Precedents. 1833. 1841. occasion a loss of revenue amounting to 2,500,000l. Accordingly, the government determined to afford the House an opportunity of reconsidering their vote, by moving (in amendment to the motion to repeal the house and window taxes), on April 30, to resolve 'That a great deficiency of revenue would be occasioned by the reduction of the malt tax to 10s. per quarter, and by the repeal of the taxes on houses and windows, which could only be supplied by the substitution of a general tax upon property; and that, as the effect of that course would be to change the whole financial system of the country, it would at present be inexpedient to adopt it.' At the time appointed this motion was proposed and agreed to; an amendment to omit therefrom so much as related to the malt tax being negatived by 285 to 131. Whereupon Sir W. Ingilby moved that the previous resolution be read, and that leave be given to bring in a bill pursuant to the same. But on a division of 76 to 238, leave was refused. On May 21 a motion for the repeal of the taxes upon houses and windows was negatived by a large majority. None of the budgets presented to the House of Commons from 1833 to 1841 underwent any material alteration at the hands of the House of Commons. But on April 30, 1841, Mr. F. T. Baring, chancellor of the exchequer in Lord Melbourne's administration, submitted his budget to the House. One of its most prominent features was a proposal to reduce the duty on foreign (or slave-grown) sugar from 638. to 368. per cwt. The government at the same time announced their intention to propose an alteration in the corn laws by a reduction of the amount of protection then afforded to the agriculturists of Great Britain. On May 7, Viscount Sandon, on going into Committee of Ways and Means, moved to resolve that the House was not prepared to consent to the proposed reduction of the duty on slave-grown sugar, in view of the immense sacrifices heretofore made for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade, and in prospect of a supply of free-labour sugar from the British colonies. After a protracted debate from May 7 to May 18, Lord Sandon's resolution was carried. The government, instead of regarding this defeat as decisive of their fate, gave notice of their intention to move for the adoption of the usual annual sugar duties. Sir Robert Peel, not wishing to offer any factious opposition to the government, or to stop the supplies, supported this motion; but, in order to elicit the opinions of the House in regard to the ministry upon a direct issue, he proposed a vote of want of confidence, which, being agreed to on June 4, led to the dissolution of Parliament. A majority Mir. of Parl. 1833, p. 1502. ing, when it was cited as a precedent on a similar occasion. Hans. D. v. 75, p. 1028. adverse to the ministry were returned to the new House of Com- Precemons; they were again defeated upon an amendment to the address, dents. when they retired from office, and were replaced by the administration of Sir Robert Peel as first lord of the Treasury, the Right Hon. Henry Goulburn being chancellor of the exchequer. Sir R. Peel continued in office for five years, but he was so uniformly successful in his financial policy that the progress of his financial measures through Parliament seldom gave rise to any formidable opposition. But an exception must be made to the budget of 1844, which excited great hostility, and was nearly the occasion of the overthrow of the government. The annual financial statement for the year 1844 was made by Mr. Goulburn on April 29. He adverted therein to the question of the sugar duties; but it was not until June 3 that the proposed alteration in these duties was formally submitted to the House. On the eve of the expiration of a treaty with the slave-holding state of Brazil, which, while it lasted, bound Great Britain to admit Brazilian sugar on as favourable terms as that of the free countries of Java or Manilla, the government proposed a 248. duty on British, and a 348. duty on foreign free-grown sugar. These rates did not satisfy the West India interest, who (after an amendment had been proposed, and negatived, for the admission of slave-grown sugar on the same footing with free) contended for a proportionate reduction of duty on sugars from the British colonies, so as to leave the present relative rates unchanged. Accordingly, on June 14, in committee on the Sugar Duties Bill, an amendment was proposed by Mr. Miles, to reduce the relative rates above mentioned from 248. and 348. respectively, to 20s. and 30s.; and further to impose a discriminating duty in regard to certain descriptions of foreign free-grown sugar of 148. This amendment was carried against the government by a majority of 20. The vote was taken on the question, That the words proposed to be left out [i.e. the government scheme] stand part of the clause,' which was negatived. The committee then reported progress. On the next sitting-day the committee again sat, and Sir R. Peel announced the intentions of government. He stated that ministers felt it necessary, on grounds of commercial and financial policy, to adhere to their original proposition, and that he must ask the committee to reconsider their vote. He therefore moved,- -as an amendment to the motion that the words proposed by Mr. Miles, in lieu of those struck out of the clause by the vote of June 14, be inserted, -that the rates of duty originally proposed by government be substituted. In the course of the debate which ensued, Sir R. Peel having intimated that, if defeated upon this occasion, ministers would consider that they had lost the confidence of the House, the government amend VOL. I. 3F 1844 Precedents. 1818. 1850. ment was agreed to. Objections were taken to this proceeding on the point of form, but they were overruled. On February 18, 1848, Lord John Russell being the first lord of the Treasury, and Sir Charles Wood chancellor of the exchequer, the budget was brought forward by Lord John Russell. His scheme was received with great disfavour by the House of Commons, and by the public at large, especially the proposed renewal and increase of the income tax. Though an adverse motion on this subject, by Mr. Hume, was negatived, the feeling in the House against the increase of this tax was too strong to be disregarded. Accordingly, on February 28, the chancellor of the exchequer made a new financial statement, in which he announced that the government, in deference to the wishes of the House and the country, would not press for an increase of the income tax. Later in the session, on June 30, Sir Charles Wood made another statement, consequent upon the great loss of anticipated revenue by the withdrawal of the proposed additional income tax, without the adoption of other measures for making up the deficiency. Finally, on August 25, he produced what was called his fourth budget,' in which he reviewed at length the financial prospects of the year. The budget of 1850 was brought forward by Sir Charles Wood on March 14. It included a proposal for the revision of the stamp duties, which, although intended to reduce this tax as a whole, would have the effect of increasing it in certain cases. In conse quence of the opposition which this part of his financial scheme encountered, the chancellor of the exchequer was induced to agree to a material reduction of his proposed rates; but this concession failed to satisfy his opponents, who carried an amendment for a further reduction of the duty. After this defeat, the government took no more steps in the matter for about a month, when Sir Charles Wood stated that they were prepared to proceed with the Bill, with a small advance on the proposed rate, as amended. This arrangement was accepted by the House. Besides their defeat on this question, the government were defeated in respect to two other questions of taxation, by the introduction of Bills for the repeal of the duty on attorneys' and proctors' certificates, and in relation to the duty on bonded spirits in Ireland. The first-mentioned Bill was carried through to a third reading, notwithstanding the opposition of the government, but was finally thrown out at this Hans. D. v. 75, pp. 907, 986, 1011, 1082, 1162. Com. Jour. June 14, 17, and 20, 1844. See Martin's Prince Consort, v. 1, p. 226. Hans. D. v. 75, p. 1019. e 100- 110. The total loss of revenue by the remissions of this Bill amounted to about half-a-million per annum, being 200,000l. more than had been contemplated by government when Northcote, Financial Policy, pp. they introduced the measure. Annual Register, 1850, pp. 119–123. stage. The other Bill did not proceed beyond a first reading, owing to Precethe lateness of the session. Both these measures were again brought dents. forward in the following session, but, through the exertions of the government, were finally rejected. Next year, the budget was introduced on February 17. It met with an unfavourable reception from the public. February 21 was fixed upon for its discussion in committee, but, before that day arrived, the government sustained a defeat on Mr. Locke King's County Franchise Bill, and resigned office. Their retirement was however attributed, at least in part, to the unpopularity of their financial policy. Owing to the inability of the Conservative party to form an administration, the late ministers resumed their places. On April 4, Sir Charles Wood again brought forward his budget in nearly the same shape as before. But, on May 2, Mr. Hume succeeded in carrying an amendment, to limit the duration of the income tax to one year, instead of three years as proposed in the budget. He afterwards obtained the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the mode of assessing and collecting this impost. Twice during this session the ministry sustained defeats upon a motion of Lord Naas respecting the mode of levying the duty on home-made spirits when taken out of bond. But at a subsequent stage they retrieved their position, and succeeded in negativing the Bill introduced by Lord Naas to carry out his project. Notwithstanding these defeats, the government remained in office until their final overthrow in February 1852, when they were replaced by a Conservative ministry.i On December 3, 1852, the budget was introduced by the new chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Disraeli. It met with formidable opposition at the outset, and although an attempt, on the part of Mr. Thomas Duncombe, to dispose of it as a whole, on the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, was unsuccessful; yet, as soon as the House went into committee, and the first resolution by which it was proposed to double the existing house tax was submitted, all the opposing parties combined against it. Rival sections found themselves able to join in defeating the ministerial scheme in the aggregate, though differing amongst themselves as to the merits of its several parts. After a protracted debate, the government were defeated on December 16, by a majority of 19, whereupon they retired from office. At this time, ministers had no assurance of support from the majority in the House of Commons, upon their policy generally; accordingly it was expedient that they should retire, although constitutional usage did not necessitate their resignation.j Northcote, Financial Policy, pp. 1 Northcote, pp. 142-165. 124. 165. 3 lb. pp. 174-181. And see ante, Ann. Reg. 1851, p. 102. Hans. p. 222. D. v. 116, p. 631. 1851. 1852. Precedents. 1853. 1854. 1860. On April 18, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as chancellor of the exchequer, introduced his first budget. Though full of startling conceptions and new financial ideas, it was received on the whole with considerable favour. In one or two particulars, however, Mr. Gladstone was compelled to modify his scheme. A proposition for the revision of licenses upon certain trades, though not rejected by the House, met with so much opposition out of doors that it was ultimately abandoned. Mr. Gladstone was also unsuccessful in his endeavour to effect a readjustment of the advertisement duty. Before the budget was brought in, a resolution had been carried, in opposition to the government, in favour of the total repeal of this duty. In consequence of this defeat, the government were obliged to give way, and consent to the abandonment of this duty. The Bill for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty was again introduced, notwithstanding the resistance of government, but it was defeated at a subsequent stage. In other respects the financial measures of the government were passed through the House of Commons without much difficulty.k The budget for 1854 was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on March 6, but the growing demands of the war with Russia rendered it necessary for him to bring forward a second financial scheme on May 8. These measures gave rise to much debate, but were not subjected to any alteration. Nothing occurred in respect to any of the budgets of the suc ceeding years to call for remark until that of February 10, 1860, which was presented by Mr. Gladstone. It included a proposal for the repeal of the paper duty, thereby remitting taxation to the amount of more than one million pounds. The Bill to give effect to this measure was strenuously opposed in its passage through the House of Commons, and was thrown out in the House of Lords." This circumstance had no other remarkable result except that it led to the adoption, in 1861, of different arrangements in reference to the fiscal legislation required for the service of the year. Instead of introducing several distinct Bills upon the resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means for the imposition of taxes, the several propositions were all included in one Bill. In this the government were enabled to renew their measure for the repcal of the paper duties, and to carry it successfully through both Houses. Much dissatisfaction, however, was expressed at the magnitude and complexity of this Bill, and at the curtailment of the opportunities for discussing the various points involved therein, on account of Northcote, pp. 183-217. 1 Hans. D. v. 162, p. 908. m For a narrative of the proceed way ings in both Houses in regard to this case, see post, p. 809. |