WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

HC Deb 05 April 1883 vol 277 cc1507-98

WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Sir Arthur Otway, the Statement which I am about to make to the Committee will not be so interesting as those which have been made on several occasions recently, and for two reasons. In the first place, in the Budget of last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made no changes in taxation—at least, he proposed one in the first instance, but it was not carried out—and, therefore, I have nothing to report to the Committee as to the effect of recent fiscal alterations. In the second place, I have held my present Office for so short a time—only for a few weeks—that I do not think I should be justified in proposing to Parliament any considerable changes of taxation. I believe there is no greater mistake than proposing great alterations, unless after the most full study of the question and complete conviction on the part of the proposer that his recommendations are thoroughly and in all respects satisfactory. Therefore, I shall only endeavour, on the present occasion, to put very simply and plainly before the House matters of fact, concluding with such arrangements for the current year as it seems to me I can safely propose to Parliament.

I will, in the first instance, deal with the Revenue of the year 1882–3, which has just come to an end; and, as to it, there are three comparisons which I have to make. I have to compare it with the original Estimate made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) in the month of April last; with the Estimate made in the month of July, when the Vote of Credit for the Egyptian Expedition was taken; and also with the Estimate made in the month of February last before I proposed to the House the additional Supplementary Estimates for the Egyptian Expedition, when also the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates were brought forward. The original Estimate made by my right hon. Friend was that the Revenue of 1882–3 would amount to £84,935,000, exclusive of £247,000 which he proposed to raise by an increase of the Carriage Tax. My right hon. Friend added in July £2,262,000 to his original Estimate on account of the additional 1½d. Income Tax; but he said, on the 24th of that month— Some gain has been made upon the Estimates enabling me to make the highway grant without asking the House to disturb the carriage tax."—(3 Hansard, [272] 1575.) And in February last my anticipation was that there would be a further improvement in the Revenue beyond the July calculation to the extent of from £500,000 to £750,000. I am happy to say that on that occasion I underrated the improvement which has actually taken place. Those who have watched from week to week the Revenue Returns will have seen that during the last six or seven weeks there has been a very rapid increase in the amount of Revenue received into the Exchequer. The result of the whole matter is this—the total Revenue for 1882–3 has been £89,004,000. It exceeds the Budget Estimate by £4,069,000. It exceeds the July Estimate, when the additional 1½d. Income Tax was imposed, by about £1,800,000. And it exceeds my highest Estimate in February last by about £750,000.

And I will now give one or two of the principal heads of Revenue. I will compare, in the first instance, the receipts from Customs and Excise, and I take them together, for reasons which I will give in a few minutes. First of all, I will compare the receipts of 1881–2 with the Estimates for 1882–3. The receipts for 1881–2 were £46,527,000, divided between Customs, £19,287,000, and Excise, £27,240,000. The Estimate in February last for 1882–3 was £19,300,000 for Customs, and £27,230,000 for Excise, or, in all, £46,530,000. The actual receipts of the year have been £19,657,000 for Customs, and £26,930,000 for Excise, making together £46,587,000. So that the receipts of 1881–2, the Estimates of 1882–3, and the receipts of 1882–3, are almost the same; the extreme difference between the highest and lowest being only £60,000. I combine these two items of Customs and Excise, on account of the almost impossibility of arriving at any reasonable computation as to the division of the Spirit Duty between the two Departments. The spirit consumption may be estimated pretty accurately; but it is impossible to anticipate with confidence into which Department the Revenue itself will fall, because there is now an extreme competition between British spirits and cheap foreign spirits, coming, for the most part, from the North of Europe; the former feeding the Excise, and the latter the Customs Revenue.

I should like, while on this subject, to say a few words as to the present rate of consumption of sprits, and I may add of wine, in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave last year to the House a very interesting account of the rise and fall of the Spirit Duty since 1867; but I propose to add to the valuable figures which he then gave one comparison which I think may be of interest to the Committee. I will compare the Spirit and Wine Duties received in the financial year 1875–6, when the consumption was at its highest, with the amount of those duties received last 3rear, having regard to the increase of population. The Spirit and Wine Duties produced in 1875–6 as nearly as possible £23,000,000; and if you add to that 8 per cent, for the increase of the population since 1875–6, or £1,840,000, the Committee will see that had spirits and wines been consumed last year at the same rate as in 1875–6, the total Revenue from them would have been £24,840,000. But the actual Revenue from spirits and wine in 1882–3 was only £19,840,000; so that, allowing for the increase of population, the consumption of wines and spirits has fallen off to such an extent as to be represented by a reduction of Revenue to the extent of £5,000,000 sterling. That, as the Committee knows, represents more than 2½d. in the pound of Income Tax. If you include beer, the calculation is not quite so easy, because the amount which would have been received under the Malt Tax is not identical with the amount received under the present duty. The decrease in consumption of beer is, however, large, and it may be generally said that the fall-off in the consumption of fermented and spirituous liquors in this country since 1875–6 represents almost 3d. in the pound of Income Tax. Now, Sir, as to this great fall in the consumption of fermented and spirituous liquors, and particularly in the consumption of spirits, I should like to refer for a moment to a very interesting statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) in introducing the Budget in 1874. My right hon. Friend rarely prophesies, unless he knows; but on this occasion he did make a very interesting prophecy to the House. It was in the heyday of the Spirit Duty, and I am not surprised that the prophecy was hazarded. He said— I would refer, as one main source of possible addition to the Revenue, to the vast increase in the consumption of spirits. … It may be said that the time may come when a check will come; …. but I ask, under what circumstances would it be expected that the consumption of spirits in this country would fall off to such an extent as seriously to injure the Revenue? It must be from one or two causes—either from some general failure of the consuming power of the people …. the will remaining as it was—or from some great change in the habits of the people. … If it were the former, it would tell upon all the sources of Revenue, just as well as upon that derived from spirits. … If the latter, the wealth such a change would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade the Revenue from spirits …. and the Exchequer would not suffer from the losses it might sustain in that direction."—(3 Hansard, [218] 665–6.) As a matter of fact, we have neither of these results. As to the first, the drink revenue stands alone in the heavy fall that has taken place. Although other items of Revenue have been for some years sluggish, there has been no general failure of the consuming power of the people. As to the second, hypothesis, having looked well through the Revenue, as well as the Expenditure, I cannot find that the Exchequer has yet received any benefit elsewhere to make up for the great fall in the Revenue from spirits. Now, Sir, I am bound to say also that, personally, I do not regret this in the least. It is generally supposed that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should take no interest in sobriety, but only in Revenue— Quærenda pecunia primium, Virtus post nummos; but I do not share that opinion. Personally, I rejoice greatly at the spread of temperance in this country, even if it makes Budgets more difficult, and contracts our field of beneficial expenditure.

I pass now from spirits and wine to beer. The actual Revenue in 1881–2 from beer was £8,531,000; the estimated Revenue for 1882–3 was £8,550,000; and the actual receipt in 1882–3 was only £8,400,000. This fall, I am satisfied, is due to what is known in the trade as the "hop famine," which has been universal, not only in this country, but all over the Continent. The price of hops has risen from an average of £6 10s. per cwt. in 1881, and £6 11s. in 1882, to no less than £22 13s. in 1883, and that is about the price at the present moment. This has greatly affected the brewing trade, and the amount of the Beer Duty. Of some other articles of consumption the account is more satisfactory. In the first place, there has been a steady rise in the Revenue from Tea since the year 1878–9, when the great fall in the amount of duty took place. In the year 1879–80 the Revenue from Tea was £3,700,000; in 1880–1 it was £3,870,000; in 1881–2 it was £3,970,000; and in the year which has just passed over it was £4,200,000. This is, I think, a thoroughly satisfactory increase, and it is one which, I hope, will be maintained. As to tobacco, the Revenue is little more than stationary, and does not call for any particular remark.

From Customs and Excise I pass to the Revenue from Stamps. In these Duties there has been a very remarkable increase, and that increase has chiefly taken place in what are known as the Death Duties—the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties. These receipts, in 1881–2, were £7,055,000. My right hon. Friend last year anticipated for the current year that there would be a less receipt, and the Estimate was reduced to £6,750,000. The actual receipt from the Death Duties has been £7,365,000—a most remarkable increase upon the year before, and a still more remarkable increase upon the Estimate. There are several causes for that increase, one or two of which I may give to the Committee. In the first instance, while several very large estates—one of them on which duty at the rate of 5 per cent was payable—fell in last year, the loss on the 1 per cent on lineals, now collected with the Probate Duty, was very much less than had been anticipated by the Inland Revenue Board. In the second place, there is now a much better administration of that branch of the Stamp Duties at Somerset House; and, in the third place, it happens that a payment which ought to have come in, I think, on the last day of March, 1882, as a matter of fact, only reached the Exchequer at the beginning of April, and that payment was no less than £120,000. As to the Income Tax, I find that the Estimate at 6½d. in the pound, made in July, was £11,662,000; whereas the actual receipt has been £11,900,000.

These are the only items of Tax Revenue as to which I need say anything at present. Passing to Non-Tax Revenue, the Post Office, the Committee will be glad to know, thoroughly retains its elasticity. The receipt for 1881–2 was £8,630,000; the Estimate for 1882–3 was £8,800,000; and the actual receipt in 1882–3 was no less than £9,010,000; and of this the Telegraph receipts show an increase of some £ 60,000 over the Estimate made last year. In the Miscellaneous Revenue there is also a considerable increase over the Estimate made by my right hon. Friend. That Estimate was £4,725,000; whereas the actual receipt has been £5,267,000, or an increase of £542,000 over the Estimate, and £255,000 over the receipt of 1881–2. The Miscellaneous Revenue consists of a very large number of small items, and this increase is spread over many of them. But there is one very large increase, the result of a change as to Military and Naval extra receipts, amounting to £280,000. The new system of deducting the extra receipts from Army and Navy expenditure, before ascertaining the amount of the Estimates to be proposed to Parliament, only took effect in the year 1882–3. In support of that change it was contended that, subject to the limitation proposed by the Public Accounts Committee, it would greatly strengthen the control of Parliament by limiting the power of a Department to spend more than Parliament had actually placed at its disposal. The accuracy of this contention, and the justice of the reasons which were then assigned as actuating the Public Accounts Committee to approve the change, are very well illustrated, I am happy to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), in connection with this receipt. This £280,000 formed part of the entire extra receipt for these Services for 1881–2; and this remained unascertained at the end of the year 1881–2, and temporarily at the Department's disposal in addition to the grants. Nothing of the kind can recur in respect of any future year. Now, extra receipts form part of the grants to which the Departments are limited, inasmuch as they are deducted before the amount of the Vote is settled. Thus the power of the Departments to spend money beyond the Votes is entirely taken away. I have personally advocated this change for nearly 20 years; and already its benefits, as illustrated by what I have just said, cannot, I think, be doubted. And now, Sir, I will recapitulate the Revenue of 1882–3. I presume the Committee have the Paper which gives the items in their hands. The Tax Revenue for 1882–3 has amounted to £73,128,000, and the Non-Tax Revenue to £15,876,000, forming together the £89,004,000 I have already named to the Committee.

I pass to the Expenditure for the year 1882–3. The original Estimate of Expenditure, as given in the Budget Statement in April, 1882, was £84,630,000; besides £250,000, the proposed grant on account of highways. The Vote of Credit and the Supplementary Estimate on account of the operations in Egypt amounted to £3,896,000, including a small Vote for Civil Charges in connection with Egypt; and the two Supplementary Civil Estimates amounted to £217,000 in July, and £590,000 in February; giving a total estimated Expenditure of £89,583,000. In my Statement at the end of February, I said that I thought the savings would amount to about the Supplementary Civil Estimates which were then asked for from Parliament, and they have amounted to something more than those Estimates; in fact, to the sum of £677,000. As the Committee has not got the figures in detail of this Expenditure, it is my duty to place before them the actual amounts. The permanent charge for the Debt amounted to £29,004,000; the interest on Local Loans was £475,000; the interest on Exchequer Bonds (for the purchase of Suez Canal Shares) £200,000, and all the other Consolidated Fund Charges were £1,542,000. Thus the total charges on the Consolidated Fund amounted to £31,221,000. The Supply Service Expenditure was as follows:—For the Army, £15,502,000; for the Indian Home Charges, £1,100,000; for the Afghan War—part of the £5,000,000 settled in 1880 to be given to India—£500,000; the Navy Charge was £10,409,000; the charge for the War in Egypt, including the contribution to India, was £3,896,000; the charge for the Civil Services was £17,350,000; for the Customs and Inland Revenue, £2,870,000; for the Post Office, £3,828,000; for the Telegraph Service, £1,510,000; and for the Packet Services, £720,000. The total Expenditure, therefore, is £88,906,000, which, compared with the Revenue—namely, £89,004,000—gives a surplus for the year 1882–3 of £98,000.

I propose to postpone my review of this Expenditure in detail, until I deal with the estimated Expenditure of 1883–4, the present year. But there are one or two remarks on recent Expenditure which I think it may be interesting to the Committee that I should make now. The present Administration have had three years in which they have had to pay, not only for their own wars, but also much more largely for the wars of their Predecessors. The three last years of the late Government closed with deficits exceeding in each year £2,000,000, and amounting altogether to £7,770,000; whereas each of our years has closed with a surplus, the total amount of the surplus upon the three years being £1,380,000. I think the figures which I am about to give deserve consideration, and may be useful and instructive. We inherited, when we took Office, a debt for the Russian War preparations, and for operations in South Africa, which my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) estimated on the 11th of March, 1880, at £8,100,000, but which actually amounted to £7,850,000. Of this my right hon. Friend had arranged to pay off a part by intercepting the operation of the New Sinking Fund—that is to say, by paying off so much less Debt. In our three years the amount so intercepted has been. £1,650,000; but we have paid off in cash £3,100,000; so that, altogether, we have had to defray on this account £4,750,000. In February, 1880, the late Government estimated the cost of the Afghan War to India at £6,000,000, besides a large charge for Frontier Railways. The actual cost was £17,500,000, besides the charge for Frontier Railways. We determined to contribute £5,000,000 on account of this heavy charge upon India; and of this we have paid, up to the end of 1882–3, £3,500,000, having raised £2,000,000 of it by Terminable Annuities. We also, I may say, inherited the Transvaal War, and that cost us £2,600,000; and, adding together these three items, the actual debt which we inherited of £7,850,000, the contribution to India of £5,000,000, and the Transvaal War—our war inheritance has been £15,450,000. From that total large deduction has to be made. In the first instance, £2,000,000 of the grant to India are represented by, as I have said, a long Annuity; of the remaining £3,000,000, £1,500,000 remain to be paid; and the amount of the original debt of £7,850,000 not yet paid off is £3,100,000. These sums together amount to £6,600,000. There remains, therefore, of the inherited War Expenditure which we have paid out of taxation, £7,200,000, besides the £1,650,000 which has been charged on the New Sinking Fund, under the arrangement made by our Predecessors, and which has prevented us paying off Debt to that amount. To this we add the cost of our own war in Egypt, in round figures £3,900,000; so that we have paid out of taxes, altogether, £11,100,000; or, to be strictly accurate, £10,700,000, after deducting £400,000 repaid to us by South Africa. And we have no arrears whatever of the cost of our own wars. Let me put this in other words. Our Predecessors incurred an expenditure for war of £12,285,000; of this they charged on taxes £4,435,000, leaving us a legacy of £7,850,000. We have paid of this, out of Revenue, £3,100,000; there has been intercepted from money properly coming in to pay off Debt, £1,650,000; and we have had this further legacy of the Transvaal War—["No!"]—and the grant of £5,000,000 to India'. In my humble opinion, the Transvaal War was a legacy from our Predecessors. ["No!"] In addition to that, we have paid the whole cost of the Egyptian War in the year of the war. We have, Sir, I think I may say, dared to pay our way, and much more than pay our way. We have gone to the taxpayer and asked him to pay the arrears of a War Expenditure of £11,100,000, or, after reducing the re-payment from the Cape, of £10,700,000, of which £7,200,000, or £4,600,000, if the Transvaal expenses are excluded, was inherited from our Predecessors. They only paid off in three years £4,435,000, and they prospectively damaged their own Sinking Fund by charging upon it £550,000 a-year till 1885, which we should otherwise have applied to reduce the Debt.

And now, Sir, let me apply what I have just said to the finance of the year 1882–3. The ordinary Revenue of the year was £86,729,000; the special Income Tax of 1½d. for the war produced £2,275,000; making a total Revenue of £89,004,000. The ordinary Expenditure of the year was £83,990,000, as against £86,729,000 of ordinary Revenue. But we paid, in addition, for the South African and Afghan Wars before 1880, after allowing for the repayment of £400,000, no less than £1,020,000; and we have also paid the whole of our War Expenditure in Egypt—namely, £3,896,000. I hope the Committee will pardon me for dwelling on this subject; but it is important that the true figures should be clearly understood.

I believe that this is the right opportunity for giving the state of the Debt, and of the balances of the 31st day of March, 1883. On that day the Funded Debt stood at £712,697,000; the Terminable Annuities at £29,462,000; and the Unfunded Debt at £14,185,000; making together, on the 31st of March last, a total Debt of £756,344,000. The balances on that day were £6,973,000. Comparing these figures with those of 1882,1 find that on the 31sfc March, 1882, the Funded Debt stood at £709,498,000; the capital of the Terminable Annuities at £35,540,000; and the Unfunded Debt at £18,008,000; making a total of £763,046,000, the balances at that date being £5,977,000. Looking at these figures alone, the apparent reduction of the Debt would be £7,700,000. It would, however, not be perfectly fair to take these figures alone, because our advances for local purposes have fallen short of the repayments to an extent of £600,000; and, therefore, the real reduction of the Debt since March, 1882, although apparently £7,700,000, has been only £7,100,000. That exhausts the figures that are usually given to the House with regard to the finance of the past year—that is to say, 1882–3.

I will now pass to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 1883–4, the year in which we now are. It is estimated that the permanent charge of Debt for the current year will be £28,954,000; the interest on Local Loans will be £525,000; that on the Suez Canal Bonds will be £200,000; and the other Consolidated Fund Charges in this year will be £1,640,000; making in all for such charges £31,319,000. The charge for the Army is taken at £15,607,000; the Home Charges, to be repaid by India, £1,230,000; the amount of the Afghan War Grant in Aid will be £500,000; and the charge for the Navy will be £10,757,000. The charge for the Egyptian Expedition will be practically nothing, some very small amount in respect of it being included in the Navy Estimates. The charge for the Civil Services will be £17,253,000. That for the collection of the Customs and the Inland Revenue is estimated at £2,775,000; that for the Post Office at £4,124,000; that for the Telegraph Service at £1,518,000; and that for the Packet Service at £706,000; making a total Estimate of Expenditure for the year of £85,789,000, or less than the Expenditure of last year by £3,117,000. In round numbers, the reductions and the increases may be thus stated. The reductions will be found under the following heads:—In respect of the War in Egypt, £3,900,000; in respect of the charge for Debt, £50,000; in respect of the Civil Services, £ 100,000; and in respect of the collection of Revenue, £100,000; making a total of £4,150,000. On the other hand, the increased charges are—for the Army, £100,000; for the Navy, £350,000; for the Consolidated Fund and Local Loan 0harges,£l50,000;andforthePostOffice, £300,000; making altogether a total estimated increase of £900,000, which, deducted from the sum of £4,150,000, reduces the net total estimated decrease to £3,250,000. This latter figure has, however, to be corrected by the nominal increase in the charge to be repaid by India of £130,000, giving a real decrease of a little under £3,120,000.

I will now refer to some of the details of the estimated Expenditure for the year. In the first place, it will be observed that the permanent charge for Debt is less by £50,000 than it was last year. The reason is that the state of the balances, which are £1,000,000 more than they were at this time last year, enables me to payoff £1,000,000 out of the £2,000,000 borrowed on the Annuity of £120,000, to form part of the £5,000,000 given to India, and therefore to reduce the amount of the Annuity by £50,000. And here, Sir, I think that the Committee would wish me to give them some information as to the result of the recent operations which have been initiated, not only by the present Government, but by their Predecessors in Office, with the object of reducing the National Debt. Any statement, however, on this subject requires to be made with the greatest care; and, with the assistance of the able officers of the Department, I have taken pains to arrive at clear and accurate figures in this respect. On the present occasion, I will only deal with the steps that have been taken for the reduction of the Debt within the last nine years, and I will give the Committee the figures for that period. These nine years naturally divide themselves into two portions—namely, the six years from March, 1874, to March, 1880, inclusive, and the three years from March, 1880, to March, 1883, inclusive. It appears that on the 31st of March, 1874, the capital of the Debt, including both the Funded and the Un- funded Debt, and the value of the Terminable Annuities, was £776,018,000; while on March 31, 1880, it stood at £774,044,000, showing an apparent reduction of £1,974,000. These figures, however, would be entirely delusive if they 6tood alone, because we must take into account the amount of capital raised for remunerative purposes, such as Local Loans, the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares, and the Telegraphs; and the amount so raised, £20,241,000, makes the apparent reduction of the Debt £22,215,000. From this latter sum, however, has to be deducted £4,170,000, the difference between the balances in the Exchequer in March, 1874, and in March, 1880—less £115,000, a small adjustment in connection with Bankruptcy balances—and this leaves a net reduction of £18,160,000. This gives an average reduction of Debt of £3,027,000 per annum for the six years from 1874–5 to 1879–80 inclusive.

I will now pass to the three years from March, 1880, to March, 1883, during which the Committee will see that the average annual reduction of the Debt has been much greater. The nominal capital of the Debt at March, 1880, was, as I have already stated, £774,044,000, while on March 31, 1883, it stood at £756,344,000 only, showing an apparent reduction of £17,700,000. During that period, however, no capital was raised for remunerative works; but, on the contrary, the repayments exceeded the advances, and it is right, in making a fair comparison, to deduct these. They amounted to £883,000, which leaves the apparent reduction at £16,817,000. To this sum, however, has to be added £3,700,000, the difference between the balances in the Exchequer in March, 1880, and March, 1883. This makes the net reduction of the Debt for the three years I have referred to £20,517,000, or an average reduction of £6,839,000 per annum, £3,812,000 more than the average of the preceding six years. And I may say that in the present year, if our proposals are adopted, the reduction of the Debt will be probably about £8,000,000. I will add one other statement about the Debt which will be of interest to the Committee. On the 31st of March, 1857, after allowing for recoverable assets, it stood at £832,600,000; while at the end of 1882–3, calculated on the same principle, it stood at £725,500,000. The reduction, therefore, in the 26 years since 1857 was £107,100,000, in spite of several loans for unremunerative purposes, and of the Telegraph loans, which I have not treated as strictly remunerative.

Before I proceed to state the nature of my proposals for dealing with the Debt, the Committee will, perhaps, wish to know how the law at present stands with regard to the sums applicable to its interest and redemption. By the Act of 1876, which is a permanent Act, the sum of £28,000,000 per annum is appropriated to the payment of the interest on the Funded and Unfunded Debt, and to Terminable Annuities, and any balance goes to the New Sinking Fund established by my right hon. Friend opposite. By the Act of 1880 a further sum of £800,000 is added until 1885; and by the Act of 1881 a further sum of £120,000 is added until 1906. At the present moment the Terminable Annuities and the interest on the Funded and Unfunded Debt have swallowed up the whole of the £28,000,000 appropriated by the Act of 1876 to the payment of interest, except about £240,000, which goes to the Sinking Fund of my right hon. Friend.

But in 1885 two things will happen. In the first place, Terminable Annuities, amounting to £5,130,000, charged on the £28,000,000, will fall in, and the £800,000, which was added to the £28,000,000, falls in also. In these circumstances, I think the time has arrived when we ought to take proper measures for replacing by fresh Terminable Annuities those which are so soon to come to an end. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed to do this in 1881; but the time at the disposal of the Government in the Session of that year was so small that my right hon. Friend was unable to carry out the proposals made to the House, and they were, consequently, allowed to drop. I now propose to take up the matter again, and to ask the House to legislate upon it. In the first place, I propose to leave undisturbed the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote)—whether I liked it at the time or not—as to the £28,000,000 and the New Sinking Fund; and I also propose not to disturb the Act of 1880, under which the sum of £800,000 a-year comes to the relief of the taxpayer in 1885; but I propose to substitute for the Annuities soon about to expire fresh Annuities, which I will now describe to the Committee. I propose, in the first place, to renew, with some variation, the proposal made by my right hon. Friend in 1881 as to the conversion of a certain amount of what is known as Chancery Stock. The reasons for that proposal were given at the time by my right hon. Friend, and I need not, therefore, repeat them on this occasion; but I may say that the amount of the Three per Cents now in Court is above £61,000,000, so that I shall be able without difficulty to take £10,000,000 of that sum under ample safeguards, which have been considered and agreed upon with the Lord Chancellor, and convert it into a 20 years' Annuity of £2,674,000. I propose, also, to take about £30,000,000 out of the £50,000,000 which now stands to the credit of the Savings Banks Accounts with the Commissioners of the National Debt, and to convert that £30,000,000 into three Annuities of £1,200,000 each; one for five years, one for 10 years, and one for 15 years; in all, £3,600,000, with the proviso—and here I pause to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) for the great amount of attention he has bestowed on this particular question—that as each of these Annuities falls in a new Annuity for 15 years shall be created, equal in amount to the former, plus the interest on the Stock cancelled to create the new Annuity; so that the annual amount of charge on the £28,000,000 in respect of interest on Debt and Terminable Annuites will permanently remain the same. I propose to substitute also for the £5,130,000 Annuity falling in in 1885, a 20 years' Annuity of £700,000. The total Annuities charged at first on the £28,000,000, under the permanent Act, will thus be £6,974,000, as against the present Annuities, and the interest on £70,000,000 Stock cancelled, which together amount to £7,237,000. The result will be, first, that for 20 years there will exist the same National Debt Charge as now—namely, £28,000,000, besides the £800,000 falling in for the taxpayers' benefit in 1885. Secondly, the New Sinking Fund will be increased by the difference between £7,230,000 and £6,974,000, and will amount this year to something under £500,000. The immediate cancellation and ultimate reduction of Funded Debt will be about £70,000,000; but the further reduction, owing to the operations which will take place in five, 10, 15, and 20 years, will be £102,000,000; so that after 20 years the Funded Debt will have been reduced by the sum of £172,000,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have at his disposal £3,374,000 a-year derived from the Annuities falling in, which will go either in relief of the taxpayer, or be otherwise disposed of as Parliament may think fit. In this calculation I have taken the Stocks at par; if they are over par, there will be a slight reduction on the £172,000,000 of Funded Debt cancelled by these operations, for which the Stocks at our disposal will leave ample margin. Within 20 years all the Chancery Stock will have been entirely replaced; and, at a very moderate estimate, the £50,000,000 now in the Savings Bank Account with the National Debt Commissioners will at least have been returned. I will not trouble the Committee with a minute calculation of the exact amounts of Stock purchased and cancelled by the operation of the two Sinking Funds and our Life Annuity system; but I have described what we propose to do in 20 years through Terminable Annuities, under an Act to be passed this year, and it is an operation which will not increase by one farthing the charge upon the country.

I now pass from the charges on the Consolidated Fund to what is known as Supply Expenditure. The total of the Estimates, as compared with the actual Expenditure for 1882–3, is £3,350,000 less than the amount spent in that year; but, omitting the expenditure on the Egyptian War, it shows an increase of £550,000. I think, Sir, that this may be the proper time for me to endeavour to place before the House a few facts as to the growth of Expenditure during the last few years. It is the special function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to criticize, and, if possible, to reduce Expenditure; and it is my intention, during the present year, to devote as much time as I possibly can to that which I regard as my most important duty; and I may add that it is my interest, as well as my hope, that I may obtain help in this matter from the House. Formerly, it was one of the primary functions of this House to assist in reducing Expenditure. I hope I shall not offend any Member of the House when I say that of late years there has been a tendency in the direction rather of increasing, than diminishing, the Public Expenditure. Even within the last few days there have been three Motions in the House; one to increase the charge for a very gallant body—the Marines—another to increase the charge in connection with the officers of the Inland Revenue; and a third to increase the Post Office establishments, so that the cost of telegrams may be reduced from 1s. to 6d. I have had the curiosity to examine Hansard for the last three years—1880–1–2—to see what direct proposals on the subject of Naval and Military Expenditure have during that time been addressed to myself and to the Secretary to the Admiralty for increases or diminutions of those charges; and I find that in the three years there have been no less than 576 proposals made to us, of which 20 were to diminish Expenditure, and 556 to increase it. What are the main facts as to the recent growth of Expenditure? I should like to refer the Committee to a very interesting Paper, annually presented, which has drawn a great deal of attention from both sides of the House, and is, I believe, much studied by Chancellors of the Exchequer. I allude to the Return—the number of last Session's is 346—which shows the comparative Expenditure in different years so far as it becomes a charge on the taxpayer. Now, the aggregate growth of Expenditure from year to year is really no criterion whatever of the burden on the taxpayer, because there are paid into the Exchequer annually many millions from other sources than taxation—such as the Post Office, or Crown Lands Revenue, or Court Fees—which represent either national property, or the consideration gladly given for services performed by Government. This Return gives the actual amount of the charge on the taxpayer; and the results which it shows may, I think, be regarded as affording the best evidence of the economy exercised in different years in the real interest of the taxpayer.

Now, I will take, for the purpose of comparison, the year 1882–3, and the year 1873–4. The latter year is not very favourable for my comparison, because the amount of expenditure on the Services was criticized by the succeeding Government as being too small, and Mr. Ward Hunt added in the next year no less a sum than £400,000 to the Naval Expenditure. Nevertheless, as being the last year of my right hon. Friend's former Government, I think it offers a very fair ground of comparison; and, in fact, the years 1874–5, 1875–6, and 1876–7 would be much more favourable to 1882–3, if compared by the same rule. According, then, to the Return I have referred to, the total charge on the taxpayer for the year 1873–4 was £64,480,000, and during the year 1882–3 the total charge on the Taxpayer was £73,030,000. But we must eliminate from both these totals several charges which do not really concern the ordinary Expenditure of the Government, amounting to £3,997,000 in the case of the former year for the Alabama Claims and the Ashantee War, and in the case of the latter to £4,000,000 for the Egyptian Expedition and the grant for the Afghan War, after deducting, in order to be scrupulously fair, the Colonial repayment of £400,000. Subtracting these items from the figures I have just given, the charge upon the taxpayer for the ordinary Expenditure of the Government during the year 1873–4 was £60,480,000; whereas the charge upon the taxpayer for the year 1882–3 was £69,030,000, there being thus a difference of £8,550,000. Now, I shall be asked of what items that consists. I will, therefore, state them to the Committee. In the first place, the increase upon the Education Vote, as between the two years, is just £2,000,000; in the second place, the grants in aid of Local Taxation have increased by £3,010,000; thirdly, the proportion of the Debt Charge representing the payment of principal is greater in the latter than in the former year by £3,670,000; and, in the fourth place, the cost of collecting £7,000,000 additional Revenue is £220,000. If you add these amounts together, you will find that they represent an increased charge of £8,900,000; but whereas the charge on the taxpayer last year, compared with 1873–4, had only increased £8,550,000, it follows that, for the interest on Debt, for the Military and Naval Charges, and the ordinary charges for Civil Government, in spite of greatly increased expense in Ireland, the charge last year was not greater, but £350,000 less, than the charge on the taxpayer in 1873–4. I do not know whether these figures will have been expected by the Committee; but they are the result of most careful examination and analysis, and I shall be prepared, if necessary, to show a similar comparison for the other years I have named.

But there is another subject on which the Committee will, doubtless, like to have further information, and that is the Army and Navy Expenditure, of which I propose now to give a short retrospect. I will compare the net Military and Naval Charges at different periods since the Crimean War, whether they came out of the Votes of Parliament or from Loans; but I eliminate altogether Votes of Credit for particular wars. I take, therefore, only the ordinary charges, and I go back to the years after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, giving the amounts in round numbers—not less than quarters of millions—but being ready, if desired, to lay exact Returns upon the Table. In 1858–9 the net Military and Naval Charges were £19,500,000. They rapidly increased, first under Lord Derby's, and then under Lord Palmerston's Government, for iron-clads, fortifications, and augmented forces, till, in 1860–1, they reached £27,500,000. From that year they fell steadily, till, under Lord Russell's Administration in 1865–6, they were £22,500,000. They then rose under the succeeding Government, till, in 1868–9, they stood at £25,000,000. They again fell under the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, till, in the year 1870–1, they were £21,250,000. After the Franco-German War, and on account of the cost of abolishing Purchase in the Army, and that of the Localization of Forces, they rose to £23,750,000. In the three years following the change of Government they stood respectively at £25,750,000, £26,250,000, and £25,500,000. The present Government then came in, and in 1880–1 the charge fell to £24,750,000; it rose again in 1881–2, owing to the cost of additional iron-clads and re-armament of the Navy, to £25,000,000; again, in 1882–3, it reached £25,500,000; and in the Estimates of the present year the net charge for the Army and the Navy amounts to £26,250,000. This amount is the same as that for 1878–9, and £1,250,000 less than in 1860–1, with a growth of 8,000,000 in the population of the United Kingdom.

But there is an impression that this Expenditure has not been sufficiently controlled during the last few years; and, in connection with that subject, the Committee would probably like to have some detailed information. Now, I take the Estimates of the last year of the late Government, and I compare them with the Estimates which have just been laid upon the Table for the year 1883–4. I take 1879–80, although that was a year very favourable to low Estimates, inasmuch as it followed a large Vote of Credit for a war which did not take place, so that there were considerable amounts of unexpended provisions and stores in hand. On the contrary, 1883–4 followed a year of military operations, tending to deplete stores. For this, however, I make no allowance, although it probably represents something like £500,000; but what did the present Government find with respect to Army and Navy Expenditure when they took Office in 1880? In the first place, we found a very great arrear in the building of armoured ships. The rule had been to build 12,000 tons a-year, and this had been occasionally fulfilled; but in 1877–8 the Estimates only provided for 9,226 tons; in 1878–9 for 9,849 tons; and in 1879–80 for 6,555 tons. There was a still greater arrear in arming the Navy with guns of new type. In 1880 we were many years behind France and Italy in this respect, and I need not mention the strong pressure put upon us about guns, by no one more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay), as well as by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), and some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, all of whom urged us to spare no means in proceeding with the arming of the Navy. There was, at the same time, going on a steady automatic increase in the pensions of our soldiers and sailors, which will continue, I fear, for some years; while the increase in the Reserve and in the charge I for deferred pay was also steady and automatic, although some day it will be balanced by the reduction in the number of pensioners. Besides this, we found recent improvements in the non-effective pay of the Medical and other non-combatant branches of the Service, which were beginning to take effect. Further, the scheme of Army Organization which had been recently adopted would, as I stated in moving the Army Estimates, gradually bring about additional charges for Reserves, pensions, and deferred pay, which would ultimately reach the sum of £607,000 a-year. I found, also, on my table when I took Office the Report of what is known as Lord Airey's Committee, appointed by my right hon. Predecessor. That Committee proposed additional charges to the extent of £931,000 a-year. Such was the position of Army and Naval affairs which my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) and myself had to face in dealing with the Estimates. We could not alter automatic increases; but in view of these prospective charges we sought economy in all directions. I devoted six months to the study of the Report of Lord Airey's Committee, and of the then existing system of Army Organization; and, as to the former, I proposed to Parliament to add, instead of £931,000 to the Estimates and 11,000 men to the Army, about 3,000 men, costing, with some improvement in the position of non-commissioned officers, only £80,000. I also thoroughly revised the Army Organization scheme which I found in operation; and instead of a prospective increase of £607,000, we made prospective economies to the extent of £684,000, producing a prospective net decrease of £77,000. My noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) has also made large economies in number, and consequently in wages, in Dockyard manufactures and in other charges, to meet the additional cost of armoured ships which he had inherited. Now, Sir, let me tell the Committee what has been the effect of our exertions. The net Army and Navy Estimates for 1879–80 were £25,480,000, while for 1883–4 they are £26,363,000, or, in other words, there is an increase of £883,000 as between the last year of the late Administration and 1883–4. But the whole of this increase represents the additional charge for building armour-clad ships, and for arming the Navy with guns of new type. Instead of 6,555 tons, as estimated for in 1879–80—I exclude the Polyphemus, Severn, and Mersey from the armour-clad class—the present Estimates provide for the building of 12,281 tons, or 5,726 tons more than were provided for in the Estimates of that year. The additional cost will be £550,000, while for naval guns of new type it will be £315,000. These two sums together amount to £865,000, which just represents the amount of the increase I have already stated. But the Committee will ask me, how, then, have we met the automatic and other charges which were left as a legacy to us? The automatic increase of soldiers' and sailors' pensions, less £130,000 an additional contribution by India, is £145,000; the automatic increase in the Army Reserve and deferred pay is £105,000; the automatic increase on the Non-Effective Charge for doctors and Departmental officers, as settled by our Predecessors, is £85,000; the charge on account of the partial adoption of Lord Airey's Report is £80,000, as against the £931,000 proposed; and the full charge for the training of the Yeomanry and the Militia, the period having been exceptionally shortened in 1879–80, for the sake of economy, represents £60,000. All these inevitable increases amount to £475,000. But the whole of this has been met by economies in other directions. The result is that we meet altogether £1,360,000 per annum additional charges, all in the nature of legacies, by economies already made of nearly £500,000 a-year, or, allowing for the difference in extra receipts, £350,000; and I hope we shall be able to carry these economies still further in the time to come. I trust, Sir, that I have stated to the Committee, if at some length, at any rate clearly, the nature of the additional Expenditure, whether in the aggregate Estimates, or in connection with the Army and Navy, which the country has had to meet; and I can only say again that I believe the figures I have given are scrupulously correct, as they have been most carefully revised and tested.

Now, Sir, I will proceed from the Expenditure to the Estimate of the Revenue of the current year. The figures which I shall give are calculated on the basis of the taxation in force in 1882–3. I will only say, as to the general principle that has been adopted in forecasting our income, that, considering the present state of trade and agriculture, the Estimate we have made is a safe, though it is not a sanguine one. The two first items are Customs and Excise. I will eliminate from each the Spirit Duty, and state the amount we anticipate to receive for spirits altogether, and then from each Department excluding spirits. The Spirit Estimate for 1883–4 we set down at £18,700,000, against £18,540,000 received last year. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that, as there was a slight increase in this item over the Estimate of last year, so we are obliged to estimate for a further increase this year. Customs, after deducting the item of spirits, we take at £15,350,000, against£ 15,280,000 last year. Excise, also, after deducting spirits, we take at £12,600,000, against £12,765,000. We must, however, as a matter of form, divide the Spirit Estimate between the two Departments, and we take Customs at£19,750,000, against last year's receipt of £19,657,000; and the Excise we take at £26,900,000, against £26,930,000. The only item of Customs Duty which I need refer to on this occasion is that of wine. We take it at rather less than the receipt of 1882–3; and I may say that the great interest attaching to the question of the Wine Duties, in connection with our commercial relations with wine-producing countries, has led me to study with care the effect of the present duties, and numerous proposals which have been recently made for altering them. At this moment I should hesitate to adopt any of those proposals;; but I may remark that I see my way, at the right time, if the state of the Revenue permits, to effect modifications which will be palatable to the countries from which we draw our chief supplies of wine. The Stamp Estimate is £11,510,000, against £11,841,000, the receipt of 1882–3. The Committee will remember that the stamp receipts exceeded the Estimate last year by no less: than £700,000. The Land Tax we take at £1,040,000, against £1,045,000, the actual receipt of 1882–3. House Duty we estimate at £1,785,000, as compared with £1,755,000. The Income Tax at 6½d. in the pound we take at £12,400,000, as against £11,900,000, the receipt of 1882–3, which, as the Committee knows, was not a full year. The Post Office we take at £7,400,000, against £7,300,000 realized last year; and, in passing, I should observe that these Estimates do not include the revenue or the expenditure of the Parcels Post. They are expected to be about the same, £312,000 for the period of nine months. The Parcels Post, for which a separate Estimate will be made, is expected to come into operation about the 1st of July next, unless there be delay at present not foreseen. The Telegraph income we take at £1,750,000, as compared with £1,710,000 last year. Crown Lands we estimate at the same amount as last year, £380,000; interest on advances—which is falling now—at £1,185,000, as against 1,219,000; miscellaneous, £4,380,000, as against £5,268,000, the receipt of last year, which was very much in excess of the Estimates. The total Tax Revenue will thusbe£73,385,000,and the Non-Tax Revenue £15,095,000, or in all £88,480,000, against the Tax Revenue of last year, £73,128,000, and the Non-Tax Revenue of £15,876, 000, or a total of £89,004,000. The estimated Expenditure being, as I have already stated, £85,789,000, there is thus a surplus over the estimated Expenditure of £2,691,000.

Before considering what we should do with this surplus, I should like to mention one or two changes which we propose to make. The first is an administrative change. We propose what will effect, in our opinion, beyond doubt, both an acceleration and an improvement in the collection of the Income Tax. We propose to give the collection of Schedules D and E to officers of the Inland Revenue Board, with reasonable compensation to the local officers now employed, so far as it may be necessary to dispense with their services. That will be done gradually, so as to avoid friction as much as possible. We also make a slight change in the game and gun licences, which I will describe to the Committee, though it is not expected to affect the amount of the Revenue. At present game licences run from April to April, and we have been asked by a good many country gentlemen to let them run from July to July. We have consented to do this, the present licences, of course, running on until July. The provision will be the same for gun licences. But as to game licences, we shall recommend to Parliament a change which we think will be both beneficial and popular. We do not wish to disturb the system under which £2 may be paid for a licence to the end of October, and £2 from the beginning of November to the end of the season. But we propose to issue a new licence, to be called an "occasional" licence, and this will be available for any gentleman who is not likely to have more than 14 days' shooting in the year. At present he must take out a £2 licence; but we propose that at any time a licence available for 14 days may be issued at the price of £1. We do not think this change will affect the amount of the Revenue, though there will probably be more licences taken out, but fewer £2 licences than now. I think I ought to add that, as no one will now have any excuse for shooting without a licence, the officers of the Inland Revenue will in future exact what the law now requires, but what has not always been exacted—and that is, that the licence should be produced. It is a very common custom for a man called upon to produce his licence to say—"Oh! my name is So-and-so; I have not got my licence with me, but it is all right." In future, in consideration of the facilities for obtaining a licence at a low rate, the officers will require that which the law authorizes—the actual production of the licence. I may also here mention an addition to the Revenue which I should very much like to have been able to propose this year—namely, a tax upon Corporations and Incorporated Bodies, in lieu of the Probate and Succession Duty, which would have to be paid if their property belonged to individuals. It is with great regret that I have made up my mind not to propose this tax this year, because I have not had time thoroughly to think out what is the most difficult part of the question—the exemptions which would have to be made. A Bill was drafted on this subject some years ago; and on studying the exemptions I confess I was alarmed at the intricacy and difficulty of the reform. I hope to be able to deal with the matter next year; and, in my opinion, it is a necessary preliminary to finally and completely dealing with the Death Duties.

I come now to proposals for the remission of taxation. In the first place, I have given much attention to the duty on gold and silver plate, and the licences for the sale of gold and silver plate, the whole Revenue of which is £121,000. Setting apart the Gold Duty and the licences, the Silver Duty brings in about £64,000. In 1881 it was proposed to gradually reduce this duty; and, although this was not acceptable to the trade, I should have been glad if I could have proposed the entire repeal this year; but to do so would involve far more than I could afford to lose. The real difficulty is the claim to drawback. The claim set up by the majority of the trade is to be repaid all: duty on plate in their hands, not gone into use, which may be £120,000, may be £170,000, or even, I suspect, nearer £200,000. The basis of the claim for this payment—and I have had several very interesting discussions with the representatives of the trade—is the circumstance that they have no means of bonding or warehousing silver goods, as is the case with all other duty-paying articles of consumption, like spirits or tea, for instance. That being the case, it is argued that the manufacturer acts as the agent of the Government to collect the tax before it is really due; and, therefore, that if it is abolished, he should be repaid what he considers he has advanced. I am sorry to say that, having carefully read the Report of the Committee which for two Sessions inquired into this duty, I can get no assistance from them; for although the claim for drawback was discussed by several witnesses, the Report, which advised the repeal of the duty, was silent on this point. Feeling, however, the weight of their arguments, although not to the extent of their claim, I offered to the trade to introduce a system under which a bond might be given for the duty; without requiring the silver goods to leave the manufacturers' charge, so that the duty would only be exacted when the silver went into consumption. But they complained that this would act unequally, and that they could not accept it. I may say, Sir, that, in my judgment, it is perfectly impossible to admit this high claim, whether for £120,000 or £200,000. To get rid of a tax on the rich by the payment of a fine by the public to this extent would: be quite out of the question; and the way in which I propose to deal with the case is to allow silver, whether manufactured or imported, to be, at the option of the holder, deposited under bond in a species of warehouse or show rooms under the Crown's lock, where it would be open to inspection by the public, only paying duty when sold or leaving its place of deposit. I also propose to meet a very serious grievance, to my mind, that the Indian people have with regard to the silver manufactures of India, and to allow imported silver below the standard to be re-exported, instead of being destroyed, as it has to be under the present law, and to make some of the other alterations in the laws affecting silver recommended by the Select Committee. After a reasonable time has been allowed to the trade to clear off their stocks of duty-paid silver I should propose to repeal the tax altogether, without granting any drawback. That, of course, cannot take place this year, but after a reasonable lapse of time. I may say that these proposals—not the repeal of the duty, which must be left to the future—will be the subject of a separate Bill; and before introducing it I propose to confer with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) as to the amendments in the system of hall-marking to which I have referred as suggested by, or in the evidence before, the Select Committee. I anticipate the loss to the Revenue from the optional postponement of the duty at about £10,000. We propose to try the experiment, in the first instance, in London, but to extend it one by one to other towns in which there is a considerable amount of silver manufactured—such as Birmingham and Sheffield.

Now, Sir Arthur Otway, I come to what I am afraid will make larger inroads on my balance. After the Resolution of the 29th of March, I do not think it would be respectful on my part to put out of question the reduction in the minimum price of telegrams. As I promised, I have already commenced a careful inquiry into the estimates made by the Post Office as to the cost under several plans of the reduction to the minimum charge of 6d. I cannot, at this moment, anticipate the result of that inquiry; but I propose to set aside £170,000 out of my balance to enable me, if possible, to carry out the change in the course of the present year.

The next serious remission is in connection with the Railway Duty; and this, also, would not be dealt with in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, but in a separate Bill. I have carefully considered with my Colleagues the proposals which have been made on this subject in the House and elsewhere, and especially the Report of the Select Committee of 1876. Now, the Select Committee were unanimous as to a certain extent of reduction, and I am prepared to make a proposal consistent with that recommendation. But I am bound to say that I cannot consent to the total abolition of the tax, either now or in the future, as proposed by the Select Committee. If any hon. Member will study carefully the Minutes of the Committee, he will see that while a reduction somewhat equivalent to the one I am about to propose was carried unanimously, the Motion for the total abolition of the duty was only carried by a majority of 9 to 6, and amongst the majority of 9 I observe four Gentlemen who are Directors of leading English Railways. Without the assistance of those four Gentlemen, the Motion for total abolition would have been negatived; and I confess, after considering the Evidence, that I do not think its weight is on the side of total abolition. We propose, then, to take off the duty from all fares of 1d. a-mile and less, so that it will only fall on fares exceeding 1d. a-mile, including return and season tickets, where the single fare exceeds 1d. a-mile. We also propose that fares, although over 1d. a-mile, on an urban railway should pay only 2 per cent, as a fair arrangement to meet the special omnibus competition to which they are subjected, the Board of Trade being empowered to decide what parts of lines are to be considered urban. On the other hand, in consideration of this boon, we propose that the Board of Trade should have power to insist on sufficient accommodation for all parts of the line, at fares not exceeding 1d. a-mile, and also to insist on additional workmen's trains, if requisite, this power to be subject to appeal to the Railway Commission. And we propose, also, that soldiers and sailors should be carried for two-thirds the regular fares when in small numbers, but for half the regular fares when travelling in large numbers, such as a battalion or regiment. The loss to the Revenue by this change will be about £400,000 a-year. We propose that the duty shall be reduced from the 1st of October. The duty comes to us about two months in arrear, so that our whole loss during the present year may be set down as about £135,000.

We also propose to submit to a trifling loss in connection with tobacco and snuff. After careful analysis, the officers of the Inland Revenue are satisfied that, for the purposes of drawback, what is known as the standard of moisture may be raised from 13 to 14 per cent. They, therefore, suggest—and I approve of the suggestion—that the standard be so altered. By this change the Revenue will lose about £1,200 a-year, and the trade will gain by that amount.

These deductions leave me a balance of £2,375,000, and I think the Committee will now anticipate what my last proposal is. I propose to take off the 1½d. Income Tax imposed on account of the Egyptian operations last year, reducing the Income Tax to 5d. in the pound, as in 1881–2. The cost of doing this will be £2,135,000, leaving me a balance of £240,000. I do not think, Sir, any smaller balance could be safely left. There are still demands on us in the air. For instance, at the present moment we have under discussion the question of the purchase, in whole or in part, of the Ashburnham Collection; and there are other proposals in Bills before the House, some of which may, to a small extent, affect the Exchequer.

I will sum up the changes which we propose. My surplus is £2,691,000. I have to deduct from that £2,135,000 for the reduction of the Income Tax; £170,000 reserved for a reduction in the price of telegrams; £135,000 for the reduction of the Railway Duty; £10,000 for the loss on the Silver Duty; and, say, £1,000 for the loss on Tobacco and Snuff, making in all £2,451,000, and leaving me a balance of £240,000. I am very much obliged to the Committee for having listened so patiently to a statement which necessarily contains a great many figures, but which I have endeavoured to curtail as much as I reasonably could. What I have stated I hope I stated plainly; and if I have made myself understood by the Committee, that is all I have aimed at.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say):

		£	s.	d.
Tea	the lb.	0	0	6."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I propose to adhere to that which has been the custom that has prevailed of late years, not to raise any considerable discussion on the proposals of the Budget at the moment of their delivery. I think experience has shown that it is not convenient to plunge at once into a discussion of that character; and, certainly, there are some reasons connected with the particular speech to which the Committee has listened which induce me to think it is all the more desirable to suspend our judgment upon some portions of it until we have had time to study the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before us. I must congratulate him upon the clearness of his Statement, and upon many points in the condition of affairs which he has been able to lay before the Committee. It is very satisfactory to find that the condition of the country is, at all events, not so bad as we have had some reason to apprehend of late. With regard to the concluding proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, it is only right to say that the House only receives as a matter of course the removal of the additional 1½d. on the Income Tax. That 1½d. was not on the Income Tax originally; but it was put on under the pledge that it was for a special purpose, and was to cease when that purpose had been fulfilled. That pledge has been fairly redeemed, and we have only to acknowledge the fact. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is altogether discreet in referring, as he did, to one or two proposals which he will not be able to make this year, but which, nevertheless, he looks forward to making in a future year, is a matter of question. Any proposals with regard to taxation to which effect cannot at once be given are, it seems to me, calculated to disturb and agitate the community, and very little credit is gained, at the expense of a good deal of inconvenience afterwards. We have had more than one instance of that during the year of the present Administration; but, with regard to the proposals themselves, I confess I am sorry to find that the right hon. Gentleman has felt himself forced, by the vote given the other night, to go against his own principles and his own canon with regard to giving way whenever there is any pressure put upon him for the reduction of income or other expenditure. I myself voted with him on that occasion, as did my Friends hero; and, certainly, we hardly expected that the result of the vote of the House would be so quickly obtained. We do not look upon it as a sign that there is any stiffness in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's balance. I speak with some feeling, because I was thought a very chicken-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer for not standing up against all sorts of things. My right hon. Friend has spoken a good many excellent words, but his actions have been somewhat inconsistent. As I said just now, this is not the occasion for going fully into the discussion of the speech we have listened to; and, among other reasons for not doing so, part of it was directed apparently to another issue, which is to be tried to-morrow. And in the course of the answer which he gave, by anticipation, to speeches which we will probably hear to-morrow, he took the opportunity of laying a good heavy burden upon the shoulders of his Predecessors, and made, I think, one of the most controversial and partizan speeches I have ever listened to on a Budget night. I am not at all prepared to accept the indictment made against us in anything like the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has meted out to us. I say that he has omitted a great many considerations and a great many points which ought to be taken into account when such a calculation is made. I am not ready, on the spur of the moment, to enter into these matters; it could not be expected of me. I might deal with some of the points, but it would be wasting the time of the Committee; and I do not think I can be expected to do more than put in my protest against their being received without contradiction. I will not say anything more. I have no doubt we shall very soon have an opportunity of proceeding with the discussion of the Budget; and I hope that before this Resolution is passed we shall be told what the proposals of the Government are as to the time at which they intend to proceed with the different parts of it. With reference to that, I would like to ask this question—which arises out of what I have been saying, though, perhaps, it is not strictly in order at such a time as this. It has been said that to-morrow the debate may take so long that it cannot be finished in one evening. I hope that may not be the case; but still it may be; and, supposing the debate is adjourned, I should like to know if the Government would undertake that it should be continued on the Monday following, so that it might be carried on at a convenient time? I think this is a matter on which we have a right to ask for an assurance from the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal which, perhaps, it falls on me to answer. Before answering that appeal, however, I must frankly acknowledge that nothing could be more fair than the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in saying that for to-night he contents himself with a protest, and desires to enter one against inferences which may be drawn from some portions of the speech of my right hon. Friend. I think I may say my right hon. Friend had no controversial intention; but I cannot deny that arguments may be raised upon the facts stated by him, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) cannot be expected to enter, in a manner satisfactory to himself or to the House, upon a discussion on the present Motion. He is quite justified, under the circumstances, in reserving his freedom of action, and in claiming that the conclusion drawn by my right hon. Friend should not be accepted as beyond controversy. The only other point I wish to say a word on is this—the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the time for prosecuting the debate that may arise on the Financial Statement just made. The case is rather peculiar. Undoubtedly, the custom is that after a Financial Statement has been made the substantial discussion upon it is adjourned to a day which is then named; but on this occasion it happens, unusually, that we have a debate upon the general question of expenditure standing for to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman says—"Will the Government engage that, if the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) is not closed to-morrow, it will be resumed on an early day?" Well, Sir, we entirely admit, in principle, that ample and early opportunity should be given to the House for discussing the Financial Statement and the condition of the Expenditure; but I think it will not be possible to judge until to-morrow whether that can be most conveniently done in the shape of prolonged debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley, or upon the Motion of my right hon. Friend. Therefore, we should wish to appoint, nominally, the Committee of Ways and Means for Monday, with the intention of considering in the interim, when we find what takes place to-morrow night, what arrangements will be most convenient to the House. I quite recognize the justice of the demand for an early and full discussion of both these proposals.

MR. WILLS

said he would venture to ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments, whilst he made some observations in reference to one branch of the Revenue over which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had passed very lightly. The arrangements made in regard to the drawback on manufactured tobacco would be received by the trade with gratitude; inasmuch as the allowance would relieve them from an injustice under which they had long laboured, and on account of which they considered themselves entitled to some redress. But he must say that what was given to them was a very small fragment of the relief which they had hoped to have received from the right hon. Gentleman. They had now been suffering over four years from an incalculable injury inflicted upon them by the unfortunate legislation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). However, they desired to thank the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for the prompt attention he had given to the Memorial, which he (Mr. Wills) had had the honour of presenting to him immediately on his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) accession to his present Office, and for the care he had bestowed upon the investigation of their claims. It was to be hoped that, on a future occasion, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to treat the tobacco manufacturers allopathically instead of homeopathically. The Committee could scarcely be aware of the great difference between the present position of the tobacco trade and that which it had occupied before the alteration in the duty—that was to say, up to the year 1878. For some years there was an annual increase in the consumption of tobacco of over 1,000,000 lbs., and in 1877 the consumption in this country had reached the enormous amount of 50,750,000 lbs. The legislation of the right hon. Baronet the then Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a material change, the consumption at once falling 2,000,000 lbs. within the year. In 1879 it recovered somewhat, and in 1880 there was a further revival; but at the end of 1882 it was still below the point it had reached in 1877. No Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was sure, would think lightly of a duty which produced over £8,500,000 a-year. The Committee must bear in mind that out of this important sum, £4,750,000 was paid by the working classes of the United Kingdom. The working classes paid a uniform price of 3d. an ounce for the tobacco which they consumed, and of that 3d. the Government took no less that 2½d. in the shape of Revenue; and it was a fact that the artizan, in this bad condition of trade, got far less value for his money than at other times. At the same time, he (Mr. Wills) must tell the Committee that the small manufacturers were suffering most severely. With the advanced price of the raw material they could not make a living from the manufacture of tobacco. Only yesterday one of the oldest and most respectable firms, which had been carrying on business in this trade for two generations in London, had gone. Well, what was the result of the financial operation of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to tobacco? Why, the manufacturers were compelled to use more water and less tobacco. It had been suggested, and perhaps not unnaturally, that the Government should take means to limit the percentage of water in the tobacco; but such a proposition was quite as absurd as it would be to argue that it was the duty of the Excise to regulate the strength of beer. There was no more reason why the water in tobacco should be limited than that they should limit the amount put with the malt. The public were not bad judges, generally speaking; and in a matter of this kind, they might fairly be left to protect themselves, both in regard to beer and tobacco. What was required was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should incur a temporary deficit by reducing the duty 3d. per lb. By this means the consumption of raw tobacco would increase largely, and the public would be better served. He could assure the Committee that that was no theory of his own, but a fact which was amply proved—proved by experience in the United States. Through the courtesy of the United States Legation, he had been furnished with a Report relating to the internal Revenue of that country for the financial year 1881. From that official document it appeared that in 1877 the consumption of tobacco in America was 127,000,000 lbs. In 1878, under the then duty of 24 cents per lb., the consumption fell 8,000,000 lbs. In 1879, in consequence of that falling-off—which was mainly owing to smuggling—the duty was lowered to 16 cents per lb., and the consumption for 1880 was 27,000,000 lbs. over that of 1878; and in 1881 the increase was 42,000,000 lbs. over the consumption of 1878. Let them take the money value of the Revenue from tobacco. In 1877 the Revenue of the United States from tobacco was $41,000,000; in 1878 it fell to $33,000,000; the duty was then reduced, and in 1881 it rose again to $12,750,000; being an increase of $1,750,000 over the highest amount ever received before. There was another aspect of this question which was a most important one for the Committee to regard, and it was the question of smuggling. Previously to 1878, from knowledge that he (Mr. Wills) possessed, personally, of the consumption and importation, he was able to say that there were no very extensive or well-planned attempts to defraud the Revenue with regard to tobacco; but immediately the duty was raised from 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. in 1878, a large increase in smuggling took place; and in the Port of Hull alone it was four or five times greater than it had been in any previous year. Then, again, they had had more recently very large seizures of smuggled tobacco in Liverpool—in fact, he believed that one of the largest seizures ever made in this country was made in Liverpool a few months ago. He had to-day moved for a Return, which he believed would show that the Revenue was a pecuniary loser by the duty; because, as it would at once be seen, the duty was an enormous incentive to persons who preferred profit to principle. When it was difficult to make a profit honestly, there were always people who would endeavour to obtain that object by another course. The prospect before the trade generally was most depressing at the present time. The retailers of the United Kingdom, who were an important body in distributing the production of the manufacturers, were being rapidly reduced in number. In 1881 there were 1,137 fewer licences taken out than in 1880; and last year the falling-off increased again by 967, showing that in two years the number of licensed retailers in the United Kingdom had fallen over 2,000 in number. These figures spoke for themselves; and they would, perhaps, be the strongest argument which he could address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whenever that right hon. Gentleman came to consider the reduction of duty. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that whenever he cared to risk a temporary reduction, he would very speedily find himself amply compensated by the enhanced satisfaction which the public would experience, and by the rapid growth which would take place in the Revenue Department over which he presided.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said he did not propose to enter into a discussion of the principles involved in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he wished to ask for an explanation on one rather important point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to a sum charged on the taxpayer; he had said that in 1873–4 the charge on the taxpayer, for all the Services, was £64,480,000, and in 1882–3 it would have been £73,330,000, showing an increase of £8,850,000, and in the account the right hon. Gentleman included a sum of £3,670,000 as an increase charge for the reduction of the Debt. What he (Mr. Smith) wished to ask was, whether by that they were to understand that the charge for the Debt, which in 1882–3 amounted to£29,000,000, was less by £3,670,000 in 1873–4? Was that the case? How did the right hon. Gentleman account for the application of the increased sum of £8,850,000, if that £3,670,000 was not an increase charge? That was surely a fair and reasonable question. The right hon. Gentleman accounted for what appeared to be an increase by a sum amounting to more than the increase. Perhaps, in the course of the evening, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some explanation of this matter.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he wished to address a few remarks upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he intended following the usual practice of the Committee by not going too deeply into the details of the proposition made to them on this the first hearing of the Bill. His object in rising was to congratulate his right hon. Friend upon his Budget, and especially upon the very clear and comprehensive speech in which it had been delivered. He (Sir Joseph Pease) had been a very narrow watcher of Budgets ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House; and he could hardly call to mind an occasion upon which the Budget had been brought forward more clearly, and in which the figures had been more lucidly enunciated. There were several points which he felt sure would give great satisfaction to the constituency which he (Sir Joseph Pease) had the honour to represent (South Durham). First of all, the right hon. Gentleman promised before long to deal with the question of Death Duties. He proposed to give up, in the course of the current financial year, nearly a half of the whole Revenue derived from the Railway Passenger Duty, which meant that he was about to facilitate travelling at those lower class fares that were so much in vogue, and which were of such great importance to the working classes of this country. The district he (Sir Joseph Pease) represented had rather lower fares, he believed, than the fares required by Act of Parliament; and the Passenger duty had, therefore, been for a long time felt very much by the Railway Companies. Then his right hon. Friend also dealt with the question of Telegraphs. To any hon. Member who represented a large commercial constituency, the fact of the lower charge for telegrams would be of the most important advantage; and not only that, but it would cause very considerable diminution in the daily personal expenses of gentlemen carrying on very large businesses, as well as a large diminution in the ordinary expenses of private individuals. There was another portion of his right hon. Friend's Budget to which he should like also to refer. He did not wish to take this matter out of the hands of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); but he had two or three times on Budget occasions referred to the subject—namely, the question of the necessity of dealing with the large and increasing quantity of land held in mort main, which, at the present moment, escaped from all these charges upon land, which were felt so severely by ordinary private individuals. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was making up his mind to look into this very difficult and complicated question. No doubt, it would tax his ability to the utmost before he could fashion a scheme which would be altogether satisfactory, as the subject was one of the most difficult, as well as important, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever had to turn his attention to. As to the right hon. Gentleman's fears about losing the spirit and the tobacco duties, he (Sir Joseph Pease) believe that if these duties went, the country would be able to pay taxes and duties on other commodities far more as the consumption of the articles in question decreased. The increase of temperance was having a very marked effect on their Poor Law Returns, and that fact the right hon. Gentleman should keep in view. Even if the country had to pay a little more in the shape of Imperial taxes, he thought the increase of temperance would have a very marked and beneficial effect upon the local taxpayer. The statistics which were put before them, showing that 75 per cent of all the pauperism in the country arose from the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, should make them hail with satisfaction any observable decrease in the Spirit Duties, which would foretell an ultimate decrease in the amount of that pauperism. It would, he was sure, be a source of satisfaction to every Member of that House to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was able to report so very large an increase in the Education Grant. He (Sir Joseph Pease) had sometimes thought that in the grant per head by the State, in the absence of a free system, they had gone far enough in this matter; but no doubt the cry of the country was for increased education—if not for elementary education, it was justly and rightly for increased facilities for technical and other high class education. A part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which had pleased him very much was that in which he seemed to show them that he had taken hold of the great question of bringing about economy of expenditure in the great spending Departments of the State.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, that as a man of business, representing a large commercial constituency, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remissions of £170,000, which he had judiciously made in bringing down the price of telegrams. As to the Parcels Post, there had been, as the Committee was aware, a European Conference, at which it was arranged that the new system should come into operation in October, 1881; and consequently, in most European countries, it had now been working for some time. In this country, however, here they were in April, 1883, and the people still without the benefit of the Parcels Post. He was perfectly certain of one thing—and in that matter he spoke with experience, tens of thousands of packages passing to and from all parts of the world through his hands every year—namely, that the arrangements made for the Parcels Post were in nothing like the forward condition they should be if the new system were to be anything like a success. He had, for the last two or three years, strenuously contended that there should be a great central depot for the Parcels Post; but had always been met with the argument that one great central depot would be found both inadequate and expensive, and that it would be necessary to have five or six depots. But few Members appeared to realize the variety and quantity of now business which the Parcels Post would open up. The Postmaster General, apparently favouring the five or six depôts' idea, and as an apt illustration, said that through the medium of the post, during the London season, enormous quantities of flowers would be sent by people from the country to their town houses; and, therefore, they would require an extensive building for that business alone. The amount of such business to be expected would probably be fully realized; but, at the same time, they must bear in mind that if they put up buildings to accommodate such parcels, they would have to spend much money, and to employ a very large staff of servants, and that, when the season was over, in the whole of Belgravia there would hardly be a parcel a-week to deliver. Well, what was to become of that large building and that large staff when the season was over, and throughout the long months in which there were no flowers? He was told that the people on the Eastern Coast—the Yarmouth people particularly, who produced the bloaters—were looking forward to an immense trade in consequence of the introduction of the Parcels Post, when they could send quantities of their goods in 1s. or 2s. parcels, postage included, all over the Kingdom. That was, at most, only a three months' trade; and if they were to have separate depots they would be compelled to adopt one for such trade, and which, from its nature, would require plenty of room. Such depot, for nine months out of the twelve, would be absolutely idle. And what were they going to do with all the parcels that came from the Continent? Were they going to transact all the business connected with foreign parcels, as positively proposed, in an area on the ground floor not so large as this House of Commons, with a cellar not more than ten times as large? Let them consider what the trade in parcels from the Continent would be, and how great a traffic might be expected. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Wills) had just now addressed the Committee on the subject of tobacco. Well, let him (Sir Henry Peek) tell the Committee what would happen with regard to tobacco if the parcels from the Continent were not closely supervised. Ladies, as everyone knew, were neat, and he had heard say that a large proportion—say seven out of ten of them—would, when that Parcels Post came into operation get their boots from Paris instead of buying them in London. Two or three pairs would come for 1s. for the carriage. In some cases their husbands might say—"You are sending for boots; get a couple of pounds of cigars and put them into the same parcel. The same 1s. will cover." No doubt, that would be done in many cases, if the Government did not carefully supervise the parcels, and the Revenue would be an immense loser; and not only that, but the public morality would very seriously suffer. Personally, he was not a smoker; but he was told by those who were, and knew a great deal about tobacco, that, unfortunately for his argument, what came from France was very indifferent. He was told, also, that Belgian tobacco did not suit the English taste, and that Swiss was not much better. But, at the same time, he was informed that the very best tobacco came from Holland; and from that country, when the Parcels Post was introduced, they might expect a great quantity of this commodity to be imported by private consumers. As he had been anxious not to say anything in the way of exaggeration, he had spoken on this subject to a large tobacco manufacturer, and had asked him to write down his views on the subject. The reply he received was in these words— In answer to your inquiries, re the Parcels Post, we feel sure that unless a strict supervision of all parcels is maintained a very large amount of tobacco and cigars will be smuggled by its means, especially from Holland, a country where the duty on tobacco is nominal; and it is our opinion that the Revenue would suffer very considerably thereby, also that it would be very detrimental to the tobacco trade. He (Sir Henry Peek) maintained that it would be still more detrimental to the character of the country. He had no wish to take up the time of the Committee. He had laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer his idea as to what the depot for the Parcels Post should be. He was quite sure they could not do the work which would devolve upon them in the Post Office with their present means; and that the sooner they, as men of business, set to work to prepare proper head-quarters the better. As a specimen of what was done under ample arrangements as to space and a good system, he might mention that one of the managers of the Parcels Delivery Company had told him that if a chest of tea were put into a Company's van, and a letter at the same moment dropped into the post, both of them for Richmond, in Surrey, the Parcels Delivery Company would undertake that the tea would arrive at its destination before the letter. He hailed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in many respects with satisfaction, but not so far as the Post Office was concerned. He proposed to look for an additional £ 100,000 on the net Revenue of the Post Office. In 1877 the net Revenue was £2,136,000;in 1878itwas£2,226,000; in 1879, £2,692,000; in 1880, £2,838,000; in 1881, £2,926,000; and last year, £2,954,000. That was the net Revenue from every department of the Post Office—from postage, telegrams, packet service, and all the other branches. Now, considering that the General Post Office was never intended to be a money making Department at all, he considered, that to look for £3,000,000 sterling per annum from it was not a judicious thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a trading country to do. Every facility for dealing with the large number of parcels which would have to be carried should be provided; and he (Sir Henry Peek) was quite sure that unless a much broader view of the Parcels Post was taken than that which seemed to be entertained it would be a failure. If it were a failure it would be a great blow to the country at large; and, thankful as he was to have a 6d. telegraphic rate, he would rather it were postponed than any business undertaken should be ill done. They must bear in mind-as he had said a week or two ago, without being contradicted—that the Post Office Department had a higher sick list now from over-work than it ever had had since it was a Department. If such were the case, he certainly did think that a remedy, and a prompt one, should be found.

MR. MONK

said, he was quite convinced that great satisfaction would be felt throughout the country when it was known to-morrow that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yielded to the vote of Friday last for reducing the cost of telegrams. He (Mr. Monk) was certain the right hon. Gentleman was in no way open to the charge brought against him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), when he said he looked upon him as chicken-hearted for yielding to the pressure which had been put on him, and for this very sufficient reason—that he was convinced the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the views enunciated on Friday last by the Postmaster General, and that he felt as much gratification at being able to give this boon to the country generally as the country would be to receive it. There was another portion of the statement of his right hon. Friend which did not give much satisfaction to him (Mr. Monk), and would not, he feared, give much satisfaction to those in behalf of whom he intended to say a few words. He referred to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the reduction of the Wine Duties. If he had understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he had said he could do nothing with regard to the reduction of the Wine Duties; but that in course of time—how long was not stated, therefore they must ask for an explanation—he might effect a modification in respect of the duties on wine from those countries from which they drew their supplies. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a very vague one, and it was hardly giving them so much as they had a right to expect, when they bore in mind that the Prime Minister, in the debate on the re-committal of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill last year, said he was still of opinion that the Wine Duties required an early revision. The words the right hon. Gentleman used were that the Wine Duties had a serious claim upon the attention of the Government; and if the Expenditure could be got a little more within bounds, and the Revenue were a little less sluggish, he hoped that the wishes of the country on this important matter would be realized. Well, after the Budget Speech which they had heard to-night, he (Mr. Monk) thought he might make this observation—that the reduction of the Wine Duties rested, to a certain extent, with the Government itself. With regard to the second question—that of the sluggishness of the Eevenue—that seemed to have passed away, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, within the last month or two, received more than he had any right or reason to expect. He would appeal to his right hon. Friend to give them a little more comfort with regard to the revision of the Wine Duties than he had yet done. The Prime Minister last year stated that he adhered entirely to the proposals which had been made in 1880. They all knew what those proposals were. In 1880 the Government took legislative powers, in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, to reduce the Wine Duties, if they could come to an agreement with certain wine-growing countries. If they could come to terms with the wine-growing countries, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, be ready to entertain proposals for inserting in the Customs and Inland Re- venue Bill some Proviso for reducing the Wine Duties in the same manner, and to the same extent, as was proposed by the Prime Minister in 1880. The duty might be reduced to 6d. a-gallon upon all wines up to 20 degrees, and 6d. plus 1d. per gallon for each additional degree up to 35 degrees. If such an arrangement as that were made, it would, he believed, give great satisfaction to the country generally. He would remind his right hon. Friend of this—that whilst they were trying to revise and reduce their Wine Duties, they were left out in the cold by Spain, the country to which, in the matter of Wine Duties, he mainly referred. They could not obtain from Spain even the "Most Favoured Nation" treatment. They could not get on with the arrangement of their Commercial Treaties, upon which, to a great extent, the prosperity of England depended. Well, he (Mr. Monk) made this appeal to his right hon. Friend, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would take it into his best consideration. He trusted that either now, or when the Budget proposals were considered on some future day, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House a little more comfort in that matter.

MR. SALT

said, he thought the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet with pretty general assent. He merely wished to say a word or two, not so much by way of criticism, as by way of suggestion and inquiry. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to deal with two matters which were not large in amount, but which were certainly important, and, at the same time, very difficult to deal with. He referred to the duties on silver, and the tax on railway passengers. The right hon. Gentleman said, in both of those cases, that he proposed to deal with them by separate and special Bills. Now, what he (Mr. Salt) wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, if he would kindly be very careful that those Bills should have the full consideration, both of the Railway Companies and of the traders concerned? Both matters were extremely difficult and extremely technical. Take, for instance, the Railway Passenger Duty. The interest of the different railways in different parts of the country varied very much indeed, and that, no doubt, formed an element of considerable difficulty in dealing with the matter; and in regard to the Silver Duties, what had already fallen from the right hon. Gentleman himself showed how extremely technical were the circumstances of the trade. If he (Mr. Salt) might venture to go so far, he would suggest that those Bills should be considered not only as questions of Revenue, but also, and much more, as questions of convenient administration. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to take care that, apart from the Revenue operation of those Bills, the details should have full consideration, not only in that House, but, what was more important, on the part of those persons who were interested outside it. With regard to Annuities, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to create, he did not wish to give him the trouble of answering any questions at that moment; but he wished to say that one part of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation did not present itself quite clearly to his mind. He did not require an answer now, but merely wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he had not quite caught the drift of his observations, and that probably the same thing had taken place in the minds of other hon. Members. He did not understand how the long Annuities falling in, in the year 1885, could be manipulated before that time. As to the Navy, the right hon. Gentleman had said the expenditure was large, because the Government had decided upon building very largely increased tonnage. He (Mr. Salt) need scarcely say that whatever the expenditure on the Navy was, whether it was large or small, he should most cordially concur in anything the Government thought necessary for keeping up the efficiency of that Service. No criticism would fall from him on that subject. If he made any criticism at all, it would be that the expenditure was too small, rather than that it was too large, with this reservation—that great care should be taken in all Departments, both in large and small matters, that when a pound was spent full value was got for it—that all the expenditure was thoroughly valuable, and thoroughly useful, and that not 1d. was wasted. He heard a little symptom of dissent from below the Gangway, and he would reply to that that the English Navy was not merely a weapon of war, but a great instrument for the preservation of peace. It was a great medium of communication between the various parts of the Empire. The Navy was a matter they might discuss apart from any question of peace or war. He could only repeat that the expenditure on ships, so far as it was good and wise, should have his approval. He would now only say a word as to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman about suffering for the sins, not of his forefathers, but of his Predecessors, and about many millions of their indebtedness having had to be made up. He would not criticize that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but he felt bound to say that it was open to criticism, and that, perhaps, a great deal would have to be said about it by way of criticism at some future time. Apart from political purposes, and merely from a business point of view, it would be well if they were told how much of the £85,000,000 or £86,000,000 they were asked to spend in 1883–4 was for the payment of old debts brought about by the administration of the last decade. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his Budget and his speech.

MR. DODDS

congratulated his right hon. Friend upon the lucid manner in which he had explained all the details and somewhat complicated facts with which, under the circumstances, he had had to deal. He confessed he looked with great regret upon the resignation of the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Prime Minister, because he had hoped that that right hon. Gentleman would have remained in Office to introduce the present Budget, and to deal exhaustively with the Death Duties. That hope, however, had been disappointed, as had also the hope he had entertained that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would have seen his way, in some measure, to deal with the subject of the Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman had excused himself for not dealing with the subject by the fact that he had only held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for a few weeks, and that the question was a complicated and difficult one. He would not weary the Committee with more than one or two observations on the matter; but with these few he was obliged to trouble them, as he was afraid that, in the discussions they were to have on the Budget, he should not have another opportunity of adverting to this point, as the Death Duties could not again appear in the discussion. He might remind the Committee that the Prime Minister had dealt with these duties in a most fragmentary manner; but, notwithstanding this fact, it was shown in the Returns which had been supplied on his (Mr. Dodds's) Motion some short time ago, that, of the 44,350 cases dealt with during the past year, no fewer than 33,915 were dealt with in one payment in lieu of Probate and Legacy Duty. Three-fourths of the whole, in fact, were dealt with in the manner he had taken the liberty of recommending to the House some little time ago and only one quarter had paid the Legacy Duty in one sum, and the Legacy Duty of different rates in another. He had no hesitation in saying that it would be found as easy to deal with the remaining 11,434 in the way he advocated as it had beenfoundtodealwiththe33,915. There should be only one rate, which should cover the Legacy as well as the Probate Duty. There had been no dealing with estates held by Corporations, which paid no Legacy or Probate Duty at the present time. It was a great scandal that the Duties were not levied on that kind of property, and he was glad that the subject was to be taken in hand at last. As to the question of taxing real property in the shape of Death Duties, at present no charge, except Succession Duty, was imposed on it, which was very much less than was the charge made on personal property as Legacy Duty; whilst real property altogether escaped the payment of anything in the nature of Probate Duty. There was no reason in the world why real property should not be charged the same as personal property as to these Death Duties. There could be no final dealing with these Death Duties which did not touch this matter. He would not detain the Committee any longer now, but trusted he might have a further opportunity of dealing with the matter, and of bringing it under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the present Session.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Statement he had made, and on the remission of taxation he had been able to offer. The country would hear with great pleasure the news that, in future, telegrams could be sent for 6d. This concession would affect a very large class of people, and would be received with thankfulness by a large number of people who did not now use telegrams very much. He was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman shadow forth a scheme for largely reducing the National Debt in 20 years; for he considered that this country had been far behind in the repayment of its Debt, considering the great increase of property and wealth in this Kingdom. During the early period of this large Debt about £100,000,000 were paid off £810,000,000 by 1835; but from that time the Debt had alternately increased and diminished, and was now not much less than it was in 1835. He regretted, however, that the time had not yet arrived when a distinct Vote could be proposed in the Budget for the payment of the Debt, independently of the amount paid by surpluses or by Terminable Annuities, in order that the public should know that they were paying off the Debt directly. There were direct and indirect taxes; and he should like, in this case, to have direct means of paying off the National Debt. He always felt that the present mode of payment was not secure; because, if anything arose in a time of pressure, very likely the money that was supposed to go to pay off the National Debt would be seized and used for the special necessity. There had lately been an instance in which the repayment of the Debt had been stopped in order to meet an emergency. If a certain amount of Debt was paid off by a distinct sum of money at the time, and that amount of Debt cancelled, the Government would have to create Debt again in order to obtain the money they required; but at present they simply seized the money; and, therefore, he had no faith in these payments until he knew that they were really made and the amount of Debt cancelled. The people of this country considered they were making efforts to pay off their Debt; but what were the Americans doing? In the past year they had paid off £25,000,000 of their Debt; and in 18 years they had reduced their Debt, which was £596,000,000, by £360,000,000, thus bringing it down to £236,000,000. He did not say that we could attempt to reduce our Debt so I rapidly as that, and he did not think it would be desirable; but the time had now arrived when they ought to know that they were really paying off their Debt. At present it was repaid indirectly, and how the money had been paid could not be specially pointed out; and he should be very pleased to see a Budget in which there was a sum of, say, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 specially voted to pay off Debt. He was also delighted to find that the right hon. Gentleman was about to take off a portion of the Railway Passenger Duty; but he regretted that the whole of it could not be taken off; for he objected to all taxation on locomotion—whether on bridges, turnpike roads, railways, or on any other means of circulation of the public. This country boasted of its Free Trade; but they ought to apply the same principle to locomotion and circulation from one part of the country to another; and he was convinced that if it was a question of money the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have plenty at the end of the year. He believed he could show that the right hon. Gentleman would have a much larger surplus than he had calculated upon. Within the last financial year there had been two Good Fridays and two Easter Mondays, and also two Saturdays between the Good Fridays and Easter Mondays. Those made nearly a whole week during which taxes did not roll into the Exchequer; but in the coming financial year there would be neither a Good Friday nor an Easter Monday; and, therefore, there would be a considerable difference between the two years. Moreover, there would be an extra day, the 29th of February next year being Leap Year; and so there would be a whole week more than in the last year during which money would roll into the Exchequer. And it must be remembered that it was at that period of the year that money came in most plentifully, for Income Tax, House Tax, and Licence Duties were then due; and, reckoning these extra days as 1–50th of the whole year, they were equal to 2 per cent of the whole Revenue. That would give £1,500,000 more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had calculated upon, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had not referred to these two series of holidays, but they were a fact; and he was, therefore, sorry that the whole of the Railway Passenger Duty had not been swept away, for anything that promoted circulation would increase the welfare and comfort of the people, and enable them to inhabit healthier dwellings, and, at the same time, bring in Revenue from other sources. With regard to the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties, he had brought these matters before the House many times; and, without fully discussing these questions now, he did think that after the agitation that had prevailed so long with respect to these Duties, and after several Chancellors of the Exchequer had stated that they could not remain as they were, it was much to be regretted that something had not been attempted to place these Duties on a fair, equitable, and just basis. The alterations made within the last few years had aggravated the distinctions between personal and real property. There had been some modification of these Duties in 1881; but these alterations aggravated the injustice existing in the charges on leasehold property as compared with the Duties on freehold property. He should not now push the matter further; but, looking at the large estates existing all over the country, the extensive building operations going on, beautiful towns belonging to one proprietor rising up, he did not think the present principle of these Duties fair. The only fair principle was, that every man should contribute to the State according to his means; but, according to the present system, in regard to the Probate, Legacy, Succession, and other Duties, the more a man had the less he contributed to the requirements of the State. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had already done, and looked forward to great things from him; but he hoped that in his next Budget the right hon. Gentleman would carry out some of the suggestions which had been made that night.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

also congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the very masterly Statement he had made, which he hoped would be of immense service in enlightening the mind of the public upon these questions. He himself could not go into an ecstacy about the trifling surplus and the slight remission of taxation, for they reminded him of a spendthrift who found an unexpected 6d. in his pocket. He would rather emphasize the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had laid the case of their expenditure before Parliament. With regard to the remissions, he did not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have dealt with any but the items he had dealt with; and, doubtless, the reduction in the telegram charge would be a very great boon to most classes of the people, facilitating business, and being of great advantage in private affairs. The reduction of the Passenger Duty would tend in the same direction; but as to the reduction of the Income Tax to its old level of 5d., he wished the right hon. Gentleman had shown at this moment what was, perhaps, more courage than could be expected of him when he was surrounded by a House of this kind. This House represented the wealth, rather than the labour, of the country; and no doubt it would be expected by those who were called upon to submit to the increase of the Income Tax as a war charge that it should be reduced on the first occasion possible; but he ventured to think there were other directions in which reductions might have been made with more benefit—on the Tea Duty, for instance, which was an enormous charge—6d. on the lb., or something like 75 per cent on the cost of the tea—on the ordinary class of tea consumed by the bulk of the people. He was glad to hear of the reduction in the Revenue from wines and spirits; for although that might cause some difficulty to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it showed an increase in temperance. No greater impetus to temperance could be given than by a still further reduction in the duties on tea and cocoa. There was great desire to promote sobriety among the people in every way; for of late years serious mischief—moral, physical, and financial—had been wrought by drinking in this country. But, after all, if they were to have Budgets that were acceptable to the great mass of the people, the great question was, what was to be their general war policy? The hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had calculated upon a larger surplus than the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected; but there were other contingencies to be considered. They might have a small, or even a large, war on their hands. What was the mean- ing of the Congo Question and the Transvaal Question? He would warn the people that if they did not listen to the first whisperings of a policy of aggression they must be prepared for increased taxation. While he was a Member of that House he should exercise the greatest possible vigilance, and raise an outcry whenever such a policy showed itself. Another point which had an important bearing on the prosperity of many of their great industries was the question of the Wine Duties. Although they might be called upon, as a matter of policy, to reduce those Duties it did not follow that the people would drink more wine; but the effect of their arbitrarily fixing these Duties had been to lead Spain and Portugal, and even Austria and Italy, to regard us in a less friendly spirit; and in consequence we were suffering grievous injury, in many ways, from those countries, at a moment when the trade of the country was not in a condition to bear it. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to plead that he had not long held his present Office, he had every confidence that everything that was possible would be done to increase and facilitate trade; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would gradually see his way to a more scientific system of taxation than the clumsy system at present prevailing. He had often put to himself the question why their local taxation was based upon scientific principles; but in regard to their Imperial taxation they had to resort to all kinds of expedients. He hoped they would by degrees see their way to the removal of their system of Customs and Excise, which was a most costly method of raising Revenue; and he believed there would be a bright future for their commerce whenever there should come a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had the courage to grapple with that question, and to abolish the Customs and Excise system; so that by the removal of restrictions on trade this country might become the great emporium of the world.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I think the time has now arrived when I may answer the questions put to me in the course of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) said he had been called chicken hearted for not standing up for himself; but he thought I was a worse sinner than he was. The fact, however, is that I did stand up for my opinions and was defeated on a division; and this, I think, is different from the course of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) asked me what was the meaning, in the comparison between 1873–4 and 1882–3, of the Debt Charge in the latter year being more by £3,670,000? What I said was that this amount was the difference between the amounts applied to the reduction of Debt out of the total Debt Charge, not the difference between the two Debt Charges. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Peek) referred to the Parcels Post; but this is not quite the time for discussing that question. We are quite alive to the points raised, and they will not be lightly passed over. The hon. Baronet also spoke of the probability of post parcels containing tobacco, and said that the husbands of fashionable ladies would arrange to smuggle tobacco over from France in their wives' boots. I do not know what the husbands of fashionable ladies may do; but I should be sorry to smoke tobacco smuggled in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), in reference to the Wine Duties, implied, I think, that I was not quite familiar with the question; but I think I am. There is a time, however, to speak and a time to be silent, and this is the time to be silent rather than to speak. I am quite alive to the commercial bearing of the matter, and to what has happened since my right hon. Friend's proposals two years ago. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), I may say that we have not failed to observe the fact that next year, being Leap Year, will give us one additional working day', and that it will contain no Good Friday and no Easter Monday; but the officers of the Revenue are not as sure as my hon. Friend that this results in increased Revenue. On the contrary, there is an impression that the Easter holidays lead to greater consumption than at other times of Exciseable and Customable articles. As there will be another night for the discussion of the Budget, I propose to withdraw the Tea Resolution, and pass that for the Income Tax, which should be adopted at once.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly entitled to the complimentary observations which had been made in various parts of the House, as to the lucid character of his speech. The Statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not pretentious but solid, and it moved along with exceeding ease and clearness. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that the Revenue of the country, vast as it was, was, nevertheless, buoyant. He pointed out with regard to the spending Departments that, in the first place, the changes in Ireland would involve great charges upon the public purse; and, secondly, he wished to emphasize the fact that the Government had to build every year twice as many tons of armoured ships for the Navy than was the case six years ago, at which time the Estimates provided for 6,000 tons, instead of the 12,000 tons a-year now constructed. Certainly, he thought that, as against the Tory Party, the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman might almost be described as a brilliant one; because, notwithstanding that the present Government inherited £7,000,000 of debts from the late Administration on account of the useless, bloody, and aggressive wars which they had carried on in all parts of the world, they had, nevertheless, cleared off that damnosa hæreditas, and sustained a vast expenditure year after year since they came into Office. But when he turned from the manner to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Statement, and came to consider the Budget from the point of view of Ireland and in the interest of her people, he (Mr. Sexton) was bound to say that he regarded it with profound dissatisfaction. The Estimates of the year about to begin appeared to have been carefully framed; the Estimates for the receipts during the same period seemed also to have been arrived at with ample prudence and care; and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's anticipation of a surplus of £2,691,000 might be relied upon. The right hon. Gentleman, out of this surplus, had made certain concessions and remissions of taxation—namely, to those who were fond of shooting, to the dealers in silver plate, to the senders of telegrams, to railway shareholders; finally, to the class of persons who paid Income Tax. And, after all this had been done, the right hon. Gentleman expected at the end of the year to have in hand a balance of £250,000. He now turned to Ireland, and asked this question—had the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with his surplus, considered, as was the primary duty of every civilized Government, that which concerned the means of livelihood of certain portions of the population? He ventured to say that if any Chancellor of the Exchequer, in America or on the Continent of Europe, were to face the Parliament of his country with so large a surplus without making some provision for the needs of a portion of the population on the verge of starvation or expatriation, his tenure of Office would not be of long duration. The Government had had ample notice of the needs of the people in the West of Ireland; and they had, therefore, no excuse for not applying some of the estimated surplus for the alleviation of their distress. That distress was limited to certain districts and areas; and he believed that if the Government had had the generosity, or public spirit, to apply one-fourth of their surplus for the purpose of loans to the occupiers of land in the West, and for seeds wherewith to sow and plant their farms in the present season, the results would have been most valuable to the public interest. How revolting was the comparison between what the Government had done and what they had not done! They relieved sportsmen, who wanted 14 days' shooting, of £1 of the Licence Duty; they showed their solicitude for the elegant delights of sportsmen; but they had no regard for those who had not the means of living. They sacrificed £10,000 in altering the import regulations with regard to silver plate; but they had no feeling for those who had not even a delf-dish or plate to put on their table. They spent £170,000 in reducing the cost of telegrams; but they had no regard for those who, to say nothing of telegrams, could not pay for a stamped envelope to save their lives. They appropriated £135,000 to the reduction of the Passenger Duty, and providing for workmen's trains; they considered the British workman, but they did not consider those in Ireland who had no work to do; and, finally, they spent over £2,000,000 sterling in remitting a portion of the Income Tax. Hon. Members had witnessed the stampede within the House as soon as that was announced, the country Party rushing to telegraph the news of this wise decision of the Government in all directions; but not 1d. had been applied to the relief of those who had no income to tax. He repeated that, in view of the alterations he had enumerated, the silence with which the Government had treated the claims of the people in the West of Ireland was to him nothing short of revolting. If these people were needy and homeless it was because of the policy of the English Government, which drove them from the plains, where they were able to live with comfort, to the mountain side. This suffering population, having scraped together the money for the rent of 1880 and paid it, were afterwards served with processes by their landlords, and were now without food, without seed, without the means of living, and without hope. The Government Inspectors had warned them that supplies of seed would be needed in Ireland—that seed was urgently required no w; in 14 days hence it would be too late; and he could tell the Government that, unless it was supplied, ten times its cost would have to be spent hereafter. The Bishops of Connaught, five Prelates of the widest knowledge and experience of Ireland, had also warned the Government, three months ago, that the pursuit of their present policy would lead to angry and seditious feelings; that the restoration of order would be made difficult; and that the black flag of famine would overshadow the country. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well pause to consider these weighty words. In conclusion, he believed that in Ireland this would be received as a stern and cruel Budget—as one inconsiderate of the wants and forgetful of the welfare of the people. The policy of the Government was "penny wise and pound foolish;" and their neglect of the wants of the poor in Ireland would, hereafter, inevitably involve a heavy charge upon the country.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he objected entirely to the system on which the taxation of the country was based. He objected to all indirect taxation, and considered that Revenue should be de- rived from direct taxation alone. He believed that, at the present time, the artizan paid 12 per cent on his income; whereas the rich man paid only 5 per cent. All Revenue, in his opinion, ought to be raised by progressive Income Tax and progressive Succession Duty; and he did not think that a man struggling for the bare necessaries of life ought to be taxed at all. On the theory carried out in Ireland with reference to land, a man ought not to be taxed to the extent which prevented his living and thriving. A man who earned 30s. a week ought not to have the tax-gatherer come down upon him so long as there were rich people in the country from whom taxes could be obtained. After listening as carefully as possible to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not understand that any tax had been taken off which affected the working man. The man who was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth would get nothing out of the alteration with regard to silver plate, nor would the working man derive any benefit from the remission of a portion of the Passenger Duty. [Dissent.] Some hon. Gentlemen dissented from that; but his impression was that every 1s. of the reduction would go into the pockets of the shareholders; and, for his own part, he thought it more desirable that the Passenger Duty should be retained and used for the purpose of getting concessions from the Railway Companies. He repeated, that he should like to see all the Revenue of the country raised from Income Tax and Succession Duty. But the right hon. Gentleman had taken off some of the Income Tax—that was to say, the 1½ in the pound, which was added, as was said, for a temporary object last year. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not rush with alacrity, as some hon. Members did, to telegraph that reduction, because he represented a working-class constituency, which would not be much benefited by it. With regard to tobacco, the right hon. Gentleman took off from the manufacturer—for everyone knew that he alone would benefit by it—something like £1,300 per annum. But the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Wills) complained that the tax upon tobacco was not reduced in the interest of the working classes, who were the principal consumers; and he pointed to the fact that when in the United States a reduction of the Tobacco Duty was made, the quantity of tobacco sold was much larger than before the duty was taken off. The hon. Member had also shown that, at the present time, the consumption of tobacco in America was at the rate of 12 lbs. per head of the population; whereas in. England it was only 1½ lb. per head. Tobacco was, for the working man, not a luxury, but in many cases an absolute necessity. Now, the right hon. Gentleman would know that the profit on tobacco was made by adding water to it, sometimes to the extent of 35 or 40 per cent; and the tobacco which, in the first instance, cost 6d. per lb. was charged to the working man at the rate of 5s. per lb. That was an immense tax upon him; and he ventured to point out that there was no advantage in levying it, because it had been proved, over and over again, that on all articles of primary necessity the increased sale always made up for the reduction of duty; and this had been shown in the case of the reductions in the Tobacco Duty in the United States, to which the hon. Member for Coventry had drawn the attention of the Committee. How long were they to go upon the monstrous system of neglecting the Revenue which could be raised from the soil? He believed that nothing would benefit Ireland more than the raising of tobacco, which was essentially a sort of garden culture, and, therefore, within the capabilities of persons who had very small holdings. If the present duty on tobacco were done away with, and if the manufactured article were taxed on the system now in operation in the United States, which, at the present time, yielded a Revenue of £10,000,000 sterling, he believed that the Revenue of this country would not suffer to the extent of a single 1d., while the land would produce a crop equivalent in value to £5 an acre; and not only would a large number of people be able to raise this crop upon their holdings, but manufactories would spring up, and both men and women would find employment in their neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that very little reduction was made in Expenditure, and it was to that Members on those Benches objected. He and his hon. Friends claimed that the Expenditure of the country should be less than it was at the present time. It was all very well for one set of Gentlemen to succeed another, each charging their Predecessors with undue expenditure, yet, somehow or other, the taxes went up. He did not know how the money was spent; but the fact remained that it was spent, and if they took any period of five years it would be found that the Expenditure on the Army, Navy, and Civil Service was greater than it was in the previous five years. In making that statement he put aside all the abominable expenditure upon wars that had been undertaken, both by Liberal and Conservative Governments. The expenditure on the Army was £100,000 more than last year. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, said there was a reduction of £100,000; but he must remember that in stating the Expenditure of last year he included the Supplementary Estimates, which he had not done with regard to the present year. The Supplementary Estimates had of late years increased in a most extraordinary manner. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, after showing an apparent reduction—"I must now ask for £400,000 more;" but in this way the gilt was taken off the gingerbread.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very clear and pleasant hearing; and the prospect held out by him of reducing the National Debt by 172,000,000 was so charming, so far as our children and grandchildren were concerned, that he was quite unwilling to say anything in the way of criticism on that occasion. There was, however, one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which had reference to India. They all knew that a Free Trade had been imposed upon India far in excess of what was accepted in this country. They still continued to tax tea, coffee, currants, raisins, and a few other imports, which were not now taxed in India, where the Import Duties were entirely abolished. They insisted on their cotton goods and other goods entering India without payment of duty; and they said all this Free Trade was for the benefit of the Indian people; but, unfortunately, the Indian people did not see it in the same light; on the contrary, they thought they might derive some advantages from a revival of the Customs Duties. They ought to be very careful that the people of India, who did not entirely realize the advantage of our policy, should not be able to say—"You do not yourselves practise that which you have imposed upon us. Our goods are practically excluded from your country by fiscal regulations which are practically in favour of your manufacturers." It was an undoubted fact that they had undersold the Native Indian manufacturers. But with regard to the trade in precious metals, especially in the silver trade the Natives were more skilful than the English workman. They carried on an extensive manufacture of silver goods; and there was reason to believe that if there was Free Trade with India in this branch a large importation into this country from India would take place, and an impulse would be given beneficial to those poor people, who had been undersold by the Free Trade we had forced upon them. Our present system amounted to perfect prohibition and protection to the manufacturers of this country at the expense of the small Indian manufacturers. It had been said that the duty on plate was not protective, because it was equally imposed on goods manufactured in this country. But the system under which the goods were tested was not only strict, but absolutely prohibitive, because the hall-mark was only set upon plate when in a raw state—? that was to say, before the goods were polished and completed. Everyone knew that the manufacturers of India were not free to import their goods into this country—the goods they sent here were often seized and broken up; and the Indian goods they saw in this country were, he was sorry to say, in most cases smuggled, because the fiscal regulations were so severe that people could not comply with them. Therefore, he said that the considerable trade which would spring up, if the goods were admitted free of duty, was absolutely killed and non-existent. He would leave the discussion of the fiscal question, as it affected this country, to those who were more competent to deal with it; but he wished to point out that, in effect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognized the wrong done to India, although, when the right hon. Gentleman came to the remedy for it, he (Sir George Campbell) was greatly disappointed. He might almost say of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. What was the remedy for the injustice of which he complained? It was that, if anyone was so foolish as to bring silver goods from India into this country, and was unable to sell them, they might be re-exported; and that was absolutely all the advantage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to give at present to the Indian manufacturer. But were the goods, pending sale, to be exposed at the bonded warehouses in glass cases, and were the warehouses to be arranged on such a plan as would promote the sale of the goods generally throughout the country? At some future day, they were told, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would repeal the duty, and at the same time, as he presumed, get rid of the system of hall-marking. He trusted that day was not far distant. In the meantime, he thought too little regard had been paid to what the Primo Minister once said would form an important trade with this country; and he considered that there should be no time lost in settling, in the interest of India and of the workmen in this country, a question which involved such a comparatively small Revenue. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state that the plan he proposed was not indefinitely postponed, and that next year a more favourable alteration would be made in the direction indicated. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that a large amount of the Revenue of this country might be realized by direct taxation; and he hoped that by next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to making more radical financial reforms than he was now able to propose. He desired to see property bear its fair share of taxation; and he trusted that next year a substantial reform would be proposed in the system of indirect taxation. In other words, he was anxious to see the valuable consumptions of the rich—the valuable wines and tobaccos of the rich—pay taxation in proportion to their value, and not at the same rate as the cheap wines and spirits and tobacco of the poor.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his elaborate Statement, which he considered one of the best vindications of Liberal finance ever delivered. He, however, desired to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman similar to the one he asked of the Prime Minister 12 months ago. One of the most satisfactory portions of the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman to Members sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House was the announcement of the reduction in the Revenue derived from the duty on spirits—a reduction amounting to as much as £5,000,000 sterling. Hon. Members with whom he (Mr. Arnold) usually acted had heard the announcement with more unqualified satisfaction, perhaps, than the right hon. Gentleman made it; but while they rejoiced at the evident tendency to temperance, and while they were anxious to promote measures which would stimulate the growth of temperance amongst the people, they felt an anxiety to do justice, at the same time, to those who were engaged in the liquor trade. Last year, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) brought forward his Budget, he (Mr. Arnold) drew attention to the scale of the Licensing Duties which was introduced in 1880. He had always thought that scale was inequitable and unjust; and he now wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take into consideration the inequalities in that scale? A man occupying a house rated at £50 was required to pay 50 per cent for Licence Duty; but a man occupying a house rated at £400 had only to pay 10 per cent for Licence Duty. It was obvious that that was a scale which it was impossible to defend upon any principle of equity. When the Prime Minister introduced the scale in 1880, he anticipated that he would receive £305,000 a-year through its operation; but, as a matter of fact, he had received no less than £430,000 from the duty—an excess over his Estimate of £125,000, He repeated, that he and his hon. Friends were desirous of promoting legislation for the growth and development of temperance, yet they wished to do so in conformity with the principles of justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that night that there must necessarily be a very considerable decline in the business of those engaged in the drink trade. He (Mr. Arnold) viewed that decline with great satisfaction; but that decline obviously gave the trade a claim to consideration in regard to the recent increase and the inequitable gradations in the general scale of Licence Duty.

MR. BIDDELL

said, there were one on two points of comparatively small importance he desired to raise. In the first place, he wished to call attention to the way in which the English farmers were taxed in comparison to the manner in which the farmers of Scotland were taxed. He had brought the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer before; and he, as well as the Prime Minister, had admitted that the English farmers were taxed 15 per cent more than the Scotch farmers. It was not his wish to increase the taxation of the Scotch farmers. He did not want to level their taxation up to the English farmers, but rather to lower the latter down to that prevailing in Scotland. There was another matter he would very much like to see dealt with if there had been an opportunity, and that was the cost of the brewers' licences to cottagers. The cost of a brewers' licence frequently amounted to more than the Malt Tax. It would be a very small matter, indeed, to the National Exchequer to reduce the licence from 6s. say, to 2s. 6d.; and he was confident such a reduction would contribute to the benefit of the working classes, and would, in reality, promote temperance. He thought the shooting licence might very well have been left alone. Those who shot—and he was one—enjoyed a luxury for which they ought to pay. He agreed with the observation made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the present Budget was a rich man's Budget. The working classes would derive hardly any benefit at all from it. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) that any part of the community in Ireland were worse off than the small farmers of England. He believed the small farmers of the Eastern counties, who depended largely upon the growth of grain, were in quite as bad a condition as the farmers of Ireland. His chief object in rising, however, was to express his regret at the predictions of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out the hope that he might lower the duty on wines—that he might lower the duty on what was strictly the beverage of the rich—while he would not take off a single farthing of the duty on the beverage of the poor. He trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman lowered the Wine Duties, he would be prepared also to reduce the duty on beer. The Wine Duties had been lowered three or four times within living memory; but the Beer Duty had really been increased. It was high time the question of the reduction of the Beer Duty was considered. As to the reduction in the price of telegrams, he was inclined to think that was a sound operation. He was strongly of opinion that, in a very few years, the Exchequer would be recouped for the lower rate about to be charged.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, what was most painful to Irish Members about this Budget was that while the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to give, practically, £400,000 to the rich Railway Companies, to make provision for cheapening gun licences, and to supply silver merchants with bonded warehouses, it never seemed to have occurred to him to devote a few paltry thousands to provide food and seed for the unfortunate people in the West of Ireland. Of the rich surplus of £2,600,000, not one penny was to go to the relief of the wretched people in the West of Ireland, a third of whom, according to the Report of the Government's own Inspector—Dr. Woodhouse—"had no possessions, except some fowls, and, perhaps, a pig, and neither seed potatoes nor oats." If the anticipations of the Prime Minister in reference to the Arrears Act had been realized, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been obliged to provide £500,000, probably in this Budget, for the purposes of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was willing to guarantee that sum out of the Imperial Treasury, in the hope that it would help the very class of small tenants, who were now starving, out of their embarrassments. If he (Mr. O'Brien) and his Friends could show—and they could very easily show—that, instead of getting them out of their difficulties, the Arrears Act, by an unforeseen fatality, had only landed them in greater difficulties, they would have fair and reasonable ground to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who had some experience of Donegal, to amend his Budget, so as to make some little provision for those unfortunate people, for whose benefit the Treasury were last year will- ing to contribute £500,000. He did not know whether the present was the proper occasion on which to introduce the subject of Irish distress. Supposing it was argued that it was not, his reply would be that there was no fitter, and in fact, no other, opportunity for doing so. Time was pressing; the official Inspectors were making light of the distress; their Reports were stopping the flow of charity which was keeping the people alive; the Government was doing nothing; there were still four and a-half months to be bridged over, and this surplus was being given over to the rich, and not a penny of it devoted to the relief of his wretched and starving fellow-countrymen. It could be quite easily shown that those who were now penniless, and in whom private charity only was sustaining life, were reduced to that position by reason of their anxiety to comply with the provisions of the Arrears Act. He did not wish to use that as an argument against the Arrears Act; he simply wanted to establish it as a matter of fact that those poor people who, in their eagerness to get rid of their arrears, were ready to raise the necessary year's rent even by mortgaging their last cow, were now the most distressed. He spoke from experience when he said that in all the distressed parishes, and especially on the most poverty-stricken estates, the people last winter, by hook or crook, paid over that year's rent. More than that, he found that in the Dunfanaghy Union the people had also been obliged to pay up the arrears of seed rates for the seeds distributed during the famine of 1879–80. Some of the people who made these payments were without seed potatoes or oats to put in the ground; they were simply living from week to week upon whatever chance charity might be given; and actually, upon last Monday week, when the Society of Friends was sending round from Belfast a cargo of seed potatoes to these people, the country was placarded with notices from the rate collector to meet him with the arrears of seed rate. It had been said that these were all very small people; that they only paid £2 or £3 rent, and the payment of a year's rent would not hurt them much one way or another: £3, however, used as these people used money, would support a whole family on Indian meal for three months. A great number of the people borrowed the rent from the shopkeeper, and the moment the distress appeared, the shopkeeper cut short the supplies. The Arrears Act was mercifully designed for the relief, above all others, of this very class of tenants; but by an unfortunate fatality it had just had the opposite effect. It held out to them a tempting opportunity of cancelling the arrears which were always hanging over their heads, and rendering their tenancy valueless; and in getting rid of their arrears, they had actually stripped themselves and their families of the means of support. What he put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—that last year Parliament practically allocated £2,000,000, according to the Prime Minister's Estimate, to give effect to the intentions of the Arrears Act. If the anticipations of the Prime Minister had been realized, £500,000 of that amount would, beyond all question, have had to be deducted from the surplus now at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Only £807,000 had actually been called in to meet the operations of the Act, and that all Irish money. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the Government, whether it was not almost an obligation, certainly whether it would not be a matter of humanity, to see that the Arrears Act was not defeated in its purpose; to see that the unfortunate people, in whose interest the Act was passed, should not be left destitute by their efforts to comply with its requirements?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that his remarks have no bearing upon the Question before the Committee. The Resolution before the Committee is that the duty on tea be 6d. in the lb.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he was arguing that an expenditure of vital necessity had been omitted from the purview of the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Budget. In order to prove its vital necessity, it was incumbent upon him to travel into detail, and even into greater detail than he had yet given. But, of course, after the intimation from the Chair, he should content himself by appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, who knew something of Donegal, whether, instead of disposing of his surplus in presents to Railway Companies and silver mer- chants, it would not be better expended in giving some relief to those miserable people in the West of Ireland who were now trembling for their lives on the chance of private charity?

MR. BUXTON

said, he hoped that for many years to come they might hear the annual Financial Statement from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it would rarely happen that they would have any Budget more clearly or more fully presented to the House than that of the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. He (Mr. Buxton) would not have troubled the House but for something that had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Member said that in this Budget nothing had been done for the working man. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in that statement; because it seemed to him that in one matter especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided a great boon for the working men, more especially in the great towns—he referred to the abolition of the Railway Passenger Duty on fares of less than 1d. a-mile. He had the honour of sitting on the Select Committee on Artizans Dwellings; and he was quite sure that all hon. Members who sat on that Committee would agree with him in thinking that very strong evidence was given as to the difficulty working men in London and in large towns experienced in getting to and from their homes in the suburbs to their work. Building, in London especially, was increasing so much, that the working classes were forced into the suburbs; they had to travel to their work early in the morning, and return late at night; and any concession that the Board of Inland Revenue could get from the Railway Companies in the direction of increased facilities for working men getting to and from work would be of the greatest possible advantage to the working classes. He felt it his duty to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the great reduction in the National Debt which had been effected. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out to the Committee that between 1874 and 1880 there was a reduction of the National Debt of £18,160,000; but that in the three years during which the Liberal Govern- ment had been in Office the reduction had already amounted to £20,500,000. He could not but think that if the reduction of the National Debt went on at the rate at which it had been proceeding during the last three years, at the end of their term of Office there would be one matter at least on which to congratulate the Liberal Government very heartily. Before sitting down, he would like to put one question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that whereas there had been a decrease in the Revenue from the Beer Tax, there had been a simultaneous increase in the Revenue of Excise on tea. Last year they passed certain new regulations as to the sale of adulterated coffee. He would like to ask his right hon. Friend whether those regulations had resulted in any increased consumption of coffee, for he believed it was in that hope that the regulations were passed? He sincerely trusted there had been an increased consumption of that article.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

desired, as one of the Members of the Committee on the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, to express his concurrence in what had just been stated by the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), and his belief that the working man would, in the end, be benefited by the reduction of the Passenger Duty. But he desired also to get, if possible, a promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a very important question which arose with relation to the taxation of this country; a question which had been referred to by the Prime Minister, either last year or the year before in this House. Several Members had that evening urged the advantage of direct over indirect taxation, and especially Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House. Now, he (Sir Henry Holland) was not going to detain the Committee by arguing that question; but he desired to point out that if the Income Tax was to be relied upon, it must be considered whether the present exemptions from it would not have to be reduced. The Prime Minister, in the speech to which he had referred, admitted with regret that the exemption was first originated by a Liberal Government, although afterwards, as he (Sir Henry Holland) must admit, it was enlarged by a Conservative Government. Now, if direct taxation alone was to be relied upon—in other words, if the Income Tax was to be mainly relied on—the question arose whether this exemption must not be largely reduced, and for this reason. At the present time a large number of voters were exempt from the tax. That number would be very greatly increased if the franchise was enlarged by a County Franchise Act. Those voters had, and would have, considerable and increasing political influence in the country; they could bring great pressure to bear upon the Government of the day—whether Liberal or Conservative—to incur expenditure, whether for purposes of education or for any other social question, or by engaging in a popular war, or otherwise. Now, it was neither just nor ex-expedient that those persons who had urged this increase of expenditure should bear no part of it. It was not just that they should not bear any part of the cost to the country incurred by their action; and not expedient, because it tended to mate them less careful about pressing for increased expenditure of which they would bear no share. He (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to consider this question, which he should hardly have ventured to bring before the Committee had it not been for the observations made by the Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the satisfactory statement he had been able to make. The right hon. Gentleman must be rejoiced that the balance, though small, turned out to be on the right side. It was a matter for congratulation that the National Debt had been so largely reduced; he sincerely hoped more would be done in the same direction. They had been told that this was a rich man's Budget. True it was there was to be a reduction of the Income Tax; but it was only fair to remember that when the Expenditure of the country was suddenly increased last year, that increase was almost entirely met by an addition to the Income Tax. Surely, under those circumstances, it was only reasonable, natural, and just, that the Income Tax should be diminished by the amount of the addition last year. He was not altogether satisfied that the reduction of the Passenger Duty would result in as great a boon to the working classes as seemed to be imagined, nor was he sure that the reduction would be equally distributed between the different Railway Companies. He did not, however, propose to discuss that question at the present moment. The principal object with which he rose was to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the question of the duty on Marine Insurance. All the reasons which induced Parliament to remove the duty on Fire Insurance applied with equal, if not greater, force to the removal of the duty on Marine Insurance, which was, moreover, very unequal in its incidence. In conclusion, he once more thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his very clear, able, and interesting Statement.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

remarked, that before he proceeded to comment upon the Statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to say that the praise which had been given to the right hon. Gentleman, for the manner and method in which he had introduced the Budget, was fully justified, and he thought they ought all to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new Office. He would venture, however, to make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the term for granting sporting licences. He understood that there was some elasticity to be introduced in the principle of granting temporary licences to sportsmen. It was plain to see what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that a certain number of the inhabitants of a town were in the habit of taking a short vacation once a-year. This was the only time they could enjoy sport, and the right hon. Gentleman thought he was conferring a boon upon such persons by giving them an opportunity of enjoying sport during that short vacation. But a fortnight was not always the usual term of vacation. As an ordinary rule, the vacation would be three weeks or a month. In all Government Offices, he believed, it was four weeks. Therefore, as the object of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be to afford an opportunity for the enjoyment of sport during the vacation, he would suggest that he should increase the term from 14 days to one month; and if he liked, and if it were practicable, he might make regulations by which the licences might be still further extended to persons bonâ fide engaged in sport. There was another point to which he desired to make allusion. The right hon. Gentleman had been charged by a great many speakers with having introduced, after all, what was a rich man's Budget, and the reply of his defenders was that in reducing the taxation upon railway passengers he had conferred a boon upon the working classes of the country. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor) did not profess to be an authority upon the question himself; but several hon. Members, who were authorities, had expressed an opinion that the reduction of the Passenger Duty would confer a far greater benefit upon railway shareholders than upon railway passengers, and in that opinion he certainly felt inclined to agree. He, therefore, thought that this part of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget only conferred a rather doubtful boon upon railway passengers. Passing from that to other parts of the Budget, he failed to see any single thing done for the artizans of this country or Ireland. The Resolution which the Committee were asked to vote was one upon which, if he could get any support, he would challenge a division of the Committee. They were asked to vote for the continuance of the duty upon tea. He would put it to any hon. Member who was at all interested in the question of taxation, whether it was not monstrous that an article like tea should have to pay so heavy a duty as 6d. per lb.? He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have given delight to the hearts of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and other teetotallers, by the statements he had made in regard to the reduction of the consumption of drink; but he (Mr. O'Connor) was inclined to believe that the reduction in the consumption of spirits might be due as much to the depression of trade as to the increased habits of sobriety among the people. But in the same breath that he related the reduction in the consumption of spirits, the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell them there was an increase in the consumption of tea, evidently showing that tea was every day becoming more and more a popular beverage in this country. There was every reason to believe that it was not only consumed much more extensively by the poorer classes, but even much more by the wealthy classes than it used to be. The consumption of tea had certainly increased very largely during the last 20 years. He remembered the time when very few of the farmers in Ireland ever thought of indulging in the luxury of tea at all. They never got beyond cocoa, and some of them did not even get that. But in the very same breath in which the right hon. Gentleman rejoiced over the larger consumption of tea, and the diminution in the consumption of spirits, as signs of the growth of temperance and sobriety in the country, he told the Committee that this large tax of 6d. per lb. upon tea was still to be continued. He wondered whether the question had ever presented itself in this shape to the minds of hon. Members of that House? He would say that 1s. 8d. was about the usual price given by the artizans of the country for a pound of tea; certainly 2s. was a limit in regard to the luxury which was seldom reached. He would, therefore, take 1s. 8d. as the ordinary price, and he asked the House to reflect upon this extraordinary fact—that of that 1s. 8d. charged for one of the first necessaries of life, 6d. was levied in the shape of taxation. He would ask any hon. Member to name a single article consumed by the wealthy classes of the country upon which a percentage of d. out of 1s. 8d, was reached, or even approached? He would take another article—the article of tobacco. As had been observed by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), tobacco had ceased to be a luxury among a large class of the people of the country and had become a necessary. He (Mr. O'Connor) could speak with perfect impartiality, for he never indulged in tobacco, and, indeed, he hated the very smell of it, believing it to be an both absurd and an unhealthy indulgence. That, however, was only his own personal opinion. The fact remained, that tobacco was generally considered to be one of the necessaries of the people of this country. Then let them see how it worked with respect to the artizan. He purchased his tobacco at the rate of about 3d. per ounce. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not believe that good tobacco could be got for that price, but a good many artizans only paid that sum; and how much of that sum went in the shape of taxation? No less than 2½d. Take another article of consumption. A great many of the people of this country could not afford to drink tea, and could not afford to drink coffee, and they resorted to cocoa. Then let them see what was the duty imposed upon cocoa. Cocoa or chocolate, ground or prepared in any way, was charged a taxation of 2d. in 1 lb., cocoa was the lowest article of stimulant the artizan could take, and if it was prepared in any way, then he had to pay a taxation of 2d. in 1 lb. for it. Indeed, there was not a single article ordinarily consumed by an artizan, whether as a luxury or as a necessary, upon which there was not the same monstrous disproportion between the value of the article and the precentage he had to pay in the shape of taxation. Only the other day, in the discussion upon 8d. telegrams, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and reproved the lordly and easy manner in which people spoke of the enormous bites which Royalty and the Government got out of the taxation of the country. Now, there were tens and hundred of thousands of people in the country who were very hard set to get a sufficient meal for their children; yet, out of every 1s. 8d. for tea, 6d. had to go in the shape of taxation, when, very frequently, the 1s. 8d. might be the sum total of the day's wages of the head of the family. He believed there was some considerable truth in the remark that this was a rich man's Budget. He would now go to another point. Why was it necessary to have this large taxation? The point was one which had already been touched upon by various speakers in the course of the debate, and especially by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Why was it necessary to collect so much money? Everybody knew the reason. Let them look at the list of charges upon the Consolidated Fund of the country, and see the vast total they amounted to, the total being some £31,000,000 of money. How much of that went to support Royalty and the numerous progeny of Royalty in this country? How much went to keep up the Royal Palaces? Why, a sum of £5.000 or £6,000 a-year was required for the purpose of keeping the Royal Palaces in repair. How much went to support the Royal Yachts, and was paid for, although it was said to be monstrous to make the assertion, out of the sweat and blood of the toiling workers of this country? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very eloquent on another of the reasons for this large Expenditure. He (Mr. O'Connor) had felt called upon to express an opinion whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified or not in making what was styled by some a controversial and political Budget. All he could say was that, knowing the antecedents of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he regarded the Motion which the hon. Member intended to bring forward on Friday as something very much in the nature of a sham. Indeed, he should feel inclined to think that, instead of being the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley, it had originated with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The hon. Member for Burnley was the apostle of economy; but a wink must have passed between the hon. Member and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they passed each other, to show that they perfectly understood what was going on. The right hon. Gentleman had been very eloquent as to one of the reasons of this large Expenditure. He had spoken about the large sums spent in war during the last live or six years, and the right hon. Gentleman was not a bit too strong upon what he said upon the subject; but upon that point he should like to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that all this War Expenditure was a heritage bequeathed to the Government by their Predecessors. If it was right for the Government to give up a position into which they had been falsely placed by their Predecessors in the Transvaal, why did they not think of that when they came into Office? Why did it require the defeat at Lang's Nek, and the excellent rifle practice of the Boer fusiliers, to convince them of the injustice of that war? The Transvaal War was not a legacy from the late Government entirely. It was a legacy of that spirit which was still one of the strong passions of the English people, to which all Ministries, at some time or other, were willing to give their allegiance. Was the Egyp- tian War a legacy from the late Government? The right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Front Opposition Bench had adopted a cautious policy with regard to the Egyptian War. They were "willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike." The Leader of the Opposition used heroic words in the country, and shook his helmet at the Prime Minister; but he never wanted a discussion, because he did not dare to lay down the principle that this country had no right to go to war for the purpose of making conquests of territory from uncivilized people. The Egyptian War was not a heritage from the late Government. It was a consequence of the action of the present Ministry, and he congratulated them on the small profit they had gained. That very friendly supporter of the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell), had declared that one of the results of that war was that the Prime Minister had become the idol of the London mob. He remembered when the right hon. Gentleman's windows were broken, because he happened at that moment to be the target of the hate of the London mob; and, to his mind, the right hon. Gentleman was then in a better position than he now was, because he refused to join in the work of blood guiltiness and injustice. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had called attention to murmurings of further war, of more glory, to show what a good fighter the Radical could be in a particular case. What was the meaning of the Motions that came from time to time from the Front Opposition Bench? What was the meaning of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) getting up and shedding tears over the wrongs of the Bechuana people? If he (Mr. O'Connor) were an Englishman and a Radical, and a Member for a working-class constituency, he would shed so many tears over the condition of the people who lived in the slums and alleys of this country, that he should have little left for these interesting savages. What was the meaning of these Motions about the Congo, and other matters? They meant that this country was constantly to be embroiled in war, and every year was to see an increase in the number of their soldiers and ships, with every year a decrease in the happiness and well-being of the working classes of this country, who had to pay the piper for all these heroic tunes of Liberals and Tories. He congratulated his hon. Friend on the manly position he had taken upon this question, and, if he might make a comparison, he would say that Yorkshire was equally remarkable for the production of the real and of the spurious article. It was the county in which the best wollen goods were produced, and it was also the place where the worst shoddy was obtained; and he very much preferred the real humanity of the hon. Member who had recently spoken (Mr. Illingworth) to the sham philanthropy of his Colleague (Mr. W. E. Forster). What was the object of every Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the affairs of this country? There was a very simple test—it was not a scientific, or a heroic, or a Chancellor of the Exchequer's test—it was simply what was the position in which the toilers of the country were left. If their position was good, then the policy of the Government was good; if their position was bad, then that policy was bad. He should be very sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman leave his present Office for a considerable period; but what ought to be his policy? If he could enable the charwoman in St. Giles's to have two cups of tea for her breakfast instead of one, he would have done more for the real interests of the country than if he waged 10 Egyptian Wars, or Congo Wars, or exiled a dozen Arabis from their fellow-men. In regard to the case of Ireland, he wished to put himself right with the Committee. For himself, and for his hon. Friends, he disclaimed the idea that they were coming here to beg alms from the Imperial Exchequer. What they wanted was that the people of Ireland should have work, and that the land should have a chance of being cultivated. The Secretary to the Treasury had given one of his Lord Burleigh nods when his hon. Friend spoke of the £500,000. This House, which was the guardian of the purse of the country, had agreed to this draft of £500,000 from the Imperial Exchequer; but Ireland had not got it. The money had been sanctioned; why was it not invested, and even the loss of it risked in giving the country something like a chance? He did not say it would be lost; but he put the case strongly as to say that it might be risked in order to give the people of Ireland some means of tiding over the next three or four months. The Government might emigrate the people to any distance, and say they would not sanction outdoor relief; but why not give them some employment by means of this money that had been agreed to?

MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTIN

said, he thought all who sat on the Ministerial side of the House must have heard with great pleasure that it was proposed to reduce the National Debt; but he wished to point out one or two matters of importance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not mentioned. With regard to the reduction of the interest on the Three per Cents, the difference between that Stock and the Two-and-a-half per Cents at present was only 1s. 6d. in the £100; and it should be remembered that the large reduction of capital which the right hon. Gentleman proposed put the Government in the position of a probability of being able to relieve the taxpayers of a very large sum by reducing the Three per Cents to Two-and-a-half per Cents. This was a question of very great difficulty, because this reduction, he believed, could only be effected by giving a year's notice of reductions of sums of not less than £500,000 at a time. Next year, or in the year following, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, by having only 2½ instead of 3 per cent interest to pay, be enabled to increase the Sinking Fund, and so to relieve the taxpayers of a considerable amount of burden. This would be a turning point in the financial history of this country, and its importance could not be over-estimated; and he should be sorry if the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out some hope that this great reform would come within his purview very soon. He was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reducing the Railway Passenger Duty, proposed to get some hold upon the Railways. He was in favour of unimpeded locomotion as far as possible; but he had observed that at the meetings of the Railway Companies, the Chairman pointed to that great abuse, as they regarded it, the Passenger Duty; and that although they promised increased dividends to the shareholders, they never promised a reduction of fares. He himself cared more for the millions who travelled in the third-class carriages than for the holders of Railway Stock, with whom he could not confess to having the slightest sympathy upon this point. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was arranging this matter, would take care to get as much benefit for the passengers as possible in exchange for the remission of a tax which the Companies incurred knowingly, wilfully, and with a clear knowledge of it before they made their lines.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he felt sure that every Member of the Committee was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to remit the extra 1½d. of Income Tax, for that was what everyone had looked for. At the same time, there was one thing which he had heard with surprise, and that was that the right hon. Gentleman had given way to the Resolution passed a few nights ago with regard to telegrams. He did not think hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side would find much inducement to support the right hon. Gentleman on Motions of that description, if he at once gave way to them. All had listened with great interest to the very able speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but it contained one or two matters which it would be the duty of the Opposition hereafter to call attention to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged the late Government, not only with wars which were going on while they were in Office, but with the responsibility of a war which was undertaken by the present Government—namely, the Transvaal War, for which, he maintained, they were wholly responsible. He ventured humbly, but decidedly, to differ from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Transvaal War was a legacy from the late Government. Everyone knew that the annexation of the Transvaal was one of those acts of the late Administration which were so strongly objected to by the present Prime Minister in Mid Lothian. When the present Government came into Office, they had two courses open to them, and he should have thought they would have followed the course indicated by the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, and at once given up the Transvaal. They might either have at once handed over the Transvaal to the Boers, or, as they at first seemed to intend, have said the annexation was accomplished by their Predecessors, and they were bound to adhere to the engagements entered into in the name of the Crown. But they did neither. At first they said they were bound to adhere to the engagements made by their Predecessors, and they went on in that course for a few months, until they were defeated in three actions by the Boers; and they were wholly and solely responsible for the events that took place in the Transvaal. The Secretary to the Treasury had been the advocate of the Boers, and had defended everything they had done.

MR. COURTNEY

I never advocated their cause.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

accepted the hon. Gentleman's statement; but he would not deny that he took a very friendly and favourable view of the Transvaal Government.

MR. COURTNEY

What I did was to denounce the stupidity of the intervention.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

Well, he would take it then that the hon. Gentleman had ceased to be the advocate of the Transvaal Republic; that he was not prepared to defend what many hon. Members in former years had deprecated in regard to the action of the Boers, and desired to wash his hands of the whole matter. He wished to dispute the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Transvaal War was a legacy from the late Government, and to maintain that the responsibility for that war must fairly be laid at the door of Her Majesty's present Advisers. They might either have retired from the Transvaal or they could have continued there, but they took neither course. They simply remained there until they were led into a war from which they ignominiously retired. That was one of the most disgraceful and ignominious transactions that had ever occurred in the history of this country; and he emphatically denied that the late Government, or their Supporters, were responsible for that war. When the right hon. Gentleman threw down the gauntlet, the Opposition were bound to pick it up; and he would find that he had led the House into a position which it would be their duty, from which they would not shrink, to discuss. When this question came before the House in debate, it would be discussed by abler men than himself; but he could not allow that evening to pass without entering his protest against the unwarrantable attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the late Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had never heard any statement in that House which pleased him more than the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he was bound to say that he was unable to approve altogether of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals with regard to the distribution of his surplus. Neither was he quite able to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the way in which he arrived at his calculations. From as careful an examination as he could make of the materials at his disposal, he had come to the conclusion that at the end of the year, if nothing unforeseen occurred, the right hon. Gentleman would probably be in possession of a surplus of £4,000,000. With regard to the distribution of the surplus, the right hon. Gentleman was bound, in honour and in duty, to remove the extra 1½d. of Income Tax, the purpose for which that was imposed having been effected. But he could not help thinking that the adoption of a method which had frequently been employed for the reduction of taxation—namely, the Sinking Fund and Terminable Annuities, was very like the good intentions of a spendthrift, which often came to nothing. Those proposals were very likely to yield far less results than the right hon. Gentleman expected; and it was an extraordinary thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be getting rid of the Funded Debt with one hand in the shape of Terminable Annuities, while with the other he appeared to be converting the Funded Debt into an Unfunded Debt. Only on the previous day a Paper had been issued showing that a sum of £750,000 for Exchequer Bonds, which was in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, had been converted into Terminable Annuities. Then with regard to the reduction of the National Debt, it was a very remarkable fact that while the Funded Debt was year after year decreasing, with some slight exceptions, the Funded Debt was steadily increasing, and there was no reduction at all. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had no option but to agree to a loss of £170,000, in order to lower the price of telegrams; but with respect to the reduction of the Railway Passengers' Duty, he agreed in the view that the £400,000 which the Exchequer was to sacrifice would go into the pockets of the shareholders, and not into the pockets of the travellers. With regard to the balance of the surplus, the right hon. Gentleman would have done well to have made a remission of some taxation which pressed heavily on some industries in connection with the food of the poor. Was it worth while, for instance, to levy the excessive duty on chicory? The Customs Duty on raw chicory produced not more than £69,000, and the whole amount obtained from raw and ground chicory was less than £90,000, while the industry itself was paralyzed. Some years ago a duty of 12s. was put on chicory imported from the Channel Islands, and it destroyed the trade. By the reduction of the Coffee Duty the consumption of coffee had been diminished. In 1847, with a duty three times as heavy as it was at present, the consumption of coffee was 37,472,000 lbs.; but in 1881 the consumption fell to 31,900,000 lbs.; and in 1882 to 31,129,000 lbs. There were many Duties from which only ridiculously small sums were derived. For instance, £9,600 was levied on appraisers. Surely it was not worth while to maintain such a tax for such a miserable result. Then, again, the makers of playing cards were taxed to the amount of £16, and surely it was not worth while levying such a charge as that. Small amounts were derived, also, from the tax upon medicine vendors; altogether the tax only realized £4,691. It would be no loss to the Revenue to forego such a tax, while it would be a great relief to the industry of the country. Then, as to the taxes which oppressed the poor. They heard something last year, but he had failed to catch anything to night, about dried fruits; but he believed the tax upon currants realized £325,000, the tax upon figs, plums, and prunes, £42,000, and raisins, £143,000; making £511,000 altogether. Well, these things might be looked upon as luxuries; whereas, if there was no duty upon them, they would be brought more within the reach of the poor, and would enter largely into ordinary use. That was one of the things that should have engaged the attention of the Cabinet now in Office. As to the tax on alcohol, he had heard the point argued by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly)—and the justice of the argument was assented to, in some degree, by the Prime Minister—but they had not heard anything from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject. It had been pointed out by his hon. Friend that the tax on alcohol was of very unequal incidence, inasmuch as whiskey was the form of beverage consumed by the poorer people in Ireland; whereas in England the favourite beverage was beer, and alcohol, in the shape of beer, was taxed at nothing like the extent to which it was taxed in whiskey. The result was that the consumers of alcohol in Ireland had to pay a much heavier duty than the consumers in England. Last year the House had heard a great deal about the question of Local Taxation; and so urgent were the representations made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so considerable was the pressure brought to bear upon him by the House, that he was obliged—whether willingly or unwillingly he (Mr. O'Connor) knew not—to recognize the demand made upon him and give way. Well, surely, in Ireland, they had a much greater claim than anyone in England had to relief from local taxation, inasmuch as they had only within the past few weeks heard from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that several Unions in Ireland were practically bankrupt—that they had, from the necessity of the situation, been compelled to increase their liabilities, until absolutely their borrowing powers had come to an end. Surely there should be some relief from local taxation in those districts; but not one word had he heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicating that anything was to be done in that direction. Those were the points which rose to his mind upon the Statement the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made that night; and he hoped that before the Resolution was passed, the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information, showing that the questions raised were not altogether unworthy the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. GREGORY

did not think that the interests of the agricultural population had been much regarded in the present Budget. A portion of the sur- plus might well have been devoted to the main roads of the country. Another £250,000, in addition to that granted last year, would provide for the maintenance of the whole of them, and be a sensible relief to the rural ratepayer. The scheme for the reduction of the National Debt was a very large and comprehensive one, and he confessed he had some difficulty in following the Statement with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough to favour them. He trusted that they would have some further development of the scheme; but he presumed the matter would be discussed in the Bill which would be brought in for the purpose of giving effect to the plan. It was proposed to take £40,000,000 from the Chancery Fund to be converted into Terminable Annuities. The right hon. Gentleman would excuse him (Mr. Gregory) if, as an old practitioner in Chancery, he was somewhat jealous of the interests of the suitor with regard to the funds in the administration of the Court of Chancery. He had heard with some dismay the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the manner in which he intended dealing with those funds. Probably, he had not clearly understood the right hon. Gentleman; but if he had properly interpreted his words, it would be well if some further explanation in the matter were given. It would be a great assistance to many hon. Members if the right hon. Gentleman would favour them with a scheme in writing, showing what the operations he proposed would be, and making it manifest that the interests of the suitor would be properly protected.

MR. BRYCE

expressed the great satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that he proposed next year to impose some duty on the property of Corporations. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that when he brought forward such a proposal he would find the opinion of the House had very much changed as to the investments of corporate property within the last few years, and that he would receive their support in the matter.

MR. GORST

said, he would not detain the Committee very long; but he desired to express the satisfaction and pleasure with which he had listened to the very lucid Statement, as to the finance of the country, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Gorst) would not be so presumptous as to enter into a discussion on the various points of the right, hon. Gentleman's Statement, without more consideration than he had been enabled to give to that Statement in the course of listening to it. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, aware that there were many points in his Statement which would give rise to discussion hereafter, particularly the plan he had shadowed out for dealing with the Terminable Annuities that would fall in in 1885. The principle which he presumed had been deliberately adopted by Her Majesty's Government on that subject would give rise to considerable discussion at some future time. The subject would be well discussed, not only in that House, but throughout the country. Unfortunately, the juggle of figures that the Treasury had invented under the name of Terminable Annuities had always concealed from the public outside the House the real nature of those transactions. What had really been done during the past 20 years was to keep on an amount of taxation necessary to pay, not only the interest of the National Debt, but also to repay, year by year, part of the principal. The effect of the operation of that scheme had been that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the present generation had paid off a sum already amounting to £107,000,000, and by the year 1885 that amount would be increased to £115,000,000, probably to £120,000,000. He dared say the suffering taxpayer had hoped that when he had paid off that enormous amount of the National Debt of the country, he might, at least in his old age, receive the benefit of having shaken off so much of the burden from the shoulders of the nation. The taxpayer would naturally think that the utmost the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury would require of him would be to go on paying the same amount of taxation which he had paid in his youth, for the purpose of continuing the reduction of the National Debt at the same rate at which it had been going on during the past 20 or 30 years. But if the taxpayer only understood the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night, as he (Mr. Gorst) hoped that, after the discussion which had taken place, and which might hereafter occur, he would understand it, he would learn that he was to have no benefit whatever from the burden he had shaken off the shoulders of the nation—that all the benefit from the reduction of the National Debt was to be derived by future generations—and that he (the taxpayer) was not only to go on paying off the National Debt as had been done heretofore, but that instead of contributing, in round numbers, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a-year to that object, he was, in future, to contribute £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. It might be a question that they would discuss hereafter whether the taxpayer of to-day ought not, at least, to be encouraged so far as this—that he should have the benefit of the relief produced by the paying off of the National Debt, out of the funds to which he himself had contributed. And, perhaps, it might be as much as could be expected of the generation in which they lived, that they should go on contributing £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a-year towards the reduction of the Debt. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take that view, it would give relief to taxation to the amount of £3,000,000 in 1885; and that money, to use the words of an old politician, would be left to fructify and produce more money in the pockets of the people. But his (Mr. Gorst's) object was not to discuss that point, or any other point, upon the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman. What he wished to point to was rather the Party, than the Financial, portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Gorst) had heard a great many Financial Statements in that House; but he did not think he had ever heard so clever a Financial Statement, from a purely Party point of view, as that to which they had listened to that night from the right hon. Gentleman. At the present moment, the Government were on the point of being arraigned by one of their own Supporters—the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—for their extravagance, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer very cleverly took the opportunity of drawing a red-herring across the scent by raising a charge of extravagance against the late Government. And to judge from the language of the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), who spoke just now, that manœuvre of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very likely to be successful. As the worthy Alderman had said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having thrown down the gauntlet, the Conservative Party was bound to take it up; though when the question raised by the hon. Member for Burnley came on for discussion, instead of debating the extravagance of the present Government, they were likely to have a debate on the extravagance of the late Government. Now, he (Mr. Gorst) would like to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were some Members in that House capable of seeing through a manœuvre of that kind; and there were many who were perfectly competent to defend the action of the late Government in matters connected with finance. No doubt, the late Government would be defended in that respect; but the object of the House to-morrow, and on any future day to which the debate might be adjourned, would not be to discuss the policy of the late Government, but to discuss that of the present Government. And he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his Colleagues, were likely to succeed in throwing dust in the eyes of the public—they were not likely to induce them to forget the enormous Expenditure that was now going on, and which for three years past had been steadily increasing, by merely saying that their Predecessors in Office were as extravagant as they were. It was no excuse for extravagance in the present Government to say that there had been extravagance—even if there had been extravagance—on the part of the late Government. Every Government must defend its own conduct and its own actions; and when a Government came into Office denouncing to the country the extravagance of their Predecessors, and promising the taxpayers that if they were put into the place of those who had the management of the finances, great reductions would take place in the National Expenditure, they should bring forward better arguments than those advanced by the Chancellor that night to defend themselves in the face of the country. In previous Sessions he had seen Liberal Members rise, and had heard them express their shame and sorrow, when, after having heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) say that no Government deserved the confidence of the country that could not govern it for £70,000,000, when they found themselves in the predicament of being the supporters of a Government that was spending £85,000,000. That shame and sorrow, that seemed to be felt by many hon. Members below the Gangway, was going now to break out in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Burnley, which the Government would have to meet by arguments showing the soundness of their own financial conduct, and which they would not be able to meet by bringing counter accusations against their Predecessors. He specially desired now to express the hope that at least a considerable section of the Conservative Party would not be led astray, as had been the hon. Alderman the Member for the City of London, and would not forget the Resolution which would come before the House to-morrow, and would determine to call the Government to account for their own extravagance.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: (Mr. CHILDERS)

I was very much blamed a short time ago by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), because I rose to reply before certain hon. Members had spoken; but I waited for some little time to see if any hon. Members wished to address the Committee, and I had no idea that the debate was going to occupy so long a time. I trust now that I may be allowed to say a few words in answer to observations which we have been listening to since I last replied. Personally, I am much obliged to those hon. Members who have been good enough to say that they approve of the manner in which I made my Statement, and that they understand my objects clearly. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken will excuse me if I do not follow him into the details of the amount of Debt that has been paid off, because I shall at some future period have an opportunity of going fully into that question. It seems to be forgotten that I stated that the amount is now £7,000,000 a-year, and that, surely, is not an extravagant sum to redeem annually. The hon. and learned Member says I have tried to draw a red-herring across the scent in regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley's (Mr. Rylands) Resolution. What I said as to the Expenditure of the last 10 years seems to the hon. and learned Member rather a charge against the late Government than a defence of what has been done by ourselves. But that was not my object. All I intended to do, in giving these figures, was to offer the fullest information in my power as to the Expenditure of the last 10 years, and I particularly compared the year 1882 to 1883—which, was a year in which the present Government was in power—with the year 1873 to 1874, which was the year in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was also at the head of the Administration; and that comparison had nothing whatever to do with anything which happened during the six years Administration of the late Government. If, incidentally, in stating the facts, which I wished to do as plainly as possible, I said that which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, constituted an attack upon the late Government, I cannot help it. It would be impossible to state the Expenditure of the last few years without making these comparisons; and in what I did I believe I acted with perfect fairness. With regard to the operation of the reduction of the Debt, with reference to the Suitors' Fee Fund of the Court of Chancery—a subject which has been referred to by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who said he did not understand the operation of the reduction—the explanation of the matter is briefly this. There are now in the Court of Chancery £01,000,000 Consols, and other Three per Cents. There is not the faintest possibility of that total amount being largely reduced; and what we propose to do is to take £40,000,000 of the Stock, and convert it into Annuities, so that instead of £1,200,000 being paid annually as interest, about £2,700,000 will be paid, the difference being reinvested in Stock. In the end the whole of the Three per Cents will then be replaced; and meanwhile, from time to time, the state of the account is to be revised under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, and if there is the faintest possibility of the Stock replaced being less than that originally cancelled, the difference is at once credited to the Court. The operation is as safe a one as could possibly be made. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) has several times alluded to the question as to whether the Transvaal War was a legacy from the late Govern- ment or not. On that point I will remark that, anyhow, the present Government has paid every farthing of its cost. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) has alluded to the question of Marine Insurance Duty, asking that it should be considered with a view to reduction of the duty. On this subject I am unable to offer any opinion at the present moment; but, undoubtedly, the subject is worthy of consideration. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) has asked whether the Government has any intention of altering the scale of exemptions from the Income Tax? I am afraid I should be too bold, after the change which has been made in the scale by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), were I to engage in the critical operation suggested by the hon. Member. The scale now in force was fixed by the late Government and carried by a large majority, notwithstanding that it was objected to by many Members on the then Opposition side of the House. Under these circumstances, I doubt whether it would be politic for the Government to attempt now any change in the direction indicated. In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), I may say that the amount of duty paid on coffee has increased to the extent of £7,000 last year, and it is probable that a further increase will take place. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has recalled my attention to the question of the duty on silver plate, and in doing so has expressed his regret that the Government has done so little that will benefit the Indian manufacturers, in allowing them to re-export the goods which, under the existing arrangements, will be destroyed. But my hon. Friend will remember that I have promised to consider other points in connection with silver proposed by the Joint Committee. A question has been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and other Gentlemen acting with him, with respect to the non-introduction into the Budget of a grant in aid to meet the distress existing in the West of Ireland, and he has sneered at the Budget as a rich man's Budget, especially ridiculing the reduction in the price of telegrams. But I would remind him (Mr. Sexton) that his Friends sitting round him had a few days ago voted for the introduction of 6d. telegrams, and I think it is hardly reasonable on the part of the hon. Member for Sligo to upbraid the Government with having done what the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and several Members of his Party had voted for as a thing not to be deferred, but to be done at once. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) has in his speech blamed the Government for not having voted a sum of public money for the relief of present distress in Ireland; and he contended that because the anticipations of the Premier with regard to the amount that would be expended under the Arrears Act of last Session had not been realized, the Government were now bound to spend money in Ireland on something else. But the Committee will see that the measure of relief for Irish tenants alluded to by the hon. Gentleman is a totally different matter from a Vote of public money. It is proposed as a charge on the Irish Church Fund; and this is the first time I have heard of any claim for a grant of public money out of the Exchequer for the West of Ireland; and I believe that public opinion in that country, including the opinion of the Irish Prelates, tends in a very different direction. I trust I have not omitted to reply to any of the questions addressed to me in the course of the evening, and will conclude by saying that I propose to withdraw the Resolution relating to Tea, in order that the Committee may be again set up, but that I propose to take at once the Income Tax Resolution, which is urgent.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

considered there was a great deal of force in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the methed taken by the right hon. Gentleman of anticipating the debate of to-morrow upon the financial policy of the Government. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing the Budget, was undoubtedly one of great ability, and he had listened to it with much pleasure and attention. He was, however, bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not appeared to him quite so successful in one division of the subject—that was to say, where he spoke of being obliged to refer incidentally to the acts of the late Government, as he had been in the other portions of his speech, for he seemed for the moment to have forgotten the maxim—Summa ars est celare artem. The feelings of the right hon. Gentleman at that particular point seemed to have run away with him; and he was bound to add that, in his references to the late Government, his speech had more of a Party character than any Budget Statement he had ever listened to. After all the unfulfilled promises of economy that were held out to the country at the last General Election, and the professions which had been made in that House, he felt there was great weight in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham; and when they came to discuss the Motion on the Paper for to-morrow in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the right hon. Gentleman would find that the question did not turn on the merits of the late Government, but upon the failure of the present Government to redeem their promises, and that the portion of the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which he had alluded would have practically no effect in deciding the issue placed before the House.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year commencing on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say): For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Five Pence; And For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act,— In England, the Duty of Two Pence Halfpenny; In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of One Penny Throe Farthings; Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty Pounds, and in section eight of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1873," for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.