POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY.
The discussion on the Budget began last night, in accordance with previous arrangements. On the motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. DISRAELI moved as an amendment the resolution which he placed on the notice-paper on Monday " That it is the opinion of this House, that it would be expedient, before sanctioning the financial arrangement for the ensuing year to adjust the estimated income and expenditure in a manner which sail appear best calculated to secure the country against the risk of a deficiency in the years 1858-'9 and 1859-'60; and to provide for such a balance of revenue and charge respectively in 1860 as will place it in the power of Parliament at that period, without embarrassment to the finances, altogether to remit the Income-tax."
He began by pointing out, that they were entering on a financial dobate; that while they had differences on political subjeets,, they ought to have only one opinion on the importance of maintaining the finances in a wholesome condition. Approving of the course taken by Government with regard to the war income-tax, he expressed his regret that Government had not evinced their sympathy for the spirited manner in which the people had supported the war, by announcing last autumn, that it was not intended to enforce the double income-tax. That which might have been done at Manchester was not even done in the Queen's Speech, and he felt bound to give notice of a motion on the subject. If they had even then announced their policy, they might have withholdtheir budget, and brought it in a month hence. But their estimates are before the House ; and if in discussing them he indulged in prospective finance it must be recollected that he was commenting on a statement essentially prospective. The Budget is a prospective budget, founded on Mr. Gladstone's eminently prospective budget of 1853. Prospective finance, therefore, was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in :what he called his " plan" ; and it is impossible to criticize this " plan " at all without considering its bearing on future years. To the " plan," he had two general objections,—it will cause financial embarrassment ; and it will render the remission of the Income-tax in 1860 absolutely impossible. To make out these propositions, he went largely into the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the next three years. The income of 1858-'59 he set down at 61,404,000/.' the expenditure at 66,389,000/., including in this 2,000,000/. for Exchequer Bonds and 1,500,000/. for the sinking-fund. There would therefore be an apparent deficiency of 6,000,000/. That would be the result in the second year of the plan. All the causes of deficiency would still continue ; and in the third year, when the House looked for the extinction of the Income-tax, there would be a deficiency of 10,000,0001. The peculiar and distinctive feature of this plan is not the extinction but the perpetuation of the Income-tax. With a "colossal deficiency" in view,. would it not be best to do what he proposed, and adjust our income and expenditure so as to prevent that deficiency ? But, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday, "there will be no deficiency, because we are going to adopt the expenditure of 1853-'54." Now the gross expenditure of 1853-'4 was 55,840,000/.; add new charges, the expenditure would be 58,836,000/. If the Income-tax were reduced to 5d., and the tea and sugar duties were not increased, we should have an income for. the year of 63,456,000/. to set against an expenditure of 58,836,000/.; therefore a surplus of 4,000,000/. If there is to be a vast reduction in 1858-'9, why not in l857-'8? By falling back to the expenditure of 1853-'4, there will be a surplus of 4,000,000/.; by following the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there will be a deficiency, in consequence of the action of a special sinking-fund for the liquidation of the war-debt. If the Government would frankly adopt the policy of 1853, instead of proposing the most odious of direct taxes, the Income-tax, and the most odious of indirect taxes, the Tea-duty, he could have no wish to embarrass, but he disposed to make some sacrifice to support them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER commented on the fact that in Mr. Disraeli's speech the financial statement for the year had almost escaped observation. He had talked about the odiousness of imposts on income and tea, and in his discursive flights over the region of finance he had only expressed some dissatisfaction with the Estimates. But he had commented on the plan for fixing the taxation of two additional years. Now no finance minister ever presented a plan of expenditure for any future year, and certainly he had never undertaken to submit a plan for any year beyond the present. The talk about a deficiency, therefore, was foreign to the subject. But although Sir George would not make a budget for more than one year, he might throw some light on the possible financial position of the two following. The revenue of 1858-'9 and 1859-'60 would be about 62,300,0001. The expenditure of 1853-'4 was 55,840,000/4 giving an excess of 6,460,000/. The excess of the Estimates this year over those of those of 1853-'4 is about 4,000,0001.. We cannot reasonably anticipate that this excess will continue, a large portion being due to the peculiar circumstances of the year. He emphatically repeated, that we are not to assume that the Estimates of this year must be identical with those of future years. He should be sorry if anything interfered with the repayment of the Exchequer Bonds, and he hoped that they would be met in the years to which they belong ; but the case is different with regard to the sinking-fund, and Parliament might think fit to postpone the commencement of the repayment of that, since in the year fixed for the beginning of that repayment a large sum will be required to redeem Exchequer Bonds. Dealing with the remainder of Mr. Disraeli's allegations, he sought to show that his arrangements would facilitate, not embarrass our financial position, by providing revenue to meet expenditure. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat down, no one stood up, until, the SPEAKER having read the resolution, Mr. GLADSTONE rose, and said that perhaps the reluctance of Members to address the House might be intended to convey a hint that they had a right to hear his sentiments; since no one was more concerned than he, for the financial plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in every respect contradictory to those which he had proposed. The labour of fifteen years is reversed, and old Arthur Young is disinterred to justify the principle that the perfection of finance is to load an infinity of articles with taxes infinitely small. Mr. Gladstone proceeded at great length to examine the Ministerial plan in its several parts. The Income-tax is continued, but with what financial benefit is it associated? With the repeal of the tax on paper—the making of which is a source of rural employment ? with the repeal of the duties on wine—the grand obstruction to increased commercial intercourse with France ? The hancellor of the Exchequer professes to remit 11,970,000/. of taxes, but it is a misapprehension. Of the 9,000,0001. Income-tax, only half is really to be given away for the y,ear 1857-'8, the other half will be for 1858-9; so that it is only 4,500,0001. of present concession. He does not remit, but increases the duties leviable by the present law on tea and sugar-does not remit 2d. but adds 4d. on tea-adding a burden on the consumption of the poorer classes, and leaving a real remission of only 3,184,0001. for 1857-'8. He boasts a surplus of 900,000!.: Mr. Gladstone denied the surplus. Looking alone to the ordinary revenue and charge of the country, unless he were "the veriest charlatan and basest swindler that ever stood at the table of the House," he must stand for the fulfilment of the pledge of 18.53. It is true that 700,000/. has to be deducted from the 2,000,0001. of the Succession-tax and about 656,0001. is the real increase of permanent burden since 1853, arising from the taxing and borrowing occasioned by the war; but as to the rest, every nerve should be strained to realize the promises of 1853. The Budget is based upon excessive expenditure. In the twelve years ending 1853, the expenditure has increased by 234,0001.; the expenditure of 1866-'7 exceeds that of 1853 by 7,000,0001. You will find an increase of 11,600,000l. in the Military 'Estimates, 1,760,0001. in the Civil Services, about 750,000/. in additional charge for interest, and the remainder is reproductive. But there is no guarantee against an increase of expenditure. There is the Persian war ; we hear of movements of troops from India to 1China ; the Miscellaneous Estimates are in constant and rapid increase. But by the Budget, in voting away, 4,500,000/. from the service of the year 4869, [the half of the 9,000,0001. Income-tax,] without being satisfied that there would be a just balance between revenue and charges in that year, the Minister is creating a deficiency for that year. He had created a sinking-fund; Mr. Gladstone warned him that it would be evaded, and he now talked of postponing it for three years. Going over the figures carefully, it appears that in the three years ending 1859-'60, the total loss on the taxes now remitted would be 9,900,0001. Allowing for various sets-off--Exchequer Bonds less to pay., increase of Succession-duties, annuities falling inthe net loss would be 6,454,000/.; but with the remission of the Income-tax
i
there will be a total deficiency n 1861-'2 of 8,654,000/.,-casting to the -wind the pledges of 1853. He now approached a " painful subject "-the sebject of indirect taxation. Sir Robert Peel, not instructed in the philosophy of Arthur Young, abolished prohibitions. He and his successors lave remitted 22,000,0001. of indirect taxes upon consumption. They have imposed in direct taxes 7,500,0001.: but the revenue in 1842 was 47,000,000!.; in 1853, 64,400,000!.; so that the increase of the revenue compensated the indirect taxation, and the 22,000,000/. remitted has not /cost a single farthing. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer creates a deficiency, and adds 1,400,000/. to the indirect taxes on tea and sugar,-a glaring, gross, and increasing deficiency, "a deficiency unparalleled by anything I can recollect during an experience of twenty-five years."
Towards the close of his speech, Mr. Gladstone stated, that if the present motion were lost, he should propose one on the subject of the increasing expenditure; considering that the present course undermines the credit, the honour, and the safety of this country. Mr. Wu.sox replied. He denied the disposition to augment the indirect taxes. The very person who proposed to increase the Sugarduties and suspend the fall of the Tea-duties was Mr. Gladstone, in 1853-'4. He re6xamined the figures to show that the estimated income of 1858-9 was 62,300,0001.; while the expenditure, about the same with that of 1863-'4, might be taken at 55,860,0001., showing a margin of seven or eight millions. Mr. Wilson bestowed much argument to show the idiocy of relying on prospective estimates ; and as an example, he Showed that one deficiency-a deficiency of 1,500,000/.-arose from disappointment in the produce of Mr. Gladstone's Succession-duty500,000!. this year, instead of 2,000,000/.
Mr. Lam; declared it high time that every reformer should insist on -reduction of expenditure; and was for sending back the Minister, as in 1848, to produce a better budget. On the motion of Mr. JAMES M‘Gazoon, the debate was adjourned till Monday.
In reply to Mr. LAYARD, Lord PALMERSTON said that the negotiations with the Persian Ambassador at Paris have not been interrupted or suspended. As he stated before, there is a fair prospect of an arrangement .eatisfactory to all parties.
In the House of Lords, on the motion of Earl Stanhope, a Select Committee was appointed to consider whether any and what improvements can be effected in printing the Minutes and Journals of the House.
The Gazette notifies that Prince Albert will hold levees, on behalf of the Queen, at St. James's Palace, on the 26th instant and on the 12th March.
Three interesting papers are promised for the Monday meeting of the Royal Geographical Society.
1. On the Geography of the Sea of Azov, the Putrid Sea and adjacent coasts, with remarks on their commercial future; by Captain Sherard Osborn, R.N. 2. Proposed Canals in Asia Minor, between the Lake of Sabanja, the River Sakaria, and the Gulf of Nicomedia ; by General Jachmas; communicated by Sir Roderick I. Murchison. 3. Expedition up the Nile under M. le Comte d'Eseayrac Lauture.
The sequel to the story of the explosion at the Lund Hill Colliery, near 13arnsley, is more frightful than the first report. About 350 men and boys are usually employed in the pit; about 190 were still down. The seam of coal is what is called " fiery " ; yet the men were in the habit of using naked candles. Because the ventilation was good, this was thought "perfectly safe."
Previous page
