THE FIRST BUDGET
The precise date at which Mr. Gladstone became a Liberal cannot be
determined, but during the Parliamentary sessions of 1851 and 1852 he
became finally alienated from the Conservative party, although he did
not enter the ranks of the Liberals for some years afterward. He himself
stated that so late as 1851 he had not formally left the Tory party,
nevertheless his advance towards Liberalism is very pronounced at this
period. It is well for us to trace the important events of these two
sessions, for they also lead up to the brilliant financial measures of
1853, which caused Mr. Gladstone's name to be classed with those of Pitt
and Peel. Mr. Gladstone's trusted leader was dead, and he was gradually
coming forward to take the place in debate of the fallen statesman.
When Mr. Gladstone returned home from Italy he found England convulsed
over renewed papal aggressions. The Pope had, in the preceding
September, issued Letters Apostolic, establishing a Roman Catholic
Hierarchy in England, and in which he had mapped out the whole country
into papal dioceses. This act of aggression produced a storm of public
indignation. It was regarded by the people generally as an attempt to
wrest from them their liberties and enslave them. It was looked upon by
the Protestants indignantly as an attack upon the Reformed Faith.
Anglicans resented it as an act which practically denied the
jurisdiction and authority of the Church of England, established already
by law. Englishmen, faithfully devoted to the British Constitution,
which guaranteed the Protestant Religion, were incensed by this
interference with the prerogative of the Crown; while all ardent
patriots were influenced by the unwarranted and unsolicited interference
of a foreign potentate. Every element of combustion being present,
meetings were held everywhere, inflammatory speeches were made on every
public occasion, and patriotic resolutions were passed. Pulpit and
platform rang with repeated cries of "No Popery," and echoed at the Lord
Mayor's banquet, at the Guildhall, and even at Covent Garden Theatre in
Shakesperian strains. The Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, published
his famous Durham letter, addressed to the Bishop of Durham, rebuking
and defying the Pope, and charging the whole High Church Party of the
Church of England with being the secret allies and fellow-workers
of Rome.
In the beginning of the Parliamentary session of 1851 Lord John Russell
moved for permission to bring in a bill to counteract the aggressive
policy of the Church of Rome, on account of which aggression of the Pope
the whole country was well-nigh in a condition of panic. The measure was
debated for four days, and was entitled the Ecclesiastical Faiths Bill.
It was designed to prevent the assumption by Roman Catholic prelates of
titles taken from any territory or place in England. Severe penalties
were attached to the use of such titles, and all acts done by, and
requests made to, persons under them were to be void. The bill was not
well received by some, being thought, on one side too mild and on the
other as too stringent. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone both opposed it;
the latter because the change was wanted by English Catholics rather
than by the Vatican. He condemned the vanity and boastful spirit of the
papal documents, but contended that his fellow Catholic countrymen
should not suffer for that. The difficulty of applying it to Ireland,
where the system objected to already existed, was pointed out. However
the preliminary motion was passed by 395 votes against 63, "this
enormous majority," says an English author, "attesting the wide-spread
fear of Romish machinations." The measure became a law, but it was a
dead letter, and was quietly repealed twenty years afterwards at Mr.
Gladstone's request.
Before, however, the bill was passed a ministerial crisis had
intervened. During this session other difficulties were encountered by
the Ministry. The financial as well as this ecclesiastical question was
a problem. The Conservatives were strong and compact, and enjoyed the
adhesion of the Peelites, while the Ministerial party was to a great
extent demoralized. Mr. Disraeli, owing to the deep distress that
prevailed in the agricultural districts, renewed his motion upon the
burdens on land and the inequalities of taxation, and consequently he
presented a resolution that it was the duty of the government to
introduce measures for the alleviation of the distress without delay.
The government admitted the distress, but denied that it was increasing.
They attempted to prove that pauperism had decreased in all parts of the
kingdom--England, Ireland and Scotland. Commerce was in a most
prosperous condition, while the revenues had reached the unexampled
amount of $350,000,000. "Sir James Graham stigmatized the motion as an
attempt to turn out the administration, to dissolve Parliament, and to
return to Protection." The Ministry was sustained by a small majority,
and was successful in some measures, but soon suffered several minor
defeats and finally was forced to retire.
One of the successful measures was that introduced by Mr. Loche King,
and opposed by Lord John Russell, for assimilating the country franchise
to that of the boroughs. The budget of the government introduced January
17th was unpopular. It demanded a renewed lease for three years of the
obnoxious income-tax, but promised a partial remission of the window
duties, which was a tax upon every window in a house, together with some
relief to the agriculturists. The first budget having been rejected a
second financial statement was offered later in the session. It imposed
a house-tax, withdrew the bonus to agriculturists, repealed the
window-tax, but re-demanded the income-tax for three years. The main
features of the budget were acceptable to the House, but the Government
suffered defeat on minor financial questions, which tendered still
further to diminish the popularity of the ministry.
Upon the resignation of Lord John Russell and his Cabinet, in February,
1851, Lord Stanley was called upon to form a new administration, and Mr.
Gladstone was invited to become a member of the Cabinet. Lord Stanley
having failed, Lord Aberdeen was invited to form a new Cabinet, by the
Queen, with like results. Both these gentlemen having declined the task
of forming a new administration, Lord John Russell and his colleagues
resumed office, but the reconstructed ministry was soon to receive a
fatal blow through Lord Palmerston, the foreign Secretary.
On the 2d of December, 1851, Louis Napoleon, Prince President of the
French Republic, by a single act of lawless violence, abolished the
constitution, and made himself Dictator. The details of this monstrous
deed, and of the bloodshed that accompanied it, created a profound
sensation in England. The Queen was very anxious that no step should be
taken and no word said by her ministry which could be construed into an
approval by the English government of what had been done. Indeed the
Queen who knew the failing of her Foreign Secretary to act hastily in
important matters of State without the consent or advice of Queen or
Cabinet, questioned the Premier and was assured that nothing had been
done in recognition of the new government in Paris. Indeed the Cabinet
had passed a resolution to abstain from the expression of opinions in
approval or disapproval of the recent _coup d'état_ in France. But it
soon leaked out that Lord Palmerston who thought he understood full well
the foreign relations of England, and what her policy should be, had
both in public dispatches and private conversation spoken favorably of
the policy adopted by Louis Napoleon. He had even expressed to Count
Walewski, the French Ambassador in London, his entire approval of the
Prince President's act. This was too much for the Queen, who had as
early as the August before, in a memorandum sent to the Premier,
imperatively protested against the crown's being ignored by the Foreign
Secretary, so Lord Palmerston was dismissed from office by Lord John
Russell, Christmas Eve, 1851. He bore his discharge with meekness, and
even omitted in Parliament to defend himself in points where he was
wronged. But Justin McCarthy says: "Lord Palmerston was in the wrong in
many if not most of the controversies which had preceded it; that is to
say, he was wrong in committing England as he so often did to measures
which had not the approval of the sovereign or his colleagues."
In February following, 1852, Lord Palmerston enjoyed, as he expressed
it, his "tit-for-tat with Johnny Russell" and helped the Tories to
defeat his late chief in a measure for reorganizing the militia as a
precaution against possible aggression from France. The ministry had not
saved itself by the overthrow of Lord Palmerston.
Upon the retirement of Lord John Russell from office, in 1852, the Earl
of Derby, formerly Lord Stanley, succeeded him as Prime Minister. Mr.
Gladstone was invited to become a member of the new Tory Cabinet, but
declined, whereupon Lord Malmesbury dubiously remarked, November 28th:
"I cannot make out Gladstone, who seems to me a dark horse." Mr.
Disraeli was chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer, and became Leader in
the House of Commons, entering the Cabinet for the first time. "There
was a scarcely disguised intention to revive protection." It was Free
Trade or Protection, and the Peelites defended their fallen leader,
Peel. "A makeshift budget" was introduced by Mr. Disraeli and passed. It
was destined, it seems, that the Derby Administration was not to be
supported, but to be driven out of power by Mr. Gladstone, who was to
cross swords before the nation with his future parliamentary
rival, Disraeli.
Mr. Disraeli seemed now bent upon declaring the Free Trade Policy of Sir
Robert Peel a failure. Mr. Disraeli's power of forgetfulness of the past
is one of the most fortunate ever conferred upon a statesman. During the
debate he declared that the main reason why his party had opposed Free
Trade was not that it would injure the landlord, nor the farmer, but
that "it would prove injurious to the cause of labor." "He also said,
though interrupted by cries of astonishment and of 'Oh, oh!' that not a
single attempt had been made in the House of Commons to abrogate the
measure of 1846." Mr. Sidney Herbert, who was wounded to the quick by
the assaults on Sir Robert Peel, rose to defend the great Conservative
statesman. His speech contained one passage of scathing invective
addressed to Mr. Disraeli.
Mr. Herbert said: "The memory of Sir Robert Peel requires no
vindication--his memory is embalmed in the grateful recollection of the
people of this country; and I say, if ever retribution is wanted--for it
is not words that humiliate, but deeds--if a man wants to see
humiliation, which God knows is always a painful sight, he need but look
there!"--and upon this Mr. Herbert pointed with his finger to Mr.
Disraeli sitting on the Treasury Bench. The sting of invective is truth,
and Mr. Herbert certainly spoke daggers if he used none; yet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer sat impassive as a Sphinx.
Parliament was dissolved soon after the formation of the new government,
July 1, 1852, and during the recess, September 14, 1852, the Duke of
Wellington passed away and a public funeral was given the victor
of Waterloo.
On the assembling of Parliament Mr. Gladstone delivered a eulogy on the
Duke, drawing special lessons from his illustrious career, which had
been prolonged to a green old age. Mr. Gladstone said: "While many of
the actions of his life, while many of the qualities he possessed, are
unattainable by others, there are lessons which we may all derive from
the life and actions of that illustrious man. It may never be given to
another subject of the British Crown to perform services so brilliant as
he performed; it may never be given to another man to hold the sword
which was to gain the independence of Europe, to rally the nations
around it, and while England saved herself by her constancy, to save
Europe by her example; it may never be given to another man, after
having attained such eminence, after such an unexampled series of
victories, to show equal moderation in peace as he has shown greatness
in war, and to devote the remainder of his life to the cause of internal
and external peace for that country which he has so well served; it may
never be given to another man to have equal authority, both with the
Sovereign he served and with the Senate of which he was to the end a
venerated member; it may never be given to another man after such a
career to preserve, even to the last, the full possession of those great
faculties with which he was endowed, and to carry on the services of one
of the most important departments of the State with unexampled
regularity and success, even to the latest day of his life. These are
circumstances, these are qualities, which may never occur again in the
history of this country. But these are qualities which the Duke of
Wellington displayed, of which we may all act in humble imitation: that
sincere and unceasing devotion to our country; that honest and upright
determination to act for the benefit of the country on every occasion;
that devoted loyalty, which, while it made him ever anxious to serve the
Crown, never induced him to conceal from the Sovereign that which he
believed to be the truth; that devotedness in the constant performance
of duty; that temperance of his life, which enabled him at all times to
give his mind and his faculties to the services which he was called on
to perform; that regular, consistent, and unceasing piety by which he
was distinguished at all times of his life; these are qualities that are
attainable by others, and these are qualities which should not be lost
as an example."
At this session of Parliament Mr. Disraeli brought forward his second
budget in a five hour speech. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed to remit a portion of the taxes upon malt, tea, and sugar, but
to counterbalance these losses he also proposed to extend the income-tax
and house-tax. The debate, which was very personal, was prolonged
several days, and Mr. Disraeli, towards its close, bitterly attacked
several members, among them Sir James Graham, whom Mr. Gladstone not
only defended, but in so doing administered a scathing rebuke to the
Chancellor for his bitter invective and personal abuse. Mr. Gladstone's
speech at the close of Mr. Disraeli's presentation was crushing, and was
generally regarded as giving the death-blow to this financial scheme.
Mr. Gladstone told Mr. Disraeli that he was not entitled to charge with
insolence men of as high position and of as high character in the House
as himself, and when the cheers which had interrupted him had subsided,
concluded: "I must tell the right honorable gentleman that he is not
entitled to say to my right honorable friend, the member for Carlisle,
that he regards but does not respect him. And I must tell him that
whatever else he has learnt--and he has learnt much--he has not learnt
to keep within those limits of discretion, of moderation, and of
forbearance that ought to restrain the conduct and language of every
member in this House, the disregard of which, while it is an offence in
the meanest amongst us, is an offence of tenfold weight when committed
by the leader of the House of Commons."
The thrilling scene enacted in the House of Commons on that memorable
night is thus described: "In the following month the Chancellor of the
Exchequer produced his second budget. It was an ambitious and a skillful
attempt to reconcile conflicting interests, and to please all while
offending none. The government had come into office pledged to do
something for the relief of the agricultural interests. They redeemed
their pledge by reducing the duty on malt. This reduction created a
deficit; and they repaired the deficit by doubling the duty on inhabited
houses. Unluckily, the agricultural interests proved, as usual,
ungrateful to its benefactors, and made light of the reduction on malt;
while those who were to pay for it in double taxation were naturally
indignant. The voices of criticism, 'angry, loud, discordant voices,'
were heard simultaneously on every side. The debate waxed fast and
furious. In defending his hopeless proposals, Mr. Disraeli gave full
scope to his most characteristic gift; he pelted his opponents right and
left with sarcasms, taunts, and epigrams, and went as near personal
insult as the forms of Parliament permit. He sat down late at night, and
Mr. Gladstone rose in a crowded and excited House to deliver an
unpremeditated reply which has ever since been celebrated. Even the cold
and colorless pages of 'Hansard' show signs of the excitement under
which he labored, and of the tumultuous applause and dissent by which
his opening sentences were interrupted. 'The speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer,' he said, 'must be answered on the moment. It must be
tried by the laws of decency and propriety.'" He indignantly rebuked his
rival's language and demeanor. He reminded him of the discretion and
decorum due from every member, but pre-eminently due from the leader of
the House. He tore his financial scheme to ribbons. It was the beginning
of a duel which lasted till death removed one of the combatants from the
political arena. 'Those who had thought it impossible that any
impression could be made upon the House after the speech of Mr.
Disraeli had to acknowledge that a yet greater impression was produced
by the unprepared reply of Mr. Gladstone.' The House divided and the
government were left in a minority of nineteen. This happened in the
early morning of December 17, 1852. Within an hour of the division Lord
Derby wrote to the Queen a letter announcing his defeat and the
consequences which it must entail, and that evening at Osborne he placed
his formal resignation in her majesty's hands.
It is related as an evidence of the intense excitement, if not frenzy,
that prevailed at the time, that Mr. Gladstone met with indignity at his
Club. Greville, in his "Memoirs," says that, "twenty ruffians of the
Carleton Club" had given a dinner to Major Beresford, who had been
charged with bribery at the Derby election and had escaped with only a
censure, and that "after dinner, when they were drunk, they went up
stairs and finding Mr. Gladstone alone in the drawing-room, some of them
proposed to throw him out of the window. This they did not quite dare to
do, but contented themselves with giving some insulting message or order
to the waiter and then went away." Mr. Gladstone, however, remained a
member of the Club until he joined the Whig administration in 1859.
Mr. Gladstone's crushing _exposé_ of the blunders of Mr. Disraeli's
budget was almost ludicrous in its completeness, and it was universally
felt that the scheme could not survive his brilliant attack. The effect
that the merciless criticism of Disraeli's budget was not only the
discomfiture of Mr. Disraeli and the overthrow of the Russell
administration, but the elevation of Mr. Gladstone to the place vacated
by Chancellor Disraeli.
The Earl of Aberdeen became Prime Minister. The new government was a
coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with a representative of the Radicals
in the person of Sir William Molesworth. Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of
Newcastle, Sir James Graham and Mr. Sidney Herbert were the Peelites in
the Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone was chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We may refer here to a letter of Mr. Gladstone, written Christmas, 1851,
in order to show his growing Liberalism. The letter was to Dr. Skinner,
Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus, on the positions and functions of the
laity in the Church. This letter is remarkable, because, as Dr. Charles
Wordsworth, Bishop of St. Andrew's, said at the time, "it contained the
germ of liberation and the political equality of all religions." The
Bishop published a controversial rejoinder, which drew from Dr.
Gaisford, Dean of Christ Church, these emphatic words: "You have proved
to my satisfaction that this gentleman is unfit to represent the
University," meaning the representation for Oxford in Parliament.
This feeling was growing, for when the Russell Ministry fell and it
became necessary for Mr. Gladstone, because he accepted a place in the
Cabinet, to appeal for re-election to his constituents at Oxford, he met
with much opposition, because of his Liberalism. Appealing to his
university to return him, and endorse his acceptance of office in the
new Ministry of the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone soon discovered that
he had made many enemies by his manifest tendencies toward
Liberal-Conservatism. He had given unmistakable evidence that he held
less firmly the old traditions of that unbending Toryism of which he was
once the most promising representative. Lord Derby, whom he had deposed,
had been elected Chancellor of the University to succeed the Duke of
Wellington, deceased. Consequently his return to the House was ardently
contested. His opponents looked around for a candidate of strong
Conservative principles. The Marquis of Chandos, who was first elected,
declined to run in opposition to Mr. Gladstone; but at length a suitable
opponent was found in Mr. Dudley Perceval, of Christ Church, son of the
Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, who was nominated January 4th.
Dr. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel, one of the twenty colleges of Oxford,
proposed Mr. Gladstone, and Archdeacon Denison, leader of the High
Church party, proposed Mr. Dudley Perceval. According to the custom at
university elections, neither candidate was present. It was objected to
Mr. Gladstone that he had voted improperly on ecclesiastical questions,
and had accepted office in "a hybrid ministry." The "Times" described
Mr. Perceval as "a very near relative of our old friend Mrs. Harris. To
remove any doubt on this point, let him be exhibited at Exeter Hall with
the documentary evidence of his name, existence and history; his
first-class, his defeat at Finsbury, his talents, his principles. If we
must go to Oxford to record our votes it would at least be something to
know that we were voting against a real man and not a mere name." The
"Morning Chronicle," on the other hand, affirmed that a section of the
Carleton Club were "making a tool of the Oxford Convocation for the
purpose of the meanest and smallest political rancor against Mr.
Gladstone."
Mr. Gladstone, who fought the battle on ecclesiastical lines, wrote,
after the nomination, to the chairman of his election committee,
as follows:
"Unless I had a full and clear conviction that the interests of the
Church, whether as relates to the legislative functions of Parliament,
or the impartial and wise recommendation of fit persons to her majesty
for high ecclesiastical offices, were at least as safe in the hands of
Lord Aberdeen as in those of Lord Derby (though I would on no account
disparage Lord Derby's personal sentiments towards the Church), I should
not have accepted office under Lord Aberdeen. As regards the second, if
it be thought that during twenty years of public life, or that during
the latter part of them, I have failed to give guarantees of attachment
to the interests of the Church--to such as so think I can offer neither
apology nor pledge. To those who think otherwise, I tender the assurance
that I have not by my recent assumption of office made any change
whatever in that particular, or in any principles relating to it."
Mr. Gladstone was again elected by a fair majority and returned to
Parliament. Seventy-four of the professors voted for Mr. Gladstone and
fifteen for Mr. Perceval.
When Parliament assembled the Earl of Aberdeen announced in the House of
Lords that the measures of the Government would be both Conservative and
Liberal,--at home to maintain Free Trade principles and to pursue the
commercial and financial system of the late Sir Robert Peel, and abroad
to secure the general peace of Europe without relaxing defensive
measures.
Mr. Gladstone had already proved himself to have a wonderful mastery of
figures, and the confused technicalities of finance. He did not
disappoint the hopes of his friends in regard to his fiscal abilities.
On the contrary, he speedily inaugurated a new and brilliant era in
finance. Previous to presenting his first budget, in 1853, Mr. Gladstone
brought forward a scheme for the reduction of the national debt, which
was approved by Radicals as well as Conservatives, and adopted by the
House. The scheme worked most successfully until the breaking out of the
Crimean war. During this very short period of two years the public debt
was reduced by more than $57,500,000.
In consequence of his general reputation and also of this brilliant
financial scheme, the first budget of Mr. Gladstone was waited for with
intense interest. His first budget was introduced April 18, 1853. It was
one of his greatest budgets, and for statesmanlike breadth of conception
it has never been surpassed. In bringing it forward Mr. Gladstone spoke
five hours, and during that length of time held the House spellbound.
The speech was delivered with the greatest ease, and was perspicuity
itself throughout. Even when dealing with the most abstruse financial
detail his language flowed on without interruption, and he never paused
for a word. "Here was an orator who could apply all the resources of a
burnished rhetoric to the elucidation of figures; who could make pippins
and cheese interesting and tea serious; who could sweep the widest
horizon of the financial future and yet stoop to bestow the minutest
attention on the microcosm of penny stamps and post-horses. The members
on the floor and ladies in the gallery of the House listened attentively
and showed no signs of weariness throughout." A contemporary awarded to
him the palm for unsurpassed fluency and choice of diction, and says:
"The impression produced upon the minds of the crowded and brilliant
assembly by Mr. Gladstone's evident mastery and grasp of the subject,
was, that England had at length found a skillful financier, upon whom
the mantle of Peel had descended. The cheering when the right honorable
gentleman sat down was of the most enthusiastic and prolonged character,
and his friends and colleagues hastened to tender him their warm
congratulations upon the distinguished success he had achieved in his
first budget."
The budget provided for the gradual reduction of the income tax to
expire in 1860; for an increase in the duty on spirits; for the
abolition of the soap duties; the reduction of the tax on cabs and
hackney coaches; the introduction of the penny receipt stamp and the
equalization of the assessed taxes on property. By these provisions it
was proposed to make life easier and cheaper for large and numerous
classes. The duty on 123 articles was abolished and the duty on 133
others reduced, the total relief amounting to $25,000,000. Mr. Gladstone
gave a clear exposition of the income tax, which he declared was never
intended to be permanent. It had been the last resort in times of
national danger, and he could not consent to retain it as a part of the
permanent and ordinary finances of the country. It was objectionable on
account of its unequal incidence, of the harassing investigation into
private affairs which it entailed and of the frauds to which it
inevitably led.
The value of the reduction in the necessities of life proposed by Mr.
Gladstone is seen from the following from a contemporary writer:
"The present budget, more than any other budget within our recollection,
is a cupboard budget; otherwise, a poor man's budget. With certain very
ugly features, the thing has altogether a good, hopeful aspect, together
with very fair proportions. It is not given to any Chancellor of the
Exchequer to make a budget fascinating as a fairy tale. Nevertheless,
there are visions of wealth and comfort in the present budget that
mightily recommend it to us. It seems to add color and fatness to the
poor man's beef; to give flavor and richness to the poor man's
plum-pudding. The budget is essentially a cupboard budget; and let the
name of Gladstone be, for the time at least, musical at the poor man's
fireside."
It unquestionably established Gladstone as the foremost financier of
his day. Greville, in his "Memoirs," says of him: "He spoke for five
hours; and by universal consent it was one of the grandest displays and
most able financial statements that ever was heard in the House of
Commons; a great scheme, boldly and skillfully and honestly devised,
disdaining popular clamor and pressure from without, and the execution
of its absolute perfection."
We reproduce some extracts from this important speech: "Depend upon it,
when you come to close quarters with this subject, when you come to
measure and test the respective relations of intelligence and labor and
property in all their myriad and complex forms, and when you come to
represent those relations in arithmetical results, you are undertaking
an operation of which I should say it was beyond the power of man to
conduct it with satisfaction, but which, at any rate, is an operation to
which you ought not constantly to recur; for if, as my noble friend once
said with universal applause, this country could not bear a revolution
once a year, I will venture to say that it cannot bear a reconstruction
of the income tax once a year.
"Whatever you do in regard to the income tax, you must be bold, you must
be intelligible, you must be decisive. You must not palter with it. If
you do, I have striven at least to point out as well as my feeble
powers will permit, the almost desecration I would say, certainly the
gross breach of duty to your country, of which you will be found guilty,
in thus putting to hazard one of the most potent and effective among all
its material resources. I believe it to be of vital importance, whether
you keep this tax or whether you part with it, that you should either
keep it or should leave it in a state in which it will be fit for
service on an emergency, and that it will be impossible to do if you
break up the basis of your income tax.
"If the Committee have followed me, they will understand that we found
ourselves on the principle that the income-tax ought to be marked as a
temporary measure; that the public feeling that relief should be given
to intelligence and skill as compared with property ought to be met, and
may be met with justice and with safety, in the manner we have pointed
out; that the income tax in its operation ought to be mitigated by every
rational means, compatible with its integrity; and, above all, that it
should be associated in the last term of its existence, as it was in the
first, with those remissions of indirect taxation which have so greatly
redoubled to the profit of this country and have set so admirable an
example--an example that has already in some quarters proved contagious
to the other nations of the earth, These are the principles on which we
stand, and these the figures. I have shown you that if you grant us the
taxes which we ask, to the moderate amount of £2,500,000 in the whole,
much less than that sum for the present year, you, or the Parliament
which may be in existence in 1860, will be in the condition, if it shall
so think fit, to part with the income tax."
Sir, I scarcely dare to look at the clock, shamefully reminding me, as
it must, how long, how shamelessly, I have trespassed on the time of the
committee. All I can say in apology is that I have endeavored to keep
closely to the topics which I had before me--
--immensum spatiis confecimus aequor,
Et jam tempus equum fumantia solvere colla.
"These are the proposals of the Government. They may be approved or they
may be condemned, but I have at least this full and undoubting
confidence, that it will on all hands be admitted that we have not
sought to evade the difficulties of our position; that we have not
concealed those difficulties, either from ourselves or from others; that
we have not attempted to counteract them by narrow or flimsy expedients;
that we have prepared plans which, if you will adopt them, will go some
way to close up many vexed financial questions--questions such as, if
not now settled, may be attended with public inconvenience, and even
with public danger, in future years and under less favorable
circumstances; that we have endeavored, in the plans we have now
submitted to you, to make the path of our successors in future years not
more arduous but more easy; and I may be permitted to add that, while we
have sought to do justice, by the changes we propose in taxation, to
intelligence and skill as compared with property--while we have sought
to do justice to the great laboring community of England by furthering
their relief from indirect taxation, we have not been guided by any
desire to put one class against another. We have felt we should best
maintain our own honor, that we should best meet the views of
Parliament, and best promote the interests of the country, by declining
to draw any invidious distinctions between class and class, by adapting
it to ourselves as a sacred aim to differ and distribute--burden if we
must, benefit if we may--with equal and impartial hand; and we have the
consolation of believing that by proposals such as these we contribute,
as far as in us lies, not only to develop the material resources of the
country, but to knit the hearts of the various classes of this great
nation yet more closely than heretofore to that throne and to those
institutions under which it is their happiness to live."
It is seldom that a venture of such magnitude as Mr. Gladstone's first
budget meets with universal success. But from the outset the plan was
received with universal favor. Besides the plaudits with which the
orator was greeted at the conclusion of his speech, his proposals were
received favorably by the whole nation. Being constructed upon Free
Trade principles, it was welcomed by the press and the country. It added
greatly, not only to the growing reputation of the new Chancellor of the
Exchequer as a financier, but also to his popularity.
The following anecdote of Mr. Gladstone is told by Walter Jerrold and is
appropriate as well as timely here:
"During Mr. Gladstone's first tenure of office as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, a curious adventure occurred to him in the London offices of
the late Mr. W. Lindsay, merchant, shipowner and M.P. There one day
entered a brusque and wealthy shipowner of Sunderland, inquiring for Mr.
Lindsay. As Mr. Lindsay was out, the visitor was requested to wait in an
adjacent room, where he found a person busily engaged in copying some
figures. The Sunderland shipowner paced the room several times and took
careful note of the writer's doings, and at length said to him, 'Thou
writes a bonny hand, thou dost.'
"'I am glad you think so,' was the reply.
"'Ah, thou dost. Thou makes thy figures weel. Thou'rt just the chap I
want.'
"'Indeed!' said the Londoner.
"'Yes, indeed,' said the Sunderland man. 'I'm a man of few words. Noo,
if thou'lt come over to canny ould Sunderland thou seest I'll give thee
a hundred and twenty pounds a year, and that's a plum thou dost not meet
with every day in thy life, I reckon. Noo then.'
"The Londoner replied that he was much obliged for the offer, and would
wait till Mr. Lindsay returned, whom he would consult upon the subject.
Accordingly, on the return of the latter, he was informed of the
shipowner's tempting offer.
"'Very well,' said Mr. Lindsay, 'I should be sorry to stand in your way.
One hundred and twenty pounds is more than I can afford to pay you in
the department in which you are at present placed. You will find my
friend a good and kind master, and, under the circumstances, the sooner
you know each other the better. Allow me, therefore, Mr.----, to
introduce you to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, Chancellor of the
Exchequer.' The Sunderland shipowner was a little taken aback at first,
but he soon recovered his self-possession, and enjoyed the joke quite as
much as Mr. Gladstone did."