The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-15 00:00:00

338 THE YEAR'S REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE. Wx stated in our last publication, while we quoted the figures given in the official pub lished accounts of the revenue during the . year just ended, that the Statement was open to explanation And the CnstmeLton of the EXCHEQUER informatics on Tueeday that the improvement in the revenue was even better than he expected, and that the balance-sheet which he presented exhibits an excess of in come over expenditure of no less a sum than 3,624,000/., which excess, adverting to what he calls the manipulation of the accounts (and of which our readers will recollect we com plained), he reduces to three millions. This he states to be real surplus. It is an unusual thing, and rather questionable, for a Chan cellor of the Exchequer to make a financial statement on the occasion of laying his balance sheet on the table ; and we suspect, after the castigation he received last Tuesday, he is not likely to resort to that practice again. His object manifestly was to gloss over certain discrepancies between his statement on the 6th of March and the real condition of things ES exhibited in his balance-sheet. But the acuteness of Mr. DISRAELI was not so easily baffled. On the 6th of March Mr. Disa.tEtt stated : There is no reason why on the sth of April next the balance in the Exchequer should be more than 8,000,0001. Then as to the amount of deficiency bills which would be required, he said Will the amount of deficiency bills in the coming quarter be less than 6,00 ),00J/.? . . . The Bank of England will not like to be lending 5,00:1,000/. or 6,000,0001. of money at a lower than the market rate of interest. On both these points the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER joined issue with his critic. Thus : He ( Mr. Disraeli) estimates the anticipated balances at 3,00 ),030/. I have the misfortune to differ from him, for I estimate them at 4,00J,000/. The right hon. gentleman has asked me what is the amount which I shall require to raise by deficiency bills during the next quarter. . . . I think that the demand for deficiency bills during the next quarter would be from 4,000,0001. to 4;250,000/. . . . Such is the simple state of things. From Mr. GLADSTONE'S position it was to be assumed that he would be better informed on these two matters-of-fact than Mr. DISRAELI could possibly be ; but bow stands the ques tion now that the sth of April has arrived, and the accounts have been duly made up ? Mr. GLADSTONE himself shall tell us. We quote from his exposition of Tuesday evening. First, as to the balance in the Exchequer : Oa the 6th of April, 1853, the balance in the Exchequer was returned at 7,8i9,0001. ; on the sth of April, 18.)4, the balance was returned at 2.778,000/. . . . The balance in the Exchequer, as it appears in the balance-sheet, is 2,778,0001. That is, Mr. DISRAELI had not under-esti mated the balance, as Mr. GLADSTONE asserted he had done, but over-estimated it by 212,000/. ; while Mr. GLADSTONE over-estimated it by no less than 1,212,0001. On the amount of deficiency bills Mr. GLAD STONE said " In the statement which is published regularly, the pro bable amount of deficiency hills required to meet the charge of the last quarter is stated at 5,852,000/. It is not unnatural that some uneasiness should prevail in the public mind—deluded and mystified as I must say it is by oar system of public accounts—when anything called by the name of deficiency appears to reach such a formidable amount as 5,852,001. However, according to ordinary usage, some deduction must be made from this sum, and the actual amount of deficiency bills brought to charge in April, 1814, was 6,472,'.00/. This, however, makes no material difference ; 6,472,000/. is a very large amount." This result again is nearly in accordance with Mr. DISRAELI'S estimate, and wide of Mr. GLADSTONE'S by at least 1,300,000/. to explain, as if hidden mystery, Sly follow, because bills are named at quarter, as the sum have to supply cash, considered as in ig the whole of the ' course not. Defi securities given to for advances in an they are cancelled But that does not 1 I 'lt. :•' EffEttift proceeded . - * - •indi.cling some .... ....• t. 1 , ;AI * lecessarf E• , ...1 , .. •,..-- 17 .....o , ciency b i - ,! i ,,„ ; ... , „,;.... t .1 1 may he it e -• :...._. ; •t . to be : It •'?41 - mr t sk during .? -,, • • # # tent. Of , - -ate temporary the Bank by Government f ticipation of revenue, and as the revenue comes in. THE PRESS. alter the character of the transaction. By the reduction of the balances in the Exchequer the Bank was placed under the necessity of being prepared to advance six millions; and the evidence fit Mr. aVEN, as quoted by Mr. DISRAELI ; proven beyond question what might be the effect ark Such an operation, under cot tan cirlamstanees, upon the commercial into rests or the country. But we are satisfied to rest the ease upon the opinions expressed by Mr. Toosus BAntwo. He reminded the CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER that he was pursuing a course which would very soon involve the country in those very evils which Sir R. PEEL had imposed the income tax to correct ; and he further, with just severity, designated the keystone of Mr; GutesroNE's system of finance to be, " not to provide by means of the in coming revenue for the engagements he had to meet, but to meet those engagements by subsequently accruing revenue and deficiency bills. Again, therefore, we say, these are the ope rations and this the financial system of the paragon Finance Minister. MR. SIDNEY HERBERT'S CONSISTENCY. WE have no right to expect consistency in Peelite. A man who has faith in the saying, that to confess a change of opinion is only to acknowledge that he is wiser to-day than he was yesterday, will be naturally anxious to show his increasing wisdom by being as in constant as a weathercock. But such incon stancy is still reconcilable with that respect for facts which no gentleman ever willingly violates, and we, therefore, ascribe to short ness of memory, and not to wilful misrepre sentation, the statement of Mr. SIDNEY Hsa- BERT on Tuesday night, that bis opinions on Parliamentary Reform had never changed. He is reported to have said: — He must advert to the supposed change which it was said his views had undergone with reference to parliamen tary reform : he recollected but once ever having delivered any opinion of his own on the subject, and that was in the year 1848, when he spoke after the noble lord the member for the city of London. He then offered his humble tri bute of admiration to the doctrines which the noble lord had held, and he gave his entire acquiescence to the views which the noble lord bad expressed about parliamentary reform. To those views he still adhered, while he for one had never feared parliamentary reform. ( Cheers.) He wished to see the basis of their representation enlarged : he wished to see those who were enemies without the pale of the constitution converted into friends within. He wished to say that his opinion upon the subject of parlia mentary reform, so far from being changed, had been greatly strengthened of late, and he gave his cordial assent to the proposals contained in the present bill ; still hoping that the time might speedily come when the noble lord might be able to carry that measure, or some other mea sure equally effective, and thus finish the great work of parliamentary reform with which his name and fame were indissolubly connected. (Cheers). We do not wish this gentleman for a moment to understand that we consider his views on any subject to be worth the trouble of much inquiry ; for of what value can be the opinion which is continually vacillating — Conservative to-day, and Radical to-morrow ? But, as it happens, we have by us a passage from a speech inserted in Hansard delivered by him in 1846. He then said: — I am not one of those who wish to see the Constitution of this country rendered more democratic than it is. I cannot think the public mind wishes it to be more demo credo than it is. I think late events have rather shown that the mantles of despotic kings who disgraced the world have fallen upon democratic rather than upon temperate or mixed Governments I have no ►wish to see the aristocratic element weakened in our Constitution, Now, we think that, from respect, not to con sistency—which we imagine Mr. S. HERBERT cares nothing at all about—but to fact, he is bound to show that the above passages are reconcilable with each other, or to acknow ' ledge—and he may do so with a good grace— that, from the frequent oscillation of his mind, he has quite forgotten in 1854 the sentiments he held and the words he spoke in 1846. THE INROADS OF DEMOCRNCY IN THE UNITED STATES. IN a former article we explained by what extraordinary securities the framers of the American Constitution attempted to guard the States from the dangers of unmixed demo- craey ; and we will now, fro) IiEeRE'S work, show by what I securities have been weakene , extent, abrogated. Although it was admitted " " branoh of the Legislature " dirently from the people, Justice STORY, " there still 11 " serious question, by whom al " ner ' that chola(' should ultra-democratic theory that equal, and are therefore entitled to equal p ticipation in the governing power, was univer sally rejected. The question was decided to be entirely one of expediency ; and, as if to affirm this doctrine emphatically, the separate States have altered and are continually altering the qualifications of voters; and even at first "no two States fixed the qualifications of " voters upon the same uniform basis." The question was much discussed whether unifor mity was desirable, and unanimously answered in the negative, on the express ground that diversity, by securing " a representation of all " the various classes of society, would ensure " the permanent protection of ' public liberty and the private rights of persons and property. But, says Mr. TaEMENHEERE, " a grave depar " ture from the theory of the Constitution, as " it existed in the eyes and expectations of its " careful and prudent founders, has taken " place in the gradual lowering, throughout " nearly all the States of the Union, and the " entire abandonment in two-thirds of them, " of those qualifications for the exercise of the " franchise which existed when the Constitu " tion was adopted." The basis of representa tion being thus enormously extended, and elections recurring every two years, results have ensued similar, only on a greater scale, to that which we witness in our metropolitan boroughs. In a prosperous commercial country, where constituencies are large, persons with fixed occupations, except on occasions of rare ex citement, will not and cannot give up their time to the details of political contests ; there fore a class has sprung up who make it their professional business. Mr.TREMIMEE RE quotes from the New York Herald, of May 20th, 1852, to show how ordinary elections are " worked " in the commercial capital of the model re public : The following is a faithful and exact description of the system :—A lazy fellow, who hates to work for a living, and encouraged by the success of ward politicians, who have grown fat upon corruption and the spoils of office, devotes his energies, day and night, to the acquisition of influence in the ward in which he resides. He spouts—he brawls in the bar-room, and affects public virtue of the highest order. He is a patriot of the first water, and " a clever " fellow to boot. He treats the rowdies w henever he meets them, and makes them his fast friends. We need not continue the description : those who have had any experience in the elections for our metropolitan boroughs will at once recognise the gentleman. He acquires influ ence, and sells it to the agents of Fillmore or Scott or Webster . . . • perhaps in the interval of taking a recess to " get a drink," . . . . and the matter is made " all riglht." Then the citizens proceed to elect their representatives. We again quote from the New York Herald of the same date : Look at the proceedings on Thursday last, in thetnine teenth ward—voters carried to the ballot-box in scores of waggons, from various localities ; and, in other wards, hun dreds of democrats voting for Scott or for Fillmore—men ignorant and steeped in crime—picked up in all the pur lieus of the city, and purchased at a dollar a head, and some, it is said, so low as fifty cents, to deposit in the ballot-box a vote they had never seen. This demoralising process is playing fearful havoc with our institutions, ren dering them, to a vast extent, not only a nullity, but per vetting them to mischief—to bad and corrupt legislation — and to the maladministration of public justice. The judi cious grieve at these results; but what ca n they do to arrest the progress of the evil? By the " ballot-box" secrecy is in no degree implied ; voting in America is open ; but this is a branch of the subject to which, on a proper occasion, we may recur. At present we only call attention to the circumstance that large electoral districts were preferred in America, because it was said that in these " nothing but real dignity of character can " secure an election ; " " whereas elections in " small districts may be conducted by intrigue., ' Such was the opinion of Congress in 1789 ; but the experience of the United States has not, according to Justice STORY, supported the SATURDAY Ira Mr. TREMlSN- tendencies those ed and, to a large that the popular should emanate yet, says Mr. remained a very and in what man- be made." The all men are born lAd to Pallid nar- •