446 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. (CHANGE OF MINISTBY.) 



supplementary estimate, he calculated upon a 

 total- deficit of 14,932,000. This sum the 

 Government proposed to raise partly by new- 

 taxes divided between the rich and the poor. 

 Upon property- owners they proposed to levy 

 an additional income-tax of Sd., calculated to 

 produce 5,400,000, to impose " death duties" 

 on personal as well as on real property, which 

 was expected to add 200,000 to the revenue 

 of the year, to obtain 150,000 by a tax on the 

 property of corporations in lieu of succession 

 duties, and 100,000 more from a stamp duty 

 on securities payable to bearer. Consumers 

 were expected to contribute 1,650,000 in the 

 form of fresh indirect taxes. It was proposed 

 to raise the duty on spirits from 10s. to 12*. a 

 gallon, and the beer duty from 6s. Bd. to 7. 

 3d. a barrel. The increase in the spirit duty 

 was estimated to add 900,000 to the receipts 

 for the year, that in the beer duty 750,000. 

 The remainder of the estimated deficit Mr. 

 Childers proposed to deal with by suspending 

 payments of terminable annuities representing 

 capital amounting for the year to 4,600,000, 

 leaving 2,812,000 to be met by a continued 

 interception of the same part of the sinking 

 fund in 1886-'87. The intended increase in 

 the beer and spirit duties would coincide in 

 time with a relaxation of the wine duties, as 

 the treaty negotiated with Spain allowed wine 

 up to 30 degrees of alcoholic strength to be 

 admitted under the duty of Is. per gallon, 

 whereas the previous limit was 26 degrees. 

 The excitement produced by the proposal to 

 tax the poor man's drink induced the Chan- 

 cellor of the Exchequer to modify this part of 

 his scheme. The failure of the Anglo-Spanish 

 treaty left the wine duties undiminished, while 

 the cessation of war preparations enabled the 

 Government, according to an estimate made 

 when the customs and inland revenue bill was 

 introduced, to restrict expenditure on the vote 

 of credit to 9,000,000. Mr. Childers accord- 

 ingly modified his proposals by cutting down 

 the additional liquor duty one half, while the 

 augmented beer duty was to be levied for one 

 year only. In consequence of this vote of the 

 House of Commons on the amendment of Sir 

 Michael Hicks-Beach to the tax bill, the addi- 

 tion to the spirit and beer duties and the pro- 

 posed new probate, legacy, and stamps duties 

 were cut off, and through the change of Gov- 

 ernment that ensued it devolved upon the 

 mover of the amendment to frame a budget 

 to meet the deficiency in some other way. 



Military preparations were relaxed as the 

 Afghan difficulty approached a settlement. The 

 revised estimate of Mr. Childers, presented 

 June 4, assumed that 2,000,000 could be saved 

 out of the vote of credit if peace were assured. 

 It was discovered by the new officials that the 

 accounts of the Admiralty Office did not tally 

 with the statement made by Lord Northbrook 

 of the amount expended on the navy. It turned 

 out that the expenditures were nearly 900,- 

 000 in excess of the estimate, and that the 



greater part of them had been already incurred 

 at the time when Mr. Childers made his state- 

 ment. The Conservatives sought to make 

 political capital out of the discovery. Lord 

 Northbrook treated their criticisms as a per- 

 sonal attack upon himself, and defended the 

 loose system of accounts and the administra- 

 tive blunders that were brought to light, such 

 as the construction of a large number of tor- 

 pedo-boats without providing them with tor- 

 pedoes, on the plea of the pressure and haste 

 of the war preparations. A committee of the 

 House of Commons investigated the subject, 

 and reported that a severer financial control 

 of the Admiralty is necessary. 



Sir Michael Hicks-Beach adopted the budget 

 framed by the Liberal Government in its main 

 provisions. The beer and liquor taxes and the 

 succession duty, upon which the preceding 

 Government was defeated, were eliminated. 

 The deficit remaining unprovided for by the sus- 

 pension of the sinking fund, and the imposition 

 of new taxes, he proposed to treat as floating 

 debt, instead of hypothecating the sinking fund 

 of the ensuing year. The Sd. income-tax, the 

 duty on corporate property, and the tax on 

 foreign bonds and securities payable to bearer, 

 were retained, thus throwing the entire burden 

 of the new taxes on owners of property, and 

 producing 5,650,000, or 1,850,000 less than 

 the original budget proposals. The sum avail- 

 able from the sinking fund would be increased 

 by the amount of the new sinking fund, which 

 is the difference between the charge of the 

 debt each year and the fixed sum of about 

 28,000,000 per annum appropriated for the 

 service of the debt by the act of 1875. This it 

 was proposed to appropriate also, the amount 

 for the year being estimated at 622,000. The 

 deficit remaining the Chancellor of the Ex- 

 chequer proposed to cover by the issue of 

 Treasury bills to the amount of not more than 

 4,000,000, the interest on which would add 

 36,000 to the expenditures of the year. This 

 deficit he estimated, the expenditure on the 

 vote of credit being taken at 9,850,000, to be 

 2,827,000 for the year, or, including the deti- 

 cit of 1,050,000 carried over from 1884-85, 

 3,877,000 in all. The revised budget was 

 adopted without contest by Parliament. 



Change of Ministry. The combination of Whigs 

 and Radicals that composed the Gladstone 

 Cabinet was divided on important questions 

 of home, Irish, Egyptian, colonial, and foreign 

 policy, and was only kept together by a series 

 of shifts and compromises. The fickle and ir- 

 resolute actions of the Government exasperated 

 the Irish and estranged every Cabinet in Eu- 

 rope. The Conservatives were able to charge 

 the ministers with changing their declared 

 policy in scores of instances, with not only fail- 

 ing to carry out their avowed intentions in 

 every case, but of doing everything that they 

 had declared they would not do. In the last 

 week in February Sir Stafford Northcote's vote 

 of censure on the Egyptian policy of the Gov- 



