§ WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) 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 he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on
| £ | s. | d. | ||
| Tea. | the lb. | 0 | 0 | 6." |
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he believed the time had now arrived for the Committee to consider the proposals which were laid before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Financial Statement. He thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have adopted a course which practically precluded the Committee from considering the important points of interest raised in that speech—namely, the conversion of certain Stock and alteration in our gold currency. It was, he believed, quite unintentional on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he took a course which precluded such a discussion; but, at the same time, it was obvious that the course that had been taken was an inconvenient one when the Bills which the Government proposed to put forward on this subject were not prepared, and when, therefore, the Government could not be put in fall possession of the views of that House on those two important matters. There were one or two points in connection with the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought worthy the attention of the Committee. Perhaps he might first be permitted to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the lucidity of his statement, and the clearness with which he had marshalled his figures. But the result, or the estimated result, of the expenditure in the present year was, in his (Lord George Hamilton's) humble judgment, very unsatisfactory. There was an estimated surplus, according to the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of £241,000. Now, he had ventured to call the attention of the House twice earlier in the Session to the 496 fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was transferring from the Estimates of this year certain payments which ought to be met out of the income of this year; and the result was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to omit the payment of £250,000, which ought to have been paid to India towards defraying the charge which some four years ago the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed should be annually paid, which charge was £500,000. If this sum of £250,000 had been paid, as it ought to have been, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have found himself with an absolute deficiency amounting to £9,000; because, as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, if they deducted from the surplus of £241,000 the £250,000 that ought to have been paid, there would have been, instead of a surplus, a deficiency.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLThe money has been paid.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, there was still a sum due to India. The arrangement was that every year's Estimate should be charged with £500,000; but this year's Estimate was only charged with £250,000; but if the whole sum arranged by the Prime Minister had been charged this year, as he had said, there would have been an absolute deficiency amounting to £9,000. It was the first time during the 16 years that he had been in Parliament that he had ever known the Chancellor of the Exchequer having a deficiency in time of peace; and although, undoubtedly, during the time the late Government were in Office there were deficiencies at the end of the year, those deficiencies had always arisen from circumstances which were unforeseen at the commencement of the year, and in every single instance, at the commencement of the year, there was a considerable margin between income and expenditure. Would any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House get up and say that their foreign relations were so satisfactory and so free from danger and menace in every part of the world that they were not likely to be called upon to make exceptional expenditure before the end of the financial year? If they were called upon to make exceptional expenditure during the year, where were the Ways and Means? The most remarkable feature of this year's 497 Budget was that although the Government came into Office pledged to enonomy and to alter the extravagant procedure of their Predecessors, yet after four years of Office and of peace Estimates they could only, by a hocus pocus, produce what he maintained was a false Budget. What was the cause of their great difficulty in balancing income and expenditure now? It was certainly not due to the Government being in possession of a less income than their Predecessors. The figures were a little startling. He had taken the trouble to estimate what was the sum received during the last four years of the Administration of the late Government and the sum received during the last four years of the present Government; and he had found that the income of the present Government had been £25,000,000 in excess of the income of the late Government; and, therefore, each year, on the average, Her Majesty's present Government had been in receipt of an income of more than £6,000,000 in excess of that which their Predecessors had secured. Then, he said, how came it to pass, in these four years of the tenure of Office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they had been in receipt of such a largely increased income, that they had been barely able to meet their expenditure? The reason was very simple; it was owing to the very steady and continuous growth of their expenditure. How much greater that expenditure now was than it was three or four years ago would, he thought, startle anyone who looked at the figures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made two alterations in the accounts which, however they might improve the account, made comparisons between the present and preceding year somewhat difficult. But the extra receipts for the Army and Navy were struck out on each side of the account, and this year, therefore, was struck out the extra receipts in relation to India. If they wanted to compare the expenditure of the Government with the expenditure of their Predecessors, they must include both these items, which during the present year had been excluded; and by including those items, and comparing them with the last Estimate the late Government left on the Table of the House, hon. Members would be able to see exactly how great was the increase of expenditure. The 498 Estimate of expenditure this year was £85,291,825. To that had to be added extra receipts for the Navy, £270,235, and for the Army, £595,635, amounting in the aggregate to £866,167. Adding that sum to the £85,291,825, they had a total of £86,677,992. To that must be further added the receipts for Indian charges, which he took at the figures of last year—namely, £1,045,000, and that brought up the total estimated expenditure for this year to £87,152,992. What was the Estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister four years ago? Why, in 1880–81 he estimated the Expenditure at £82,075,922, so that in four years the expenditure of an economical Liberal Government had increased by £5,087,000, or an annual increase of £1,275,000. The expenditure was increasing, to borrow an expression of the Prime Minister, by "leaps and bounds;" but the income was more or less stationary. What was the cause of this great increase of expenditure? There was a popular delusion cherished by certain Gentlemen, especially those below the Gangway, that this increase was due to the paying off by the present Government of debts incurred by their Predecessors. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; hon. Gentlemen opposite were still under that delusion. If hon. Members would be kind enough to look at the charges put on the Consolidated Fund in relation to the service of the Debt in the year 1880–81 and in the present year they would find that the Consolidated Fund charges in 1880–81 were £31,346,978, while for the present year they were £31,103,673. Thus there were actually £243,000 less charged on the Consolidated Fund for the present year than there was four years ago; and it was a curious fact that the only extra charge that the Government had had to incur in the present year was a charge in relation to a payment to India on behalf of the Afghan War, which amounted to £250,000, and which almost exactly balanced the £243,000 just referred to as the amount less than that paid four years ago in relation to the service of the debt. Therefore, they must look elsewhere. This increase of expenditure was due to the Supply Services costing far more than they did four years ago. The Army now cost £1,000,000 more than it cost four years ago; the Navy, £500,000 more; the Civil Service, 499 £3,000,000; making a total of £5,100,000. That was the increase of expenditure which, during the last four years, had taken, place under an economical Liberal Government. Now, he thought that the Prime Minister had a financial conscience. He had always been consistent in reference to finance; and he (Lord George Hamilton) thought the right hon. Gentleman would recollect that, amongst other attacks which the Opposition had thought unjust that he had made on the late Government, he had particularly attacked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) for his management of the Civil Service Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been unwise enough to make use of the expression in relation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon of a "chicken-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer."
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONIf it was not in reference to the expenditure, what was it in relation to? The right hon. Gentleman had found fault with their Estimates; and he (Lord George Hamilton) had shown that the right hon. Gentleman's own Estimates had increased £5,100,000 in four years—an increase that was absolutely unprecedented, and far greater than anything that had occurred during the tenure of Office of his Predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that the strictures he had cast on the financial management of his Predecessors were unjust. He (Lord George Hamilton) was quite ready to give all credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury for their exertions during the past year; because the attention of the House had been called to the enormous increase in the Civil Service Estimates, and, in consequence, a Resolution had been almost unanimously passed—indeed, he thought without a Division—that economies in regard to this branch of the Service were necessary. He thought it had been, therefore, to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that they had this year presented Civil Service Estimates which he believed he was correct in stating were less than those of last year. There 500 was the automatic increase in relation to education and local subsidies; and therefore he admitted that the result of the exertions of these Gentlemen had been most creditable to them, as, in spite of their increase, the total expenditure was less than last year. There was one part of the Civil Service Expenditure which he thought deserved the careful attention of the House—namely, the Post Office expenditure, which had enormously increased. The Post Office was pushing its operations into all sorts of new spheres. As far as he could make out, it was rather difficult to be correct in investigating the exact results of the accounts. Although the expenditure on the Post Office was far larger now than it was two or three years ago, and though the capital sums expended in that Department were annually increasing, yet the net income from the Post Office was less than it was some years ago.
§ MR. FAWCETTwas here understood to intimate some dissent.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the net income was £200,000 less than it was four years ago. They were all ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General discharged his duties very satisfactorily; but the point to which he was especially calling the attention of the Committee was whether it was expedient or not that the State should so develop its operations, and should, through the Post Office, undertake a number of fresh duties, because it seemed to him a question that could be considered from two points of view. In the first place, it undoubtedly involved greater expenditure; and, in the second place, it led to a large increase in the number of Government employés. Considering, that there was a Franchise Bill before the House, and that the tendency was to increase the franchise, he doubted whether it was expedient to largely increase the number of persons depending for their daily bread on the Government. Unquestionably, there always was, and always would be, a disposition on the part of Ministers to favour the claims of certain gentlemen. Pressure was brought to bear upon the Government by Members of their Party, which it was difficult for them to resist. As he had stated, the surplus was only £240,000, and there seemed to him to be two charges which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was 501 almost certain to have to meet during the present year. There was the charge in reference to the serious alteration proposed in the coinage. That, of course, he was not at liberty to discuss, at the present moment; but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the large receipts which he estimated the Mint would receive this year — namely, £120,000, had any connection with the proposed alteration in the gold coinage?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONThe Estimate was exceptionally large; and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little premature in taking credit for a certain amount from the proceeds in the alteration that he proposed, before the sanction of the House had been given to his claim. If, then, they dismissed any charge that might be imposed on the Revenue in reference to the alteration of the coinage, they must remember that they might still be called upon to meet a large charge in consequence of the menacing state of affairs in Egypt and elsewhere. If they were called upon to meet an increased charge in regard to these matters, where, he asked, were the Ways and Means to be found? The Prime Minister had made an attack upon the late Government from the hustings because they had a deficiency, which deficiency had been caused, in almost every instance that had occurred, by circumstances arising after the beginning of the financial year which they could not foresee. In 1879–80, for instance, there was an estimated surplus of £1,900,000, which was insufficient to meet the war expenditure which it had been subsequently found necessary to incur. It was tolerably clear, he thought, to every Member of the House that after the discussion that had taken place on Monday and Tuesday last, it was almost certain that they would, in some shape or other, have to incur an additional expenditure during the present year; because, without referring to the late debate, or debates, it would be undoubtedly necessary to do something to rescue General Gordon from Khartoum. If it was found necessary to put a stop to the insurrection going on around General Gordon, how was the expense to be 502 met? Egypt was practically insolvent. Therefore, he wished to raise his voice very respectfully to warn the House that these Estimates, though they seemed satisfactory, were yet most unquestionably quite insufficient, when they took into consideration all the exceptional conditions and emergencies that were almost certain to occur before the financial year closed.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that he did not propose to follow the noble Lord who had just sat down through the whole of his remarks; but while he agreed with him that it was undesirable for Her Majesty's Government to follow the example set by the other side of the House in regard to their financial arrangements, and to end the year with a deficit, he must say that so long as they had a surplus of something like £240,000 he thought it would be very inconvenient to impose taxes for an emergency which they must all hope would never arise. He had no doubt that, if emergencies did arise, the Government would then impose additional taxation, in order that they might have a surplus at the end of the year. There was no doubt that the surplus was small, as the noble Lord had pointed out, and that the expenditure was large; but, to a great extent, the increase was nominal. Fortunately the question lay in a nutshell; because, while the increase of expenditure was between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 more than it was four years ago, if they looked into the details they found that £1,000,000 was not expenditure in any real sense, but was spent in the repayment of the Debt.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONNo; there is less paid for the decrease of the Debt.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKbegged the noble Lord's pardon, and thought he was quite right in the statement he had made. Then there was an additional amount in the grant in aid of local expenditure of £1,000,000. The Post Office stood for nearly £2,000,000. He, for his part, did not wish to see the Government undertaking mercantile affairs; but still, wisely or unwisely, additional operations had been decided on, and they must not look at the increased expenditure as being an increase in the ordinary sense. The £1,000,000 paid, as an increased amount for grants in aid of local expenditure, was simply a pay- 503 ment made in following out a policy which he knew was advocated by the noble Lord himself and his Friends; but whether such expenditure was wise or unwise, the payment could not be looked upon as an increase of expenditure. Then, lastly, there was the increased amount paid for education, which was nearly £1,000,000, and that was not objected to by hon. Members on the other side of the House, and certainly not by hon. Members on the Ministerial side. In this way, therefore, they accounted for nearly the whole of the additional expenditure; and when they bore in mind the exceptional state of things in Ireland, the continually increasing population of the country, and the demands which were constantly made upon the Government for new services, he thought they could hardly wonder at this increase of expenditure having taken place. At the same time, there could be no doubt that it did throw on the Government the duty of endeavouring to do something to keep down the expenditure; and he thoroughly believed that they were alive to the fact, and that they were trying as much as they could to keep it down. He was sorry that they were precluded from discussing several most interesting points on the present occasion, such as the proposed alterations in the coinage, and the question of the interest on the National Debt. He was afraid that if he went into these the Chairman would be most likely to call him to Order. He thought that when they came to discuss the former question it would be easy to show that many of the fears with reference to it were chimerical. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the progress he was making in the reduction of the National Debt.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Baronet had endeavoured to explain away some of the extra expenditure by the Education Votes; but he omitted to make any reference to what had been referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) — namely, the increase, amounting to £1,500,000, which had taken place in the Naval and Military Expenditure. He was not one of those to find fault with a just expenditure upon these Services, nor would the country grudge it, if any valuable re- 504 sults had been achieved thereby; but when they found deplorable consequences always following their excursions in Egypt and elsewhere, it was not to be expected that the country would rest satisfied. They had been told that the strength of the Fleet, as compared with the Fleets of other Powers, was decreasing, instead of increasing; and therefore he thought they were justified in complaining of the increased expenditure. The broad fact to which the noble Lord had referred was that the Government claimed to be a Government of economy—a Government which came in, above all things, with a policy of retrenchment. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister denied that statement; but he would mention that, as an hon. Friend of his boasted he had done, for some years he had carried about with him a copy of the orations of the right hon. Gentleman delivered North of the Tweed; and he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of them was less accurate than his own, if he thought that large portions of those orations were not directed to the subject of expenditure. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman read?] By an unfortunate accident he had not a copy of the orations with him. He did not know what edition of them the right hon. Gentleman had in his hand; but, still, the copy which he possessed did, undoubtedly, contain many references to economy, and promises on the part of the Liberal Party that if they were returned to Office they would at once reduce expenditure and introduce a new régime. ["No, no !"] This was a part of the question which he could hardly treat seriously, because he was so confident that references to the subject of economy were to be found on almost every page of the right hon. Gentleman's orations. If the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him, he would at a future Morning Sitting, provided the Government did not consume the whole of the time, give the House what he was sure they would consider a very great treat —namely, a large number of quotations from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of economy and retrenchment. This interesting interlude had drawn him aside, however, from the point stated with so much force by the noble Lord the Member for 505 Middlesex—namely, that the expenditure of the country had increased by £5,000,000 during the time the present Government had been in Office. He would ask what could Liberal supporters of the Government think of their professions in the face of that fact? The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London had made a passing allusion to the difficulties in Ireland as accounting for a portion of the increase of expenditure; but that was a most unfortunate allusion, for the Government themselves had created, and were responsible for, the difficulties in Ireland. He would not enter into that subject now; but if they took the increased expenditure in connection with Ireland, it would be found that no benefit had resulted. The increased Naval and Military Expenditure had been without the slightest benefit to the country. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had drawn, the attention of the Vice President of Council on Education to the fact that certain mottoes, amongst others "Peace with Honour," had been exposed in a national school. This was justly considered a Party motto, and the hon. Member for Stoke was indignant that it should be exhibited in a public school. But things had very much changed since that phrase was first used; for instead of having, as then, peace with honour, they now had war with dishonour, and that, too, with an increased charge of £1,500,000 in the Army and Navy Estimates. In the face of those facts, he thought the strictures of the noble Lord on the policy of the Government were justified; and that if the Government were to recover any small shred of character for economy they must set to work at once greatly to reduce their expenditure.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the criticisms of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had related to two questions. In the first place, he said that the Government would have had a deficit this year had it not been that the charge for the Afghan War was to be £250,000, instead of the average charge of £500,000. Had he postponed the payment of the charge the criticism of the noble Lord would have had some force. All that had been done, however, was to anticipate and pay last year what was due this year; and as to next year's 506 £500,000, to pay half of it this year. That, he contended, was a good, and not a reprehensible policy. Moreover, it was based upon the noble Lord's own advice, contained in one of his speeches, which he quoted in the debate on the Vote; and, having taken that advice, he thought it very hard that the Government should be attacked by the noble Lord for adopting his own plan. The other statement made by the noble Lord was that the Estimate of expenditure which the Government placed this year before Parliament, after making a number of adjustments, was £5,000,000 or so more than the Estimate of four years ago. So far as the Naval and Military Expenditure was concerned, the increase had been fully justified; and he need not refer to the debates on the subject, which showed conclusively that it did not lie with Members of the late Government to blame it. But the noble Lord said the Civil Service Expenditure would be £3,500,000 more than it was estimated at four years ago. But the increase came under three heads—namely, the Post Office Service, the Education Vote, and the expenditure in connection with local subventions, which amounted altogether to more than the sum named. He could not, therefore, agree with the statement of the noble Lord; because, omitting these three heads, the Civil Service Expenditure was less than it had been four years ago, although, he admitted, only by a small sum. Consequently, they were justified in taking the Estimate for this year as fairly representing the expenditure of the year. As to the Army and Navy charge, last year he gave the House, with great care, the details of the increase of expenditure; and there was, of course, an additional cause of expense this year, because they were keeping a larger Army in Egypt, and because the contribution from Egypt, although it fairly met the direct charges, did not meet the additional indirect charges. Speaking from memory, he thought that the addition to the original Estimates of last year amounted to something like £500,000. He had already explained, in his two Financial Statements, the causes of the increase, part of which was automatic. But they had done their best to economize in various directions, and had thus, to some extent, made up that portion of the increase. But, on the other hand, 507 from year to year the deferred pay of the Army was increasing, and they had not yet reached the maximum of the old pensions, for which ultimately it would be a partial substitute; but when it was reached, there would be an annual decrease, instead of an increase as at present. But there was another and more important cause of increased expenditure. When the present Government came into Office they found that not more than half the number of iron-clads which had been deemed necessary were being built; and they also had to incur a large expenditure in connection with guns of a new type, which, although their Predecessors considered them necessary, had not been contributed to by them to the extent of one farthing. As he had given the figures accurately last year he need not repeat them, but would conclude by expressing the hope that he had fully answered the statements of the noble Lord.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I think there are some advantages and some disadvantages in the manner in which we conduct our debates with regard to the economy of one Government as compared with the economy of another. It is extremely well that the people of the country should have brought before them in these discussions across the Table the fact that there are two sides to the shield. When the Conservative Party are in Office we are attacked as a most extravagant Government; and anything we can say, by way of explanation or mitigation of the charge, is almost always received by the country at large with scepticism, and a belief that we are merely making excuses. On the other hand, when the Liberal Party are in Office any increase of expenditure that may take place is very fully accounted for, and is proved to be a matter which the Ministry ought rather to be proud of than otherwise. The truth is that, to a very great extent, these controversies arise out of the nature of the case; and the Party which, when in Office, finds it necessary to increase expenditure, finds it convenient to criticize such expenditure when they happen to be in Opposition. There are, I say, advantages in these discussions, because they open the eyes of the public upon, questions of considerable importance; but, at the same time, I think there are some disadvantages attending 508 them, because while they tend rather to dwell upon the comparative merits and demerits of one Administration or another, too little attention is paid to the real facts and merits of the case. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be desirable to have, in addition to discussions of this kind, something more in the nature of a formal inquiry. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) brought this matter forward in a very proper spirit last Session, and we certainly understood that there was to be something in the nature of a Royal Commission. I think it would be very much to the advantage of the public, and very conducive to economy and proper financial management, that there should be an independent and impartial inquiry into the progress of our expenditure within a certain sufficient period of time, so that we might see how far the advances have been unavoidable, how far they are laudable, and how far they are open to objection. If it were possible to have a Committee who should go into this matter impartially, without the view of obtaining a particular result, and without reference to Party questions, I believe that great advantages would be derived from such an appointment. With regard to the particular questions raised, my noble Friend has made a remark which, I think, is justifiable, and to which I have heard no sufficient answer—namely, that we are provided, according to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a very narrow surplus, and under circumstances which certainly do not altogether justify us in expecting that we shall be able to keep within our estimated expenditure. I do not know that we have any right to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not asking us to come forward to submit to additional taxation; only I think we ought to bear in mind that we were rather severely taken to task ourselves when, at the beginning of one year, we did not produce a definite Estimate of the expense which we thought might arise from a war which was then imminent, if not begun, in South Africa. And although I had provided a margin of something like £2,000,000 over the actual expenditure on the war, I was called to account b; the right hon. Gentleman the Prime 509 Minister for not having given a more definite statement. I suppose, however, that if we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a definite statement of the expenditure likely to result from the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government, of which it seems that the battles that have been fought are to be regarded only as a mere incident, we should be taken to task, and told we had no right to ask impertinent questions of the sort, and that when the money was wanted Parliament would be asked for it. Without complaining of that, I say that there is some difference between the spirit in which we were treated when we were in Office and that which the Government expects us to extend to them now. Even in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I admit it was generally very free from references of a Party character, there was an allusion to a very favourite topic amongst Liberal critics on expenditure and finance. We have been told again, as we have been told often before, that the present Government have been paying the debts of their Predecessors. Now, I want to know in what sense those terms are used? In what way have the present Government paid the debts of their Predecessors? Undoubtedly, a certain amount of expenditure was incurred in the last two or three years of the Conservative Administration, which was not immediately provided for, but was allowed to stand over until the whole matter from which it sprang had been concluded; and with regard to the residue of which we made certain arrangements which would lead to the whole expenditure being cancelled within a certain number of years. That was the state of things when we left Office; and it appears that a considerable portion of that expenditure has since been defrayed by carrying out that arrangement. But because that has been done the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that he has been paying off our debts. He has not added a single tax, and he has not reduced his expenditure for the purpose of paying off that debt. Had he done that, something might have been said; but the right hon. Gentleman has done neither one thing nor the other, and all he has proved is that the arrangement that we made at the conclusion of our term of Office was 510 a perfectly good and sound one. The point on which we have always insisted is this—that when expenditure had to be incurred for services of an important and exceptional character, as in war, the whole burden of the charge should not be thrown upon the one particular year in which that service was undertaken, but charged upon a certain number of years. That was the proposal which we made, and that is the proposal which has been carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman talks as if he and his Government were doing something very exceptional in thus paying off the debts of their Predecessors, as if they had left the matter in a state of absolute confusion, and no provision had been made for the payment of those debts. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think this a very amusing view of the case; but it appears to me that the country is very much misled by the expression that the present Government are paying the debts of their Predecessors. We deny it, except in the sense that every Government may be said to be paying the debts of its Predecessors in all charges upon the nation. The question is, whether it was or was not right to revive a certain proportion of the charges incurred during the earlier term, by a re-arrangement of the period, instead of paying all at once. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he himself has given a precedent for that in what he did in regard to the fortifications and other matters of that kind. When he was in Office he chose—that was all right, of course, the Government being a Liberal Government; but it was the same thing—to arrange for a sum of money for fortifications, which was spread over six or seven years, and we had to go on paying the debts of our Predecessors in respect to fortifications. No objection was taken to that. My noble Friend has commented on the arrangement with respect to the payment of the Indian money, a large proportion of which was paid last year, in order to diminish the amount to be paid this year. It was not necessary that it should be paid then—it might have been dealt with in some other manner; but it was paid then, because that was the most convenient arrangement that could be made. I do not deny that it may be a right thing that you should take an opportunity of making 511 a payment so that it may come in conveniently with the general course of your finance; but it, of course, disturbs the arrangements into which, you enter. But, to a great extent, that was the principle we acted upon in the two or three years during which we were said to have accumulated these deficiencies. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was the nature and cause of the deficiency in the two or three years which he has referred to, and with respect to which he has so often taunted us? It arose from the manner in which the large expenditure originally made for the purpose of a Vote of Credit, when there was some expectation of a European War, was provided for. If this had been provided for by laying down certain Annuities to be paid for in a certain number of years probably we should have heard very little of the manner in which we provided for it; and, at all events, it would only have appeared in one year when there would have been a deficit. That would have been a matter arising once for all, and there would have been a deficit that year; but the accounts would have been regulated by the creation of Annuities, and by provision to pay off the money borrowed. But we were so anxious, as far as possible, to apply the surplus of the years that were favourable to reducing this debt before making any settlement of this kind, that we kept it alive from year to year, and always reckoned the deficiency arising out of the necessity for making good the deficiency of previous years. In that way we were able to make the final arrangements. That was why it appeared year after year that there were deficits, when, in point of fact, there were not deficits on the year, but from the unpaid portion of the expenditure incurred in the first instance with respect to the £6,000,000. There were also some special causes which we need not go into now; but I think it is well that some of these things should be remembered in illustration of the measure meted out to us, and the measure which the Government claim to mete out to themselves. Before sitting down, I should like to say, in the first place, that we are discussing, to a certain extent, the Budget of the Government; but we are precluded from entering into the main points and features of interest in his financial statement—namely, the 512 National Debt proposal and the matter of the coinage. I think that is a great pity; but I hope it will not be very long before we have those measures produced and brought before us. It does not seem to me very intelligible why there has been so much delay. These are not matters that have sprung on the Government suddenly. One can understand that if a sudden revelation had been made to them a month or two before the Budget was presented that it was necessary to make provision for coinage, or for dealing with the National Debt, they might not be able, on the spur of the moment, to produce measures in time; but what they have done they have had under notice for 12 months. They might have considered these matters for the last two or three years; and I think we have a right to complain that with regard to such important matters connected with the Budget, which otherwise has no particular features to notice, we should be shut out from their consideration. It is not necessary to express a hope that these measures will be brought forward at such a time that the House will have a full opportunity of considering them, because I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care that that is done; but I think it is deserving of observation that they have been delayed so long. The other remark is only in the nature of a preposition to what I said at the commencement, that I hope Are shall not lose sight of the suggestion made last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and shall have something in the nature of an impartial inquiry into the facts and causes of the increase of expenditure.
MR. GLADSTONEI am obliged to follow the right hon. Gentleman, because of the reference he has made to what he thinks the unfair manner in which financial matters have been treated on this side, and by myself in particular. It is not a satisfactory post-midnight arrangement to enter fully into the wide field of discussion raised by the financial operations of the present or of the late Governments. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of defending certain parts of his financial system. I will not attempt to take away from him any advantage he may derive from these explanations; but they do not satisfy me that I have ever brought 513 unfair charges in this House or elsewhere against the finance of the late Government. I adhere to them; and if I find a suitable opportunity, and it seems to be required by the public interest, I shall not hesitate to repeat them. It is much better to dispose of that in this way than to make partial and incomplete comments. No one would desire to enter upon the subject in that way if he could help it. I shall confine myself to a single point. The right hon. Gentleman observes that I was inclined to smile. I admit the charge that I smiled when he made remarks upon the injustice of our alleging that we had been called upon to pay the debts of our Predecessors. The position was so irresistibly comic that I could not avoid giving that indication which every comic exhibition ought to produce so long as human nature remains what it is. He admits that he incurred a very large expenditure; he admits that he did not pay it. He had incurred it; he passed an Act of Parliament to provide prospectively for payment in the course of five or six years; then he disappeared from Office, having paid, I think, one quota. [Mr. COURTNEY: No; none.] I thought he had paid one. Then he handed the whole of it over to us. He said—"I did not leave it loose." No, Sir, he left it very tight indeed. There was an Act of Parliament passed; we were obliged to meet and to satisfy charges which he had incurred. That is the process we were compelled to go through. He thinks that if you incur any amount of debt, and pass an Act of Parliament at the mere cost of paper and printing, that it shall be paid off in a series of successive years, that that is really making provision for the payment. It is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman should have entertained such a delusion. One cannot argue with a person who puts the matter in that shape, and evidently with the most perfect good faith; the effect of it is most intensely comic. Let me put a hypothetical case. Suppose we had occasion, in connection with a Conference, to ask the House for a credit of £6,000,000, and suppose that, in the course of the next six or 12 months, the lamentable event of our downfall were to arrive; suppose that in the meantime we had provided that it should be paid off in the next three years at £2,000,000 a-year, I think the 514 right hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they came to find themselves burdened with this £2,000,000 a-year would say that they were paying the debts of their Predecessors. We should have passed our Act of Parliament, which the right hon. Gentleman mistakes for the solid provision of the money. Upon this point I am reminded of a character in a modern novelist who, having accepted a bill for a debt, exclaimed—"Thank God, that's settled!" That is the kind of operation which the right hon. Gentleman applies to the finance of the country. With respect to fortifications, the right hon. Gentleman should have borne in mind that at the time when that charge was incurred very heavy charges were laid upon the country to meet the expenditure of the year. Undoubtedly, in some circumstances, it might become necessary to hand over some portion of the charge to future years, however anxious we may be that each year should pay its way. But we complain that the late Government, whenever they had a heavy expenditure to meet, thrust it over to future years.
§ SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTEI distinctly deny that.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is easy to deny, and I admit that it is not very difficult to make the assertion. My assertion was drawn forth by an observation of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and it was not a gratuitous remark. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was under an entire mistake as to the language I used during the late Election. The hon. Gentleman said that the Election mainly turned upon great promises of retrenchment made by me.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI said it was one of the most prominent items in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. GLADSTONEI join issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and advise him. to read through the whole of the Mid Lothian speeches from one end to the other. That, I think, will be abundant punishment for several political offences. I am quite certain that when the hon. Gentleman comes to the end of those speeches he will find that he is mistaken. He will find a great deal of animadversion upon the finance of the late Government; but he will not find any sanguine opinion on my 515 part that retrenchment would take place. For the best part of my life I have fought battles of economy, and I have no longer the pith and material required for that kind of work. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken of the non-production of two important measures to which my right hon. Friend referred in connection with his Budget Statement. My right hon. Friend is even more eager than the right hon. Gentleman opposite could be to push forward, with all possible celerity, the measure for the conversion of the Three per Cents. The delay is purely a drafting delay, caused by accidental circumstances, in the Department. I hope, if there is a general desire on the part of the House to press the measure forward, that the right hon. Gentleman will be disposed to proceed with it expeditiously.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI said it must be examined.
MR. GLADSTONEI have no mistrust of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he may look at it fairly. With regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are proud of our increasing expenditure, I may say that we are in no way proud of it. We regret it very much. But, undoubtedly, that increasing expenditure which is made a subject of reproach to-night is made the subject of attack on other nights from the same quarter, from the same Bench, and by the same Party. It is all done by a change in the caste of the Party. On nights when economy is to be recommended there comes down the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; on nights when an extension of Estimates is to be recommended there comes down the late First Lord of the Admiralty and the late Secretary of State for War; and by these changes in the caste the same Party obtain the credit of showing how the greatness of the country requires a progressive extension of the Establishments, and also how guilty the Liberal Government are for their gross expenditure. I have to express my entire concurrence in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the great propriety and utility of a searching inquiry into the expenditure of the country by a powerful Committee of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer 516 has proceeded on this principle; and what he has been doing was never regarded but as a preparatory process. We have never questioned the utility of such an inquiry. It is entirely conformable with precedence. It is a function which lies deep in the nature of the House of Commons; and I am extremely glad to have learnt that the course proposed has the high sanction of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SALTsaid, he thought these questions of finance should be discussed quite apart from any element of Party feeling, and that criticisms on financial proposals were valuable from whatever part of the House they proceeded. With regard to the Budget, it was a Budget of great simplicity, except in regard to the two questions which were deferred. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House ample opportunity of considering those measures, because they would involve not only questions of principle, but a good many points of detail and of great difficulty and importance, and concerning which he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would receive the assistance of all Parties. He was perfectly certain that however those propositions might be considered from one point of view or another they would receive the fairest consideration on all sides. They were proposals of very great importance; and if they could not be accepted in consequence of certain principles they involved, he was sure the thanks of the House and of the country would be due to the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with matters of such great interest and importance. With regard to the simpler part of the Budget he had little to say; but he wished to put one or two points before the Committee—but not in any hostile spirit. He was very much afraid they would not see any diminution of expenditure, whatever Government might be in Office. If they took, say, a past decennial or a shorter period they would find that there had been a steady increase in expenditure whatever Government was in power; and he was satisfied, from the necessities of the country, from the increase of population, from the increased desires and wants of the country, and from other causes, that they must look for an increase of expenditure in the future. In one particular respect he hoped that that ex- 517 penditure would not be avoided—indeed he hoped that every care would be taken for expenditure in that direction, combined with proper control by Parliament—and that was the expenditure upon the Navy. Looking at all the circumstances, he felt that there never had been a moment in the history of this country when the House would have received the approval of the country more readily than now for a large and generous expenditure on the Navy. The general expenditure had increased, and permanently increased. If the present expenditure was required, as it seemed to be required, by the necessities of the country, he hoped there would not be any less control and vigilance and economy in the different Departments of the State. They must spend what was requisite in this great country; but let them take care that for every pound spent they got a pound's worth; let them take care that every pound, nay every shilling, of their expenditure was well and properly spent. He made these observations, because he was afraid that when expenditure increased there was a tendency to be lavish. People were apt to say—"We are spending £500,000 or £1,000,000 in a very good cause." That, of course, sounded very nice and very pleasant. But then someone else wanted another £100,000 for a good cause, and it was difficult to refuse it. And so the expenditure went on increasing, and increasing without any check or control. It was a good thing to spend £10,000, or £100,000, or £1,000,000 in a good cause; but care must be taken that, however good be the cause—if it be education, for instance—a rigid control be kept upon every item expended.
§ COLONEL NOLANdesired, in the few observations he had to make, to keep himself to the practical question before the Committee, which he believed to be that a duty of 6d. should be imposed upon every pound of tea. Granting he was right in that supposition, although, up to the present, not a word of the debate had related to the question, he proposed to reduce the duty by 3d. per lb.; in other words, that there should only be a duty of 3d. per lb. upon tea instead of 6d. In doing this, he was only half acting up to his principles, because he considered that the Tea Duty should be entirely abolished. As, how- 518 ever, he had no desire to disorganize the year's Budget, he would not ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off all the duty at once. He was diffident to interfere in a great question of finance; but a move must be made by someone. He remembered that 12 years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), whose name had always been associated with a free breakfast-table, proposed a reduction of the Tea Duty. The right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of late years to obtain this much-needed remission; indeed, no man of position and standing in the House had bestirred himself in the direction of freeing tea from duty. It was, therefore, necessary that if the question was to be taken up at all it must be taken up by some ordinary Member like himself (Colonel Nolan). He had come to the conclusion that it was better to make a move than to wait for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off the duty. He had no doubt some Members would say that the question had been introduced too suddenly, and that, therefore, they could not vote for the reduction; he knew that others would say they did not care to spoil the Budget of the Chancellor of he Exchequer; but, still, he (Colonel Nolan) always found that to make a move against a tax was very desirable. People outside would, in the end, say it was a step in the right direction, and would ask why it was not more largely supported? He was opposed, as much as possible, to poll taxes, and of such taxes that on tea was the greatest. There was a poll tax on alcohol, and on tobacco, and on tea. He would not take into consideration coffee, because he looked upon coffee as holding a very subsidiary position to tea. Perhaps he was hardly correct in saying that the taxes upon tobacco and alcohol were poll taxes, because everybody did not smoke or take alcohol. It was right, however, to assume that tea was drunk by everyone. The female population were particularly partial to it; indeed, its use was largely spreading. Milk, as a drink, was perhaps better than tea; but milk was very dear in towns, and even, in the country it was not always to be got. Water was not always a wholesome drink; indeed, it ought not to be drunk unless it was boiled, and 519 hot water was not drinkable unless it was mixed with tea. Gentlemen from his own country asserted that there was another form in which water could be taken; but whiskey-and-water, which cheered and sometimes inebriated, was not so healthy a drink as tea. Tea was really the healthiest beverage taken in this country, and it was a drink the use of which ought to be encouraged in every possible way. Could anything be more absurd than what the House of Commons was now doing? They spent about 10 per cent of their time in discussing Sunday Closing, yet they taxed the only real rival of alcohol. On the one hand, they taxed tea; and, on the other hand, they tried to shut up public-houses by force. He did not profess to be much acquainted with Chinese politics; but it was evident that a great change had taken place in China within the last week or 10 days. Now, if their Representatives out there could inform the people that the tax on tea had been reduced it might be a reason for the Chinese receiving some of our goods. He did not hesitate to say that the great mass of the population of this country considered that the time had arrived for a remission of the Tea Duty. He had long waited; he had wished that some influential Member of the House would move in this matter. He had often spoken upon the subject; but he had never ventured to make a Motion respecting it. He knew he should be defeated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always did get a majority for his Budget; but no harm would be done by making a demonstration. He, therefore, begged to move that the duty upon tea be 3d. instead of 6d. upon each pound.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was very glad to second the proposal which had just been made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan). It seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and proper proposal; indeed, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not see his way to propose a larger reduction. The words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were words of sense; and though the House of Commons might not now be disposed to listen favourably to his proposal, the day was not far distant when the House of Commons would have to listen to a proposal not to reduce the Tea Duty, but to abolish 520 it entirely. It was no answer to the present proposal for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he had not got the money. He could get the money very easily by doubling the duties upon foreign wines and spirits. If he did that he would not only get all the money which would be required, but he would get just three times as much. At that Inte hour of the evening (12.45) he would not weary the Committee with many figures. He would only point out that, in round figures, the present duties upon imported rum, brandy, and wine amounted to £5,750,000, while the duty upon tea collected last year was a little over £4,000,000. They had only, therefore, to double the duties upon imported wines and spirits, and they would have three times as much money as would be required if this proposal were adopted. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
§
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-four, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on
| £ | s. | d. | ||
| Tea. | the lb. | 0 | 0 | 3." |
§ —(Colonel Nolan.)
§ THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had said it was no answer to say that there was not the money with which to carry out this proposal; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sorry to say that was the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must give to a proposal of this kind. It was estimated that the present Tea Duty would produce this year about £4,400,000. If it were reduced by one-half there would be a deficit of somewhere about £2,000,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) who made this Motion, and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, had suggested that the money required should be obtained by increasing the duty on spirits and wines. [An hon. MEMBER: On foreign wines.] On foreign wines, indeed! Why, to say nothing of other objections to raising the Wine Duties, no conceivable augmentation of them would produce a 521 fourth of this sum. Again, they might double and treble the duty upon imported spirits, and they would not necessarily get any more Revenue. Spirits and wines were not commodities on which they could rely for a large increase of Revenue; therefore, if their finance was to be based on some such proposal as had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just preceded him, he was bound to tell the House that they would be landed in a very serious deficit. He did not know whether the Motion was seriously proposed; but if it was, such a considerable change in the system of fiscal legislation could not be entertained, and therefore he must oppose it.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan). He was of opinion that some endeavour ought to be made to alter the system of direct taxation which now prevailed in the country. He maintained that three-fourths of the duty on tea was paid by the poor and working classes, and yet no effort was made by their financiers to abolish, or even to reduce, it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had introduced the question of spirits. If he understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he did not allude to home-made spirits; what he desired to tax more heavily were foreign wines and spirits, wines particularly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the Revenue would not necessarily be increased if the duty on wines was increased. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that if the duty on champagne, for instance, were increased from 3s. to 10s. a-dozen, less champagne would be consumed by the rich and wealthy classes?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I said it would not make up the deficit of £2,000,000.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was fully persuaded that if the duty on wines were increased an increased Revenue would result. The present duty on champagne, madeira, port, and other landlord wines, was a standing disgrace to England. It was quite plain to everybody that the poor were taxed heavily to save the pockets of the rich; heavy duties were put upon tea, coffee, and other articles, which the poor man chiefly 522 used, while the luxuries which the rich could only have were allowed to pass with the very minimum of duty. He was glad his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway had determined to endeavour to put a stop to the unfair and unjust system of indirect taxation in this country, on tea, at all events.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he spoke only of foreign spirits and foreign wines. Last year the Customs Duties on foreign spirits and wines amounted, in round figures, to something like £6,000,000, while the Excise Duties on home-made spirits amounted to nearly £15,000,000. He wished to say in all good humour that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was decidedly incorrect when he said he had not got the money, because if he were to double the Customs Duties on wines and spirits of foreign production, he would receive more than three times the amount of money he would require were the Tea Duty reduced as now proposed.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Iver) did not understand him. When any article was heavily taxed already, and they added to the tax, they did not necessarily get more Revenue. Did the hon. Member think that because they got £5,000,000 from foreign wines and spirits now, they would get twice as much if the duty were doubled? They would get nothing of the kind.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, the money that was required to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) proposed was something over £2,000,000. If they doubled a duty which now yielded £6,000,000, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that they would get at least another £2,000,000 in duty?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would not admit anything of the kind. The duty on foreign spirits was now something above 10s.; and he was bound to say that if they raised it to 20s., he would not undertake that they would get any considerable increase of Revenue.
§ MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) amounted to nothing more or less than Protection in disguise.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the duty on tea were reduced to 3d. per lb., only half the estimated amount would be received from this source. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman acted as all advocates did; he ignored what could be said on the other side. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman was rather evasive in his mode of arguing, because he drew special attention to the fact that 10s. was the duty on foreign spirits, and told the Committee that if they doubled that duty they would not double the amount of Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the fact that, although the duty on foreign spirits was high, the duty on foreign wines was light; and he took no notice, moreover, of the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Sullivan), that the duty on champagne, which was used exclusively by the rich, was very low, and that an enormous profit was made by the people who retailed that wine. Now, if they trebled the duty on champagne, in all probability the price to the consumer would not be increased; certainly the amount consumed would not be decreased. Therefore, from champagne alone the sum required would be received. In their mode of acting he saw little difference between Liberals and Conservatives; the only difference was in the name. Hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side of the House made great capital of their desire to benefit the working classes; but, at the same time, they were as anxious as the Tories to lay heavy taxes on the poor, and to let the rich off lightly. There was one Gentleman in the House—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—of whose assistance and benefit on such a question as the present they would be glad. Surely the hon. Baronet would like to see the consumers of wine pay their fair share of the burdens of the State, in order that the burdens of the poorer classes in the country might be decreased. Attention had been drawn to a very important part of this question — namely, as to whether it was not desirable to increase the trade with China and India, where tea was produced, in preference to encouraging trade with Continental countries. In his opinion, it would be more beneficial to England to increase the trade 524 with China and India than to make those private Treaties with Continental Powers, giving them advantages far greater than any advantage which this country received in return.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was not able to gather from the answer to a Question which the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) gave earlier in the evening whether the hope was altogether abandoned of the commercial negotiations with Spain bearing some fruit during the present year. He supposed that the only mode in which a satisfactory arrangement with Spain could be brought about was by some alteration in the duties on wine; and he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, by this time, have given them some reason to feel that there was a possibility of a satisfactory change in their commercial relations with Spain. He thought there was a great deal of force in what some hon. Members had said as to the taxation of wine like champagne. There was no doubt that they could put themselves on a better footing with Spain were they to increase the duty on French wines. The Spaniards, unquestionably, made a grievance of the present state of affairs.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was not in a position to give any futher information as to the commercial negotiations with Spain. Did the hon. Member seriously contend that French wines ought to be more heavily taxed than they were now in order that Spanish wines might be let in?
§ MR. TOMLINSONunderstood that the Spanish grievance was that the test line for duty on foreign wines was so drawn as to include all French light wines and exclude Spanish wines. He did not advocate taxing the wine of one nation more than that of another nation.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANconsidered that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Tea Question had been scarcely proper. It went upon the assumption that by increasing the duty upon wine they would gain nothing, while by reducing the duty on tea they would lose half the amount now received. He granted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention, that to double the duty on a given article would not double the Revenue 525 from that article; but he believed they would gain something by increasing the duty on wines, and that they would not lose as much as was supposed by reducing the duty on tea. He should be inclined to strike a balance, and to say it was fair to calculate that by the two operations suggested there would be a loss of something like £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 might be very easily saved in the Military and Naval Services of the country, where money was simply squandered.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was in favour of removing all taxes like that on tea; but he considered that the proposals made by hon. Gentlemen opposite had not been fully thought out. The alternative proposed was that there should be a very much larger duty than the present imposed on foreign wines and spirits.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANNo, not spirits.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that whether there was harmony in relation to any other question on the Tory and Irish Benches, it was evident the harmony was not complete upon this question. What would be the result of the adoption of the alternative proposal which had been made? Why, that an enormous protection would be given to the production of spirits and wines in this country. Whenever Parliament, in its wisdom, should see fit to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy, that would be the time to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the removal of this burdensome tax. The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had pleaded often and forcibly in favour of the removal of the duty on tea; and he (Mr. Illing-worth) hoped the time was not far distant when their financiers would see their way to remit the tax. He understood that on one class of tea, which was chiefly consumed by the humbler classes in the country, the duty amounted to as much as from 80 to 100 per cent. While sympathizing with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), he could not support the proposal in its present form.
§ COLONEL NOLANdesired to correct a statement which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had made, no doubt, unwittingly. The original proposition as made by him (Colonel Nolan) was simply to reduce the Tea 526 Duty. He did not at all associate it with any increased tax, either upon wines or spirits. He preferred to leave to the financial ability and ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the duty of making both ends meet, either by economy in expenditure, or possibly by substituting some other tax at a later period of the year. Those who voted for the proposed reduction were not in the slightest way bound to any increase of taxation, either upon wines or spirits. An increase of the duties on imported wines and spirits was suggested by certain hon. Gentlemen who made budgets of their own; but he (Colonel Nolan) had simply proposed to reduce the Tea Duty to 3d., leaving the rest of the subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was perfectly in keeping with the British manufacturer that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) should have referred to the proposal to put an extra duty on wines and spirits as a protective tariff in favour of the home manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that, as a matter of fact, it was not the English manufacturers who would be benefited by the increase of the duty on foreign spirits and wines, but Irish manufacturers. If the hon. Member for Bradford knew it was the case that the only staple trade of his country, or a staple trade of his country, was being ground down to powder by taxation, he would very soon see how the commercial prosperity of a country was affected when its only large trade was taxed heavily; if it was linen, or something of that kind—alpacca, he believed, was a commodity made in Bradford—which was heavily taxed, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth) would soon see the necessity of the case which had been made out. In Ireland the only staple trade was very heavily taxed, in order to swell the British Revenue. The Irish people very properly complained of the hardship experienced by the imposition of a very high tax upon Irish spirits, while only a very light tax was imposed upon foreign articles of an alcoholic description. Taxes upon tea and tobacco bore heavily upon the poor people. Why were taxes not put upon guns that were used for fowling purposes? The House had decided that pigeon-shooting was improper. Why 527 did they not put down pigeon-shooting by imposing a tax upon the birds shot at? Why did they not put a tax on race-horses, and upon a hundred other things, in which the pleasures of the rich were, to a large extent, involved? No; it was to be the poor man's drink that was to be taxed. He believed that if there was more tea drunk there would be less whiskey used. Certainly, if ever a working-man became Chancellor of the Exchequer—and it was quite possible when the Representation of the People Bill passed—he would look round at the pickings of the rich, and see how he could tax them, in order to relieve the poor man.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had fallen into an error. The hon. Gentleman had said that if they placed an additional duty on foreign wines, it would prove a protection to the makers of wine in this country. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) was not aware that there were any wine manufacturers in England.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 70: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that "expedient to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue" seemed a little indefinite. It might mean anything. They had had no explanation from the Treasury Bench as to what was meant by it, although he doubted whether they would all understand any explanation that might be offered at that hour of the night (1.15). With no ex-Finance Minister in the House, with very few Members who had ever belonged to previous Administrations—if, indeed, there was one present—and in the absence, also, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), who took a great interest in matters of this kind, it was scarcely a proper time to proceed with a matter of this description; and, therefore, he begged 528 to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, this was a formal Resolution, which it was necessary to pass in order to set up the Bill. The only other proposal of any importance in the Bill which did not require to be set up by Resolution of the House was the reduction of the rate of duty on certain carriages.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.