§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he, wished to remind the House that last Session he had called attention to the mode in which Supply Bills were laid before the House. That measure included the three branches of Excise, Customs, and direct taxes in the form of income tax. On that occasion he ventured to represent to the House, that if all these several branches of taxes were to be enacted in the same Bill, the House would lose the opportunity of discussing them separately, according to the forms theretofore adopted by Parliament. However, that Bill passed, and then the Inland Revenue Bill was introduced, framed on the same model as the other; that is, it embraced all the different branches of taxation in one Bill; and thus, as in the other case, precluded the House from the opportunity of discussing its different parts, according to the practice of Parliament. The House then did him the honour of agreeing with his representation on the subject, and the Bill was divided. He wished therefore to urge upon the Chancellor of: the Exchequer, with a view of avoiding the inconvenience of a Motion on the subject, which he, might feel it to be his duty to make, to follow this year, with regard to the Supply Bill as well as the Inland, Revenue Bill, the precedent adopted last year in relation to the latter Bill, and thus restore to the House the opportunities for separate discussion of the different taxes which they had hitherto enjoyed.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIt is the intention of the Government to follow the precedent of last year in respect of Supply, which was adopted after full consideration. I do not think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is correct that we have departed from precedent in the instance of the Inland Revenue Bill, which was divided into two Bills. The Inland Revenue Bill was not a Supply Bill; and as to such Bills, where it appears to the House that they relate to subjects which naturally divide themselves, and are more convenient to deal with in more than one branch, the Government is always ready to accede to those views when it considers them to be founded upon justice. The question of Supply Bills is different, because 773 in them the question to be considered is not only the administrative effect, but that which it is intended and professes to be—granting Supply to Her Majesty—which forms the ground for these subjects being presented in a united shape.
With respect to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), my answer is this:—He says he does not see how we bring the £500,000—the estimated sum to be expended for China—into the accounts of the year, unless a Vote is to be taken from the House. It is true that it sometimes happens that expenditure may be incurred within a given year for which no Vote has been taken from this House in that year. Whether that ought to be so is a meet subject for consideration. As a general principle, with respect to ordinary expenditure, I must say that balances ought to be surrendered at the close of the year for which they were given. But that rule is of necessity subject to restriction, as, for example in the case of the army and navy; and, indeed, it does not prevail in any branch of the public service. But as to the army and navy, it must be subject to restriction, because the balance in those branches cannot be surrendered without inconvenience until after the period for closing the accounts. The same consideration applies à fortiori to Votes of Credit, because they cannot be finally disposed of until the army and navy accounts are settled. Therefore it would not be regular—inasmuch as the Vote of Credit has not been disposed of, and as we have authority which we think will cover the whole probable charge—it would not be regular to ask any new Vote.
I must next notice the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), who says that for two years past he has confidently expected there would be a deficit. If so, it is rather remarkable that the hon. Baronet in 1860 challenged me with the imputation that the estimates of revenue were greatly and systematically understated; and, if so, I do not see whence the deficit could have proceeded, because the only possible meaning of that remark must have been that the arrangement so made was to insure the existence of a surplus even by withholding due information from the House. The hon. Baronet asks me in what manner the deficit is to be paid? I am surprised at the question, coming from an hon. Member who pays so much attention to financial matters. The deficit is paid like all other charges 774 lawfully made on the Exchequer, and is paid out of the fund provided by the Legislature for such purpose—the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Baronet says truly that the state of the Consolidated Fund ought to be looked to when we are considering the position of our finances, for no doubt the state of the Consolidated Fund is affected by matters other than the revenue and expenditure of the year, particularly in one principal item—the balance of repayments over loans which we make, with great utility, for public works. The hon. Baronet has opened a question of considerable importance; and although I may not be inclined to agree in his conclusions, yet it is a question that may be legitimately raised. He thinks the loan account should be kept separate from the Consolidated Fund. That is a fair question to consider: but the Government have at present no power to act upon any such view. The Consolidated Fund knows no distinction between the sources from which various monies may proceed. When the monies reach the reservoir, they lose all trace of their particular origin, and the legitimate demands upon the Exchequer are paid in due order out of that fund, and all that remains for the Government to do is to take care that the true state of the balance between loans; and repayments shall be made known to this House.
I now come to the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), who has undertaken to show that special proceedings have been adopted to scrape into the current financial year, in order to lessen the deficit, money belonging to the next year. I presume that must be the meaning of his observations, or otherwise I should have nothing to say concerning them. The noble Lord has read a letter from a collector of income tax as to the mode and times at which that tax is to be collected. Will the noble Lord permit me to say that it would be convenient if, when he receives letters of this description, instead of suddenly challenging the Minister upon the floor of the House, who can have no personal knowledge upon the subject, he were to conform to the ordinary practice followed by nearly all Members, irrespective of where they sit, and more for the convenience of the House than for that of the Minister, and would give me notice, that I might refer to the Board of Inland Revenue, which alone can know anything about this subject? I gave to the noble Lord the other evening the best general explanation I 775 could upon the subject. But he must know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not the collector of the revenue, and that his sole mode of gaining particular and minute information on this point is by reference to the heads of those departments through which the collection is made. If, therefore, the noble Lord will place the letter in my hands, or any definite statement upon which I can found inquiries, I will make those inquiries, and the result of them will be entirely at his service to produce to this House if he thinks fit. Of course, I admit that ultimate publicity, upon the smallest as well as the most important matters, is of the utmost value. But, not being the person to issue circulars to every collector to inform him how he shall collect the taxes, it would be a waste of time if I were now to enter into this question. I adhere to the general purport of the statement I made before—namely, that the Government to my knowledge have never taken any measures for the purpose of causing the collection of income tax, which becomes due on the 20th of March, before the 1st of April; and if any such demand has been made, it must be from misapprehension or upon some old instruction which has not come under our notice. However, if the noble Lord will place the letter in my hands, I can then bring the matter to a definite issue, and he will have plenty of opportunities to bring the subject under the notice of the House.