can form a correct judgment. When the noble Earl taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having perverted his annual speech on the budget into an occasion for rhetorical display, I might, were I so disposed, retort the charge, and assert that the noble Earl has sacrificed a certain amount of truth, correctness, and justice to the pleasure of indulging in an oratorical effort. I think it would have been fairer if, while the noble Earl had not spared one remark which he felt called upon to make on the financial policy of the Government, he had abstained from those personal and severe remarks which he has made on Mr. Gladstone himself. Such remarks are all very well in the House of Commons, where my right hon. Friend can answer for himself, but I cannot help thinking that here they are not well placed. The noble Earl says that Mr. Gladstone is responsible for the expenditure of the country, and that he has no right to throw any of that responsibility on the public. I readily assent, and my right hon. Friend has in his place in Parliament denied the accuracy of some assertions which have been made with reference to the speech which has given occasion to those comments; and neither he nor any of his colleagues desire to shrink from any responsibility that justly attaches to us in regard to the public expenditure.

ther back, I entirely deny that it is a novel proceeding to include the whole financial scheme in measure. On the contrary, the practice dates from the Revolution and the very best periods of our history; and although some persons have called it unconstitutional, I say that if the phrase constitutional means that which is sanctioned by the principles and prac tice of the best portions of our history, then the form of this Bill is strictly constitutional, and one to which we have a right to revert. No doubt it was the difficulty and embarrassment created by the vote of your Lordships two years ago which led to the renewal of what was formerly the invariable practice; but that any indignity is thereby offered to this House, or any impediment thrown in the way of its rights and privileges, I utterly deny. During the debates on the French Treaty, two years ago, Mr. Pitt's Act of 1787 was constantly alluded to. The noble Lord says this is one of the largest financial Bills ever introduced. I do not know whether or not that is so, as far as the mere amount of money is concerned; but Mr. Pitt's Bill certainly embraced far more numerous enactments, repealing some taxes, imposing others, and, in fact, reorganizing our whole fiscal system. And what was the course taken in reference to that measure of Mr. Pitt? Motion was made to divide the Bill into two; but the House of Commons negatived the proposition; and again, when the question was renewed in your Lordships' House, as to the propriety of embracing the whole financial measures of the year in one Bill, the Amendment was rejected and the principle was confirmed. The same course was taken with the Bill of 1808, and the Bill of 1808 also comprehended provisions for both imposing and repealing taxes; it imposed those taxes for a period of one year only; and, to carry out the parallel still further, those taxes were reBut before I go further into details, I enacted annually down to 1822. I do not must say a few words upon the form of wish to insist too much upon precedents, the Bill, which my noble Friend charac- though I could, if necessary, bring for terized, on account of its embracing the ward scores of Acts subsequent in date to whole financial operations of the year, as those to which I have referred, in which novel and extraordinary. Now, it can now taxes were imposed, existing taxes only so far be described as novel, as it remitted, and even the taxes approwas adopted last year for the first time priated, all within the limits of one Bill. after a lapse of some years; and al-But I say, further, that that is not only though, when reintroduced, the matter the constitutional but is the most convewas elaborately discussed in the House nient course. I ask whether on the ocof Commons, it was never seriously re-casion of every Budget we have not resisted in either House. But, looking fur-peatedly heard it remarked that it could

My Lords, it will not be possible for me to reply step by step to the elaborate figures of the noble Earl, because, from the rapidity of his diction, I could hardly follow one of his deductions before it was superseded by another subject. I can only take one or two specimens of his statements, remarking, that if the noble Earl is correct, this country is in a lamentable condition, more nearly approaching bankruptcy than that sound financial position in which, for my own part, believe the country is now placed.

A

nected with finance as with the interests of trade.

be more conveniently considered as a whole. In 1860, when there were four or five distinct financial Bills, in the absence of my My Lords, I must express my satisfacnoble Friend the Lord President, I was tion that in dealing with this question the allowed by noble Lords opposite to move noble Lord has neither complained of the the second reading of some of those mea- extravagant character of our expenditure sures, and to pass them sub silentio, so nor declared his opinion adversely to the that the discussion might be taken upon armaments which, upon the recommendaa single point in a future Bill; and not tion of the Government, have been sanconly were several of those Bills allow- tioned by Parliament. I rejoice that we ed so to pass, but the Standing Orders have not heard from him—what would I were suspended to enable them to go am sure be exceedingly unpalatable in this through various stages on the same day. House-any denunciation of "bloated arThis House has just as much right to re- maments." So far from that, the noble ject the present measure, if it thinks fit, Earl says we have done nothing but what as it had to throw out the repeal of the is right in respect to our defensive estabpaper duty; or it may, if it chooses, make lishments, and he even refuses to give us amendments in it. I know, indeed, that any credit on that score. Now, we do not the latter proceeding would be tantamount claim to ourselves any merit in this matter; to the rejection of the Bill, because, if we but we do think it necessary to justify ouramended it here, the other House would selves when attacked for what we have throw it out when it went down again to done; and attacked, too, by a leader of them. But I maintain that for this further the party to which my noble Friend opporeason it is better to include the entire site belongs. Why, we have not only financial scheme in one measure, because been assailed, but have been condemned then, if this House should resort again to most strongly; we have not only been the course that it took two years ago- told that we are preparing armaments bewhich, however, I sincerely trust it will not yond the necessities of the case, but we do-the House of Commons would have have been asked to declare the country an opportunity of reviewing the financial against whom we are arming, and we position of the country as a whole. My have been told that we are irritating other Lords, there are plenty of high authori- Powers and bringing on those quarrels ties who uphold the present form of this which a more economical policy would Bill; and I appeal to the noble Lord oppo- prevent. Now, although my noble Friend site whether he can safely disapprove a opposite says he believes we have done course which has the sanction of Mr. Wal- our duty in this respect, and nothing pole, and Sir William Heathcote, gentle-more-in which opinion I entirely conmen who sit on his own side of the other cur with him-at the same time, I hope House of Parliament-Mr. Walpole, more- he will agree with me that those who over, having been Chairman of the Com- are politically associated with him in mittee of the House of Commons which considered the question of how far the privileges of that assembly were affected by your Lordships having thrown out the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. I say then, we have high authority, not confined to one political party, for asserting that this measure is in its form accordant with constitutional principle and established usage. My noble Friend opposite touched lightly on the other objection raised to the form of the Bill-namely, that it is annual. Now, he must remember that it was formerly held essential to the proper control of Parliament that certain taxes should be voted annually only; and that principle was followed till the year 1846, when a longer period for their duration was adopted in the case of the Sugar Duties on grounds of convenience, not so much con

another place have no right to throw out against us any one of the taunts to which I have referred. We have been told that ours is an increasing expenditure; and although the noble Earl disputed the figures of my noble Friend the Lord President, I do not think he was able to deny that we have considerably reduced the expenditure of the country, and that, too, while we have improved and strengthened our means of meeting it. The simple fact is this-that whereas the expenditure of 1860-1 was £72,504,000, the expenditure of 1861-2 was £70,838,000, thus showing the expenditure of 1861-2 to be less by £1,666,000 than that of 1860-1, and the estimated expenditure for the present year, minus the Indian charge, &c., less than that of 1861-2 by £1,833,000, and less than that of 1860-1 by £3,499,000. The

noble Earl complained of our comparing change the calculations on one side or the estimated expenditure of one year with another. But when my noble Friend says actual expenditure of another; but it is that Mr. Gladstone was invariably in error clear that we can only give the estimated on the wrong side, and always showed a expenditure for the current year, always deficiency when he had calculated on a admitting that it may not turn out to be surplus, I must be allowed to say that the quite accurate. The noble Earl referred fact is not so. One great miscalculation to another point. With regard to the re- he certainly did make in 1859-60, but it was mission of taxes, I say we are not in on the right side; he calculated upon a that hapless condition which the noble Earl balance of half-a-million in his favour, and represented. I have no personal know-was gratified to find a surplus exceeding ledge of the figures I am about to quote, but I have derived them from a source which cannot mislead. I say then, my Lords, that the taxes imposed during the last three years as compared with the taxes reduced or repealed amount to only £1,050,000. But my noble Friend seemed, as I understood him, to deny that there had been any reduction of debt. So far from that, in March 1859 the funded and unfunded debt of the country amounted to £805,017,000; whereas in March 1862 it amounted to £800,770,000, showing a reduction of upwards of £4,000,000. I entirely agree with him that there was an addition to the debt of £1,170,000 for fortifications; but that left a balance of debt redeemed to the extent of £3,170,000. It is quite true, as my noble Friend stated, that extraordinary resources were had recourse to for the financial arrangements; but, said my noble Friend, it is not fair to quote the state of the balances for the last thirty years when the Estimates have increased; but the President of the Council said the balances were 50 per cent higher than the average of the last thirty years, and therefore there was an ample margin left for the increase of the expenditure. With reference to the attack made on my right. hon. Friend, Mr. Gladstone, the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that, after the pains he has evidently taken with his figures, I am surprised at the many inaccuracies he has committed. As his statement proceeded, I could at once detect great fallacies-I do not say intentional unfairness. My noble Friend says that there was but one year in which Mr. Gladstone distinguished himself, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, by not making great miscalculations. Now, I believe you will find it rare indeed that any year occurs when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be he Mr. Gladstone or any one else, is proved to be perfectly accurate in his estimates; circumstances always arise in the twelve months which

£3,000,000. But, my Lords, this subject must not be treated as one personal to Mr. Gladstone, although a great part of my noble Friend's speech was an attack upon him. We are here not to question Mr. Gladstone's calculations, but to look at results; and the results of the financial measures of Mr. Gladstone have been eminently satisfactory. The noble Earl says that Mr. Gladstone in 1861 miscalculated to the extent of £2,600,000. Well, the deficiency did, I believe, amount to that sum, but Mr. Gladstone always calculated on a deficiency of £1,300,000; therefore, so far as the miscalculation was concerned, it was just half the sum stated by the noble Earl. But, while my noble Friend was unfair to Mr. Gladstone, he was-I do not know how to characterize his statement, whether as fair or unfair, but certainly he made an assertion to which your Lordships must have listened with wonder, with reference to his right hon. Friend who was Chancellor of the Exchequer under the noble Earl opposite. He says Mr. Gladstone inherited from his predecessor in 1859-60 that flourishing state of things which enabled him to obtain a surplus in the following year. But my noble Friend has entirely forgotten the state of the finances at the time when the Government of the noble Earl left office. We did inherit something, it is true, from our predecessors; we inherited their expenditure, but not the means of meeting it. My noble Friend says that Mr. Gladstone had the full benefit of the fiscal arrangements of Mr. Disraeli. I do not mean to go back and criticise the fiscal arrangements of Mr. Disraeli; if I did so, I might remind him-when my noble Friend made it matter of complaint against Mr. Gladstone that he deferred payment of £2,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds when they became due-that he only followed the example of Mr. Disraeli, who did the same thing. Three-fourths of the speech of my noble Friend was a bill of indictment against Mr. Gladstone, and I

cannot doubt, knowing my noble Friend's really the gist of the whole matter. The good taste, that to-morrow, when he reads noble Earl, at the same time, has adhis speech, he will regret many of the re-mitted, what has been denied elsewhere, ferences he made. Perhaps, my Lords, I that the present is an exceptional year, and have sufficiently alluded to what my noble that in the face of the distress which exFriend said about Mr. Gladstone, avowing ists in some parts of the country, of the that the Government take on themselves great armaments which we are obliged to the joint responsibility of all he has done; maintain, of the war in New Zealand, and and it is high time that I should now ad- of the threat of war hardly yet passed off dress myself to some more general con- from the United States, we cannot regusiderations. But there was one other point late our financial arrangements as we have touched upon by my noble Friend so es- done in more peaceful and prosperous sentially unfair to Mr. Gladstone that I times. In making that admission the cannot altogether pass it by. My noble noble Earl has admitted pretty nearly the Friend charges against Mr. Gladstone a whole of the case; for, after all, what policy in former years which led to extra- really is it that he wants in the shape of a vagance, and says that the policy which surplus? I have heard it said that we then actuated him is getting us into further ought to have a surplus of £2,000,000. expenditure. My noble Friend said that It has never been the practice to provide Mr. Gladstone when formerly in office was such a surplus, and I much doubt whether a party to sending out a body of troops to such a surplus would ever be allowed by Malta to bring them back again-meaning the House of Commons. The noble Earl that they were sent without any intention of has said it is monstrous to hear the Chantheir being engaged in military operations. cellor of the Exchequer declaring that he Now, the troops never were sent to Malta is liable to have demands made upon him in 1854 with a view of being brought home by the majority of the House of Commons, again without striking a blow. The whole and that he therefore cannot do what is thing is an invention, as the documents will right. But there is no doubt of the fact. show. But if it were true, who was to It is notorious that at a time when the pubblame for it? Not Mr. Gladstone, whom lic did not expect a surplus, but contemmy noble Friend has brought into the plated an additional penny of income tax arena, but myself. I was the individual to on account of the Trent affair, a Motion blame for it, if so weak and foolish an act was made in the House of Commons, and were really committed. But, as I have supported, moreover, by hon. and right said, the whole thing was an invention, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, for although unhappily the story was very the reduction of a large amount of taxacurrent at the time. tion. Even supposing that a surplus suffiMy noble Friend says that the tendency cient to satisfy the noble Earl could be obof Mr. Gladstone's miscalculations has been tained, which it could not be without the to destroy confidence and strike at the roots imposition of taxation, what would happen of public morality. I would recommend to it? It might be disposed of by a Momy noble Friend to go into the City and tion such as I have mentioned for the reask whether the converse is not the case-moval of taxation prejudicial to certain whether under such adverse circumstances interests; or if it escaped that danger, it there has not been less fluctuation in the would be made to disappear in another funds than, perhaps, at any former similar manner equally unsatisfactory in such a period; and as to destroying public mo- year as the present. Does my noble Friend rality, I am wholly at a loss to conceive know that there is such a body as the how any fiscal measures of the Govern- Commissioners for the Reduction of the ment can be fairly represented to have had National Debt, who meet at the beginning such an effect. My noble Friend, after talk- of every quarter to examine the accounts ing of public morality, asks how Mr. Glad- and inquire whether there is any surplus? stone can dare to do as he has done. Mr. If there is a surplus, what do they do with Gladstone is not responsible solely for the it? Do they leave it with the Chancellor financial measures of Government; but, if of the Exchequer to meet contingencies? there be a public man who is firm of pur- Certainly not. The Commissioners are pose, I might say obstinate in adherence not only enabled, but compelled by law to his opinions, it is Mr. Gladstone. My to appropriate every quarter the surplus noble Friend maintains, as might be cx- revenue of the preceding twelve months pected, that there is no surplus; that is to the reduction of the national debt;

so that while, for the purpose of ob- there were taxes received in 1861-2 which taining a large surplus, you were im were not in force in 1858-9, and which posing £2,000,000 of taxation upon the yielded £1,790,000. Deducting that people, you would in fact, be appropriating sum, the comparison stands thus: revethat amount to the reduction of the na- nue in 1858-9, £63,351,000; in 1861-2, tional debt. Probably, however, the noble £66,037,000, showing an increase of Earl does not contemplate so large a sur- £2,686,000, or about £900,000 per anplus; very likely he would be content with num. I need hardly say that the revean ordinary surplus. Well, the surplus nue in both years was derived from the estimated for this year is £180,000. Our same or equivalent sources. Then stricsurpluses upon the average do not exceed tures have been made upon the commer£400,000 or £500,000, and I ask whe- cial treaty with France, and prophecies of ther it is worthy of your Lordships to evil have been freely indulged in, but the wrangle as to whether the surplus for the result shows how unfounded these charges present year should consist of £400,000 are. In fact, I am afraid I must say that or £180,000? The noble Earl and his it comes to this-there seems to be a deFriends in the other House were not al- termination on the part of the Opposition ways so extremely anxious about a sur--I do not complain of it-to bring charges plus. What was their conduct last year? The proposal of the Government then was to reduce the income tax by one penny and to repeal the paper duty. Did the Opposition say that we were going too far in the way of reduction, and that we ought to provide for a large surplus? No; they gratefully accepted the reduction of the income tax, and, instead of saying, "We will not repeal the paper duty, because it is necessary you should have the money in your pockets," they proposed to repeal another tax which produced a larger sum than the paper duty. If they had succeeded in accomplishing their object, our estimated surplus of £450,000 would have been reduced to the extent of £285,000, the amount by which their proposed reduction exceeded ours; in other words, they would have left us with a surplus smaller than that which we have submitted to Parliament this year. I contend that there is little consistency in such conduct, and that if we have erred in proposing a surplus of only £180,000, the noble Earl and his Friends are not the men to find fault with us. The noble Earl said he did not deny the buoyancy of the revenue and its power of recovering itself, although he seemed disposed to dispute the figures quoted by the President of the Council. It is a fact that within the last few years, notwithstanding many and large reductions of taxation, involving the extinction of numerous independent sources of revenue, the produce of the remaining duties has increased to the extent of something like £13,000,000, which of itself is a sufficient justification for the policy we have recently pursued. The revenue in 1858-9, miscellaneous deducted, was £63,351,000, and in 1861-2 it was £67,827,000. But

against the budget, whatever it may be. We were told that the budgets of 1860-1 and 1861-2 were of too ambitious a character, and last winter hopes were expressed that we were not going to bring forward what in American phrase was termed a "sensation" budget. Well, the budget we have produced is neither an “ambitious nor a "sensation" budget, and we find it complained of for its simplicity. The noble Earl has painted a picture which, if true, would show this country to be on the verge of ruin and frightful bankruptcy; and if the picture he had drawn be a correct one, there is not a country in Europe which is not happy and prosperous in comparison with our own. We have had evil prophecies before on financial questions. As to the French treaty, we have been perseveringly told that while it would benefit the rich, it would be the ruin of the poor. Has that prophecy been fulfilled? Why, £10,000,000 have been received by the people of this country for exports to France beyond what would have been received if the treaty had not been entered into, and to this amount the manufacturing interests have been compensated for the loss they have sustained through the civil strife still raging beyond the Atlantic. Before I sit down, I wish to remind my noble Friend on the cross benches (Lord Overstone) of the unfavourable estimate he formed two years ago of our financial condition, and of the measure to which he prophesied that the Government would in consequence be driven. The apprehensions which my noble Friend entertained upon that occasion have certainly not been realized. My noble Friend believed at that time