HC Deb 10 July 1874 vol 220 cc1477-93

Resolution [July 3] reported. That a sum, not exceeding £139,041, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Greenwich Hospital and School, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875.

MR. CHILDERS

in rising to call attention to the state of the Revenue, and to ask a question of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that on a former occasion, about the middle of May, he asked his right hon. Friend whether, from the facts known at that time, the state of the Revenue might be considered by him satisfactory; and his right hon. Friend, in reply, stated that with respect to the Customs the state of things was satisfactory, that respecting the Revenue generally, and especially the Excise, there was no reason to apprehend there would be any great difference from the statement which had been laid before the House; but that towards the end of the Session he should be prepared to give further information on the subject. A quarter of the financial year having expired, he now proposed to repeat the question in the light of that quarter's experience. The facts as to the Revenue appeared to be that on the quarter the Customs showed a decrease of £287,000. The Excise gave an increase of £43,000, the receipts for Stamps had increased by £69,000, the land and house tax had increased by £51,000, and the Post Office by £170,000; the receipts from telegraphs had increased by £200,000, and the Crown Lands showed an increase of £3,000. On the other side of the account, the receipts from property and income tax were £97,000 less than in the preceding quarter of the year, and the miscellaneous receipts were less by £160,593. These figures gave an increase of £536,000 and a decrease of 544,593, showing a net decrease of £8,593. The apparent large increase in the Telegraph Service was attributable to the fact that in the previous quarter, only £100,000 was paid in, whereas last year, it amounted to £460,000; nothing, therefore, could be argued from the comparison of the present quarters. Nor could any reliance be placed on conclusions drawn from the payments for Income Tax or the Miscellaneous receipts. He would, therefore, pass on to the three items of Revenue from which we might derive at any period of the year very reasonable anticipations as to the probabilities of the Revenue of the year—namely, the Customs, Excise, and Stamps. With regard to the Customs duties, his right hon. Friend anticipated that they would increase £401,000 on the year, irrespective of the remission of the sugar duty, which he put at a loss of £2,000,000; the anticipated increase on the Excise was put at £918,000; but, on the other hand, his right hon. Friend had remitted the horse duty, a loss estimated at £480,000. With respect to Stamps, the anticipated increase on the year was £330,000. Upon that statement the question was, what amount should have been received during the first quarter of the year? His right hon. Friend, in the first place, expected that the check in the delivery from bond of customable articles, arising from the disclosures that were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in the early part of the year, would add to the current year's receipts. Thus, in April, 2,000,000 pounds of tea were taken out of bond in excess of last year's deliveries, the Revenue gaining £50,000 paid in duty on that article. He (Mr. Childers) added that to a quarter of the remaining anticipated £350,000 gain on the Customs for the year, which would make the increased amount received on Customs £137,000. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had lost during the quarter nearly two months' sugar duties—for both this and last year, in consequence of the change of duty, the April receipts of sugar duty were of small importance—amounting to something like £350,000; and deducting from it the gain on the other two accounts, the total loss on the Customs would be £213,000 during the quarter. So much for the Customs. On the other hand, the gain under the head of Excise should have been £230,000, inasmuch as the repeal of the horse duty had not taken effect, and on account of Stamps £83,000, making in all £313,000, which, with the loss on the Customs duties of £213,000, should have left a net gain of £100,000 on the quarter in order to fulfil the conditions of the Budget. What had really happened, however, had been that the Customs receipts were £287,000 less than anticipated, and the Excise and Stamps receipts had been more by £43,000 and £69,000 respectively, so that there was a net falling off on the quarter, as compared with the corresponding quarter, of, £175,000. Instead of that, as he had said, the increase ought to have been £100,000; so that the Revenue was £275,000, or at the rate of £1,100,000 on the year, less than was anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question, however, remained whether the first quarter's receipts on these heads might be taken as a basis so as to enable the House to judge as to the probable total receipts of the year, and whether any other financial change was to be allowed. For instance, although it was scarcely probable, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have not only a decrease in the amount of his anticipated receipts, but also a decrease in the demands which he anticipated would be made upon him, and thus secure his surplus. On this latter point he had not much hope. Already considerable Supplementary Estimates had been voted or promised, including £150,000 for the Navy; and he feared that there was little chance of the Budget expenditure not being reached, if not exceeded. But there were a good many considerations which ought to have due weight in estimating the probable income of the country, so far as it was derived from Customs, Excise, and Stamps; for instance, the state of the labour market, the progress of the home and also of the foreign trade, the imports of food, and the savings banks receipts. First as to wages, it must be remembered that the wages received by the working classes were much lower than those paid at a corresponding period of last year. For instance, in the iron and coal trade they were now an eighth less than last year; and the state of Staffordshire and South Wales pointed to further reductions. Again, the export trade during the first six months of the present year, on which labour was extensively employed, and therefore wages largely paid, had fallen short by no less than £8,000,000, the amount having diminished from £125,780,000 in the first half of 1873 to £117,831,000 in the corresponding part of 1874. Taking two of the most important divisions of the exports he found that the diminution in regard to iron and steel had been from £19,167,000 to £15,785,000 or 17 per cent. and that in regard to cotton, linen and woollen goods it had been from £59,130,000 to £54,802,000, or 8 per cent. That meant a large decrease in the profits and wages of the trades concerned, and of course the result would seriously affect the Revenue. Another valuable test was afforded by the home trade, the state of which they were enabled to judge by examining the railway traffic returns. The receipts of railway companies whose incomes exceeded £1,000,000 in the half-year had been in the first half of this year £16,088,000, and in the corresponding part of 1873, £15,624,000, showing an increase of only 3 per cent. although 1½ per cent had been added to the mileage. The increase in 1873 over 1872, on the other hand, had been no less than 9 per cent. and in 1872 over 1871, 8 per cent. From these figures it was to be inferred that the home trade had suffered a very decided check. Indeed, if the amount in respect of passengers were deducted, it would be found that there had been an actual reduction in the railway receipts for merchandize in the first half of 1874, as compared with the first half of 1873. Then, with regard to meat imports—and he knew no better test of the actual state of profits and wages—it appeared that, excluding bread-stuffs, which were little altered, and depended on the home production, the amount in the months of May and June last was £2,099,000, against £3,129,000 in the same months of 1873, showing a decrease of £1,030,000. Taking next the balances at the savings banks, a most unusual feature would be noticed. They would find that whereas from June 1873, to April 1874, they increased by no less than £2,500,000, they decreased from £62,931,009 in April last, to £62,842,153 in May, and to £62,747,356 in June, showing a falling off at the rate of £100,000 a month. That was a very remarkable and unprecedented state of things. Although all these facts seemed to indicate that the Revenue had of late lost its former elasticity, and that the falling off was likely to continue, it might yet be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in possession of better information which, on being given per contra, might seem satisfactory to the House. He would himself refer to the Trade and Revenue Returns for June, which were beyond a doubt more satisfactory than those of April or May, and if that improvement was not casual, but one which was likely to continue, and still more if the harvest were a good one, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take heart and count on his anticipations being realized. For his own part, he desired to say distinctly that he would rejoice in this quite as much as his right hon. Friend. His sitting on this side of the House did not in the least deter him from hoping for a good surplus, and that his right hon. Friend's Budget might be a success. His present inquiry had no party object. What, then, he desired to ask his right hon. Friend was, whether the figures he had given were correct; whether his deductions from them were sound; whether his right hon. Friend had anything to say which might lead them to take a more sanguine view of the matter than those figures seemed to warrant; and, whether, in the event of his not now anticipating so favourable a result as he had looked forward to when he made his Budget Statement, he intended to take any steps to prevent the House from drifting into a deficit?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the practice usually adopted of calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an annual statement of the finances of the country was upon the whole, and under ordinary circumstances, a practice that conduced to public convenience, and was one that ought not lightly to be departed from. Undoubtedly, in many cases within their memory, it had occurred that, after the usual annual forecast of the Revenue and probable expenditure, it was found at a later period of the Session that for some reason or other the anticipations were likely to prove fallacious, and it became necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to meet some extraordinary expenditure, or because his calculations of Revenue were likely to prove wrong, to ask the sanction of the House to some revision of the financial arrangements of the year. If Government had found that any circumstances had arisen during the three months that had elapsed since the Financial Statement was made, which seemed to call for a revision of their financial proposals, it would have been their duty—and they would not have hesitated to act upon their conviction as to that duty—to come down to the House and make proposals having reference to the alteration in the state of affairs. It was, however, doubtful whether it was for the public convenience that questions of the kind just raised by his right hon Friend should be brought before the House. He was aware there was a prevailing impression that, somehow or other, the condition of the finances was not satisfactory, and when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) asked persons who were of that opinion what grounds they had for it, they gave reasons more or less unsatisfactory; but generally they came to the clinching argument that the Revenue must be in a bad state, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was a great authority, had given Notice of an interpellation on the subject. The answer he had ventured to give was after the fashion of the Vicar of Wakefield, who used on solemn occasions in his family to express a hope that, "they might be all the better for it twelve months after," which he thought a safe thing to say, inasmuch as it was regarded only as a pious ejaculation, if the event turned out satisfactory, while if it proved otherwise, he might gain the character of a prophet. In the same way, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that some of the gentlemen who were anxious to know whether he felt uncomfortable about the state of the Revenue, would next year, if there were to be a deficiency, say that they were prophets, and had warned him in time; and, on the other hand, if nothing came of it, why, then, there was no harm in having put the question. He, however, did not wish to question the sincerity of his right hon. Friend, and he fully believed that his right hon. Friend was as anxious as any one that there should be a satisfactory Revenue for the year. Whatever impression his right hon. Friend had received from the Returns of the Revenue, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only say, in answer to his question, that he did not share his apprehension. He was not ready to present a revised Budget to the House, but if he were asked to anticipate the Revenue of the current year he should say that that Revenue would justify the figures which he anticipated when he brought forward his Financial Statement. He saw no reason for entertaining anxiety that those figures would not be realized. Of course, there were, and always had been, elements of uncertainty with respect to the Revenue of the year 1874–5. At the beginning of the year there was great anxiety as to the maintenance of the rate of wages, and as to the commercial interests of the country. But the Government took these matters into full consideration before the Budget for the present year was presented to the House. He would not go into all the figures connected with this matter, but he would point out what he thought was the cardinal fallacy on the part of his right hon. Friend—namely, that to ascertain the probable amount of Revenue for the year, they should multiply by four the Revenue of the first quarter of the year.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented what he had said on the subject. What he said was, that comparing this year with last, the increase on the quarter might be held to be the measure of the increase for the year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, in that case, perhaps he had not correctly expressed himself. But he took issue with the proposition even as stated by his right hon. Friend, and he would endeavour to show why. He would ask him why it was commonly assumed as an axiom that, if things remained in their normal state, the Revenue of one year was likely to be exceeded by the Revenue of the year following? It was because it was assumed that there was an increase of population, and that that led to a larger consumption, and consequently, to a larger Revenue year by year. Well, the population of the country increased every year, but the whole of that increase did not occur once for all on the 1st of April. The increase went on continuously throughout the year, and the Revenue from the Customs Excise would go on getting larger after that date, according to the rate at which the population went on increasing. And so it was undoubtedly now. Taking the question, however, on the right hon. Gentleman's own ground, with regard to the Customs, he found, on excluding from both items of account the article of sugar, that the net increase that year, as compared with the corresponding quarter of last year, amounted to £138,570 for the whole quarter, or at the rate of £554,280 for the year. This would give £250,000 more than he expected to get when he made his calculations. But in addition to that, there was the sum of £68,000 in respect of the sugar duty, which made the sum amount to £300,000 more for the Customs than he had reckoned upon. That was on the assumption that the increase in the first quarter of the year would be at the same rate as the increase in the remaining quarters, which never was the case; because, in fact, the large increase in the Customs Duties occurred generally in the third quarter. As regarded the Customs Returns for the month of May, they had, no doubt, been bad; but for the month of June, he found they were remarkably satisfactory in every particular; and the net result for the whole quarter was that, with the single exception of wine, the receipts were largely in excess of the amount he had anticipated, and instead of a falling off, he was glad to state that his Budget calculation for the quarter would be exceeded by £100,000. As to the Excise Revenue, he must frankly own that it had not produced quite as satisfactory results as the Customs Revenue; but here, a large recovery took place in the month of June; and he was not without hopes that, in the end, the Revenue would prove to be equal, or nearly so, to the amount he had estimated. With reference to one of the most important items—namely, that of spirits, he might inform the House that the increase of Revenue for the quarter was about £110,000; and if the receipt for the quarter should bear the same relative proportion to the year's Revenue as the receipt for the quarter ending June 1873–4, the total Revenue for the spirit duty of 1874–5 would amount probably to £15,200,000, or £200,000 less than the Budget Estimate. Therefore, against the possible improvement of £300,000 in the Customs duties he set down the possible loss of £200,000 upon the spirit duty. With respect to malt, they were not in a position to make any close calculation, because the question depended very much upon the third and fourth quarters. But although malt had not, so far, produced all that was expected of it, the quantity of sugar taken in for brewing purposes, curiously enough, exactly compensated for the disappointment from malt. The railway receipts, though they had shown a falling off, were now better, and the receipts from the Land Tax and House Duty were decidedly better. With regard to the income tax, he had some satisfactory indications to point out. In the first quarter of 1872–3 the tax of 4d. in the pound, with arrears at the rate of 6d. to collect, brought into the Exchequer £1,600,000. In the first quarter of last year, when the tax was 3d. in the pound, with arrears at the rate of 4d. to collect, it brought in £1,169,000; so that the difference of 2d. in the rate of arrears made a difference of £435,000 in the amount collected. One would have supposed that the loss in 1874–5, when there were arrears at the rate of 1d. to be collected, would be £217,000, or half the amount of the loss resulting from a difference of 2d.; but the actual loss was only £97,000, and in whatever way the matter was turned over, it seemed that we must get at least £100,000 more from the income tax than had been calculated upon. He did not think it would be convenient at that period of the Session to re-cast or revise the Budget; but a great many of these matters ought to be taken into account. They had been carefully estimated and considered; and, in reference to them, he had a large mass of figures with which he would not now trouble the House. However, he might say with confidence that, at the present moment, he could see no reason whatever for reducing the Estimate of Revenue which he brought before the House when he made his Financial Statement. He could not exactly say that that was a sanguine estimate, as it had been termed, though he admitted it was a close one. By that, he meant that the estimate was one which took into account, what was not usually taken into account—namely, the prospective increase of the year. Of course, it was the duty of the Government to be careful in what they assumed, and to make provision for a somewhat larger margin than in ordinary years had been thought necessary. Therefore, when the Financial Statement was brought forward, provision was made for a margin of £460,000. Since that Budget was introduced, there had, no doubt, been some Supplementary Estimates, and some others would be brought forward; but with regard to the principal Supplementary Estimate of £150,000 for the Navy, that was introduced shortly after the Budget, and might be taken as reducing the anticipated surplus to £300,000. There was a feature in the Budget calculations to which he ought to call the attention of the House. At the time he made his Financial Statement, it was proposed to take upon the Imperial Revenue a number of local charges, and as he did not know the precise amount it would be necessary to provide in order to meet some of those charges, he thought it would be safe to take the estimate at the full amount which would have to be paid in respect of those charges, as if the whole amount would come within the present financial year. As a matter of fact, however, some of those charges being paid half-yearly, would not come into course of payment during the year, and there was actually required something like £300,000 less than was included in the Budget Estimate. Therefore, the margin which the Government had left must be taken at much nearer £600,000 than £300,000. In reference to the police grant in particular, he might state that the amount to be ultimately given to the police for the year was about £600,000; but half of that was paid after Michaelmas, and half after Lady-day, and the latter payment consequently did not come into the finance of the present year. The Supplementary Estimates which would be shortly presented to the House would, he believed, fall short decidedly of the amount of that saving, and it might be concluded that there would be a much better surplus on the Budget Estimate than had of late years been usual. Of course, he was unable to say that in the course of the year no accidents would happen, and that no trouble would arise which might affect our receipts; but he certainly did not share the rather gloomy anticipation of his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out what no doubt was true—namely, that the Board of Trade Returns showed a falling off in our exports. But in what respect, and at what time? It was during the last six months of the year. But had his right hon. Friend noticed what a comparative recovery there had been in the month of June? "Whereas the falling off in the last six months of the financial year was something like £8,000,000, or considerably more than £1,000,000 a month, in the month of June the falling of was not more than £97,000. April must be described as a moderately satisfactory month, and May as decidedly gloomy; but June was as decidedly encouraging, as May was gloomy. He regretted that he had not with him the figures respecting the Savings Banks. Although they showed a diminution for a considerable time, there had been a change quite recently, and looking at the revival in the consumption of all articles, especially tea, tobacco, and other things which seemed to be falling off, there was a fair prospect, if we were blessed with a good harvest, of a material increase in the Revenue. In making his Financial Statement, he mentioned that the intention of the Government was to create a series of annuities with a view to redeem £7,000,000 of Debt. For that purpose, it was intended to apply the interest on the advances made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. That interest might be taken at, as nearly as possible, £500,000, and the amount proposed to be set up by way of annuities would come to £439,000. Therefore, some £50,000 would come into strengthen the miscellaneous revenue in regard to that Debt. It was thought convenient that these annuities should be made payable on the 1st of August, the 1st of September, the 1st of November, and the 1st of December, the object being to suit the convenience of the National Debt Commissioners. In conclusion, he had only to say that if any further specific questions were addressed to him, he would do his best to reply to them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, they must all be actuated by a desire that the Revenue of the country should be in a prosperous condition. He had for some years been an advocate of what the right hon. Baronet called close Estimates, for he thought the country ought not to be treated as a spoilt child, and it did not want to have its powders administered in jam. Of course, it was for the Government, after having estimated what would be the Revenue and Expenditure, to determine how it would dispose of the surplus, and he should not have risen to make a single remark, but for one statement of the right hon. Baronet, which was not entirely consistent with the principle of close Estimates. The right hon. Baronet informed the House that he calculated the Supplementary Estimates would be covered by the reduced expenditure in respect to the contribution to the police. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] He was speaking of the reduced expenditure within the present financial year. All he ventured by way of mild criticism to suggest was, that that fact must have been known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget, and that he might as well have mentioned it to the House at that time. In conclusion, he could only express a hope that the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be fully realized.

MR. PEASE

agreed that as a general rule, it would be an inconvenient practice to have more than one Budget discussion in the year; but at the same time, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract was justified, under the circumstances, in putting his Question, and he was certain the Answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give satisfaction to the country. The recent fall in wages—the consequent decrease in consumption, and the falling off in various branches of industry—were all matters which were calculated to cause anxiety, and warranted the course which had been pursued.

MR. HEYGATE

emphatically protested against the doctrine that it was wise and expedient to have close Estimates of Revenue. He thought it was neither a wise, a safe, nor a Conservative policy. It was far less an evil that the taxpayers should pay a little more than was necessary, than that taxes should be taken off, and then have to be re-imposed. Very close Estimates were apt to starve the public service; while if there was a larger surplus than was expected, it did no harm to any one, but went towards the next year's Re-venue.

MR. E. J. REED

wished it to be clearly understood that, though the rate of wages paid to the working classes had considerably decreased of late, the decrease followed upon a large and abnormal rise in the wage rate from which the country suffered enormously. He thought it was undesirable that the House should be supposed in any way to under-rate that decrease.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he should not have interposed in this discussion did he not feel, from the speeches which they had heard from the two front Benches, that there had been carefully left out of sight one important aspect in which this question might be viewed. This, perhaps, was not altogether unnatural, if they considered what had happened to the finances of the country during the present year. It seemed to him that every day it was becoming more evident that a most serious injury was done to the financial position of the country by the popular financial bids for electoral support which were made by each great party at the last General Election. He knew nothing, however, more creditable to the country than the fact that it did not respond to the financial inducements held out to it—a circumstance which pointed to the improbability of the experiment being tried again. He did not censure the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what had been done, because he was placed in the position of being compelled to do something in order to redeem the promises made by his Chief in his Election Addresses before the last General Election. Two months before the end of the financial year, the then Prime Minister had predicted a surplus between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and promised remissions of taxation, which, if they had been carried out, would have required a surplus of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. How was the deficiency between the promised remissions of taxation and the surplus which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had assumed to exist to be made up? Why, it was to be made up by the re-adjustment of taxes— a vague, infinite, and unfortunate expression. After all, however, money must be had, and if the late Prime Minister had been attending in his place during the present Session, he certainly should have pressed him to tell the House where he was going to get the money to give these £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of remission of taxation. That, however, was not all, for the party now in power, instead of taking the dignified course of refusing to enter into a rivalry in the matter of financial bids for popular Votes, went even further in the same direction, and the present Prime Minister, in a series of electoral addresses, made some great promises on the subject of taxation. One day, it was to be the income tax; the next, it was to be a great remission of local taxation; and the next, there were promises which led the farmers to believe that something would be done with regard to the malt duty. If they made a most moderate estimate, the present Prime Minister had raised expectations which it would take a surplus of £20,000,000 to satisfy. The unsatisfactory state of the Revenue was not, in his (Mr. Fawcett's) opinion, due to the fact that some of the anticipated sources of Revenue had been short, but to the circumstance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised expectations which it was next to impossible to realize without creating financial difficulty, and which if he did not attempt to satisfy them, must create a wide feeling of discontent in the country. He would not make a financial prophecy, but he might be permitted to express his opinion, that under present circumstances, it was impossible for the Revenue to maintain the elasticity which had characterized it during the last few years. Every day they saw some great dispute arising between capital and labour, and there could be no doubt that if employment were curtailed and wages reduced, their Excise and Customs' revenue would become less productive. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that his Estimates were extremely close, and that some of his sources of income were not turning out as favourably as might have been anticipated. Again, in his Estimates of expenditure, he had allowed for only half the sum for lunatics, and next year £250,000 or £300,000 more than was paid this year, would have to be paid for lunatics. That reduced the right hon. Gentleman's surplus of £300,000 to nothing at all. A portion of the income tax would be paid during the present year at 3d., and that tax would yield him a less sum next year. Moreover, gentlemen who took a great interest in local taxation had been assured that what had been done for them this year was only a small indication of the great favours they were to receive; and there was not a single Chamber of Agriculture or concourse of farmers at a market ordinary who supposed that a small allowance for lunatics and police was all the Conservative party, after talking for years about local taxation, was going to do for the agricultural interest, now that it had a great majority at its back. In the existing state of the Revenue, however, it was impossible that those expectations could be fulfilled. Speeches, too, had been made by the Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty which foreshadowed that some more money would be required for their Departments. There was a certain spontaneous and natural increase in the expenditure for the Services over which those two right hon. Gentlemen presided, and after all they had said against "paper regiments" and "phantom fleets," it was not to be supposed that they would would let those services suffer in efficiency. Moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had included in his calculations of this year's income a sum of £500,000 for what he called interest on reproductive loans, which he (Mr. Fawcett) really believed to belong to the capital of the country, and which ought not, and had never before been held to constitute a part of the ordinary Revenue of the country. In conclusion, it was important that they should clear the financial atmosphere as much as possible from the confusion unfortunately introduced into it by the events of the recent General Election, and that they should remember that there was much in the general industrial and financial condition of the country which should inspire the Government and the House with great care and caution in regard to revenue and expenditure. He hoped, therefore, that the state of the Revenue did not permit of the promises that had been made being redeemed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not hesitate to erase the past and to disregard those promises.

MR. HUBBARD (London)

said, that in estimating the probable future Revenue of the country, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proceeded upon an estimate not absolutely accurate, but as accurate as it could be made; and upon that circumstance the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had foundered himself, in the gloomy view of the financial state of the country which he had taken. Now that view, so far as the application of public money to the reduction of the National Debt was concerned, had been answered beforehand by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if the hon. Member had looked to a printed paper headed "Sinking Fund," he would find reason rather for gratification than the reverse. That table showed them how the reduction of the National Debt had been dealt with for centuries past, and it appeared from it that, during the last few years especially, the Debt had been reduced by some £2,000,000, £3,000,000, and £4,000,000 at a time. In the face of such facts, it became a matter of comparative unimportance whether the estimate of the Revenue was a few hundred thousands of pounds in excess, or in diminution. The question was simply, whether the Government balance at the Bank of England might be a balance within a few hundred thousand pounds of the estimated amount of the Revenue. There was, therefore, no ground whatever for the position which had been taken up on this question against the Government, and it was a question upon which the hon. Member for Hackney had been wholly misinformed. The hon. Gentleman further said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having received £500,000 in repayment of advances made by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, he had applied it in part discharge of national obligations, without taking notice of the source from which the amount came. Nothing could be more distant from the fact. He could tell the hon. Member that £350,000 of that £500,000 passed through his hands, and that that sum represented the interest on advances made by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. These accounts were carefully analyzed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had properly applied the money coming into his hands to the most legitimate purpose—the reduction of the National Debt. The hon. Member for Hackney ought to be gratified to learn that not only were there no grounds for the alarm he had expressed, but that the money in question had been applied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the purpose which he (Mr. Fawcett) so strongly advocated.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he felt it his duty to express an opinion different from that of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Hubbard), when he gave it as his opinion that it was a matter of comparative indifference whether the Estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned out to be £100,000 or £200,000 wrong, more or less. A proposition of that kind, even from such an authority as matters of finance, seemed to be of a somewhat doubtful character. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate), might certainly have taken too gloomy a view of the financial prospects of the ensuing year; but the view which he (Mr. Stansfeld) ventured to put before the House was this. He did not think that either the hon. Member for Hackney or the hon. Member for the City was quite right. He could not but understand that an Estimate for whatever purpose, should be as exact as an Estimate could be made. The normal growth of the Revenue should then be taken into account, and allowed for as correctly as possible, in order that the Estimate might be as correct as it could be; and then, if any signs of a decline should present themselves, as now, that should be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer retaining in his hands a sufficient sum to meet any actual deficiency.

Resolution agreed to.