an extent that the annual produce of the remitted taxes should exceed the estimated surplus revenue in the Budget for the current financial year. He said that his object in proposing this resolution was to arrest the course of extravagant finance, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the House to enter upon, and which exceeded the limits of the present year, and plunged into an unknown future of speculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer urged with great force the obvious objections to the adoption of such an abstract resolution as that which Mr. Hubbard proposed; and on Mr. Disraeli recommending that it be withdrawn, Mr. Hubbard consented to withdraw it, Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to move a resolution to continue, until the 1st of July, 1862, certain duties on tea, sugar, and other articles of the same class as sugar, which, he observed, were called popularly, though not accurately, war duties, as they had been imposed in time of peace. There were, he remarked, two questions — the absolute merits of the tea duty, and its claims to remission in comparison with those of the paper duties. He repeated that, in remissions of duty since 1846, the object in view had been less the benefit of the consumer than the abolition of protection and the liberation of trade. Adverting to the motion of which Mr. Horsfall had given notice, to reduce the duty on tea after the

1st of October next to 1s. per lb., he showed the destructive effect it would have upon the surplus by the loss of 950,000l., and he referred to examples, to prove the influence of postponing duties in paralyzing the revenue and diminishing consumption; the consumer having to wait long before he derived benefit from the remission. He admitted that the reduction was desirable, but he ridiculed what he termed the absurd and inflated representations as to the effects of the change. He then discussed the relative merits of the proposed reduction compared with the repeal of the paper duties. He argued that the remission of duties, although non-recuperative, was in perfect harmony with the views of the late Sir Robert Peel, who desired to augment the means of employing labour. The reduction of the duty on tea would, no doubt, give an impulse to labour, but it would be foreign labour, that of the Chinese; whereas the remission of the paper duties would stimulate British labour in the manufacture of paper and the produce of agricultural fibre, while the removal of the excise regulations would relieve the trade from restrictions that operated as a check upon it by stinting and repressing enterprise. Mr. Horsfall said the question raised by his amendment was this—would the House re-impose the duty of 1s. 5d. on tea to enable it to remit the duty on paper, or reduce the tea duty to 1s, retaining the paper duty. The House, he observed, had pledged itself to reduce the tea duty to 1s. long before any pledge was given in regard to

the paper duty, and a Committee had recommended a considerable reduction of the duty. He controverted the statements of Mr. Gladstone as to the effects of the reduction he proposed, maintaining that there was an ample margin for it, assuming the estimated surplus, and that the increased consumption would make up the loss of revenue in three or four years. In every large town in England he believed it would be said by nine out of ten, if not by ninety-nine out of a hundred, “Give us the duty off tea, and not off paper.” He moved to amend the resolution by reducing the duty on tea on and after the 1st of October to 1s. per lb. The Marquis of Hartington supported the resolution of the Government, chiefly on the ground of the expediency, after the proceedings of last year, of settling finally the question of the paper duty. Mr. P. Hennessy stated facts to show the prosperous state of the paper-makers in Ireland. He preferred the reduction of the tea duties to the repeal of the paper duty. Lord Holmesdale supported the same view. Mr. Paget and Mr. Norris contended, upon commercial grounds, that the measure proposed by the Government would confer the greatest advantage on the public. Sir S. Northcote said the question had been argued as if we were in possession of a surplus; but he contended that a surplus must be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on one tax in order to take off another; the resolution reimposed the war taxes on tea and sugar, the cessation of which Par

liament had decreed, thereby disappointing the expectations of consumers of tea for the benefit of a particular interest. The argument that the reduction of 5d. per lb. in the duty upon tea would not reach the consumer was a most extraordinary one from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since it was at variance with his recorded opinions. Good faith, he contended, demanded the reduction of these duties. Parliament was distinctly pledged to the working classes to reduce them, and the course proposed by the Government, instead of wiping out the memory of the controversy with the other House, would revive the recollection of it. In discussing the question as to the choice of duties to be remitted upon financial grounds, he examined and replied to the

arguments of the Chancellor of

the Exchequer, insisting that there never was a fitter time for diminishing the duty on tea, thereby profiting by the opportunity now offered of enlarging our trade with China. The real preliminary question, he said in conclusion, was, whether these war duties should or should not be repealed. Sir G. Lewis observed that Sir S. Northcote had argued that the surplus was ideal because the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to renew taxes. But the basis of his calculations was that existing taxes were to be continued, and thence resulted a surplus of nearly 2,000,000l. The cobweb logic of Sir S. Northcote was thus at once got rid of. The question, then, was how the surplus should be applied to the remission of taxation; Government had been accused of showing un

« PreviousContinue »