The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

tit . 1) ( rt6l STAMPED . . No. 198.—VoL.V. LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1857. lIN TAMPED. SIXPENCY. .FIVEPE NCE. `tress. about 55,600,0001., and under Mr. GLkDSTONES 56,600,0001. Under Sir G. C. LEwis's manage men t the expenditure is seven millions in excess of the highest sum known since the peace of 1815. retrenchment will probably assume, as it has heretofore assumed, a most injudicious shape. If this is foreseen, and if - future retrench ment is contemplated, why delay to make it at once? All the millions spent in maintain ing for one, two, or three years, larger estab blishments than will be permanently upheld will be completely thrown away, or worse; for this expenditure will encourage the growth of non-efficient services. and will act as a cankerous excrescence on our establishments, wasting away their real strength. To this expenditure of five millions more for armed services than was thought neces sary by the Administration of Lord JOHN RUSSELL in 1851 and of Lord DERBY in 1852, must be taken into account the increased ex penditure necessitated for a very long time by the late war. The interest on the debt is increased by upwards of a million sterling. The charge for redemption of the loans contracted does not come into this financial year, but next year this item will amount, we believe, to 1,500,0001. Under any cir cumstances, we must pay for the cost of the war 2,500,0001. yearly. The question is, Shall we pay four or five millions more in the shape of increased expenditure for larger establish ments ? LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14,1857. We have not far to look for the principal causes of this vast increase. We find that the total cost of the military and naval services, which for the decade from 1830 to 1840 did not average 13,000,0001., amounts in the Budget of last night to 20,699,000/. It would be unfair, however, to compare this item with the cost of the same services for the ten years-1830 to 1840—when an unwise system of economy prevailed under the Whig cry of Retrenchment and Peace. For :he five years previous to the war the expenditure on the military and naval services was liberal, and we find the total cost to have been:— WE do not propose at this time to enter into the details of the statement made by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER to the House last night. The pressure of opinion has in duced him to abandon the "war ninepcnce " of the income tax, hut this relief will be gained— if the Government scheme is affirmed—by a violation of the compact of 18 7 )3 ; by the establishment of the serenpenny income tax in perpetuity; and by a continuance of items of indirect taxation, the reduction of which, — as the duties were war duties,—might fairly have been looked for. To the retention of the extra spirit duties, we are not disposed to object—in fact, theircontinuance was suggested in this journal; but we did expect the re• ductiou of the war duties on tea and on sugar. The explanation why the Budget of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER iS 80 much less favourable than was anticipated, must be sought in the fact of the enormous expendi ture he announced. The expenditure for the ensuing year will be about 8,000,0001. more than the highest ordinary expenditure of the country for the last forty years. This is a matter of figures, admitting of no mistake. Our total expenditure for fifteen years previous to the war averaged about 55,000,000/. The Budget of last night pre sents a total expenditure for the current year of 63,224,000/. ! 1849 1850 15,39'2,944 1851 15,555,171• 185.2 15,771,893• 18.5:3 17,80.2,000• The expenditure for the current year will, therefore, as regards our armed establishments, be about five millions more than Lord DEBBY'S Administration deemed necessary, and three millions more than Lord ABERDEEN'S Govern ment proposed when the political horizon darkened with the prospect of war. The items of this expenditure stand thus : But for opinions expressed on the first night of the session, the estimates would have been much higher than they are. They have been hurriedly cut down. They are nothing more than figures on paper ; and as larger establishments were contemplated, it is not unlikely that a considerable addition may bo required to the sums voted to defray the charges at the end of the year. Nor do these estimates include the charge for the Persian war, a war commenced without the knowledge or consent of Parliament, but for the cost of which the Legislature will be called on to vote a considerable sum, as the CHAN. CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER last night was anxious to explain. Mr. Disraeli's Mr. Gladstone's Sir G. C. Budget for Budget for Lewis's Bud - 1052-3. 1853.1. get for 185 G-7. Army, Commis.) . X X X sariat, Mili -9 4 78 893 .. 10,767,000 .. 11,625,000 tie and Ord- r" ' ance .. Navy and Packet ]. 6 493 000 .. 7,033,000 .. 9,074,000 Service .. " X 0,771,893 17,802,000 20,699,000 In considering these figures it must not be overlooked that the expenditure previous to the war included the cost of building and fitting that magnificent steam navy which at the commencement of the contest gave us the command of the seas ; that a great part of the army expenditure during the war was, by Sir G. C. LEWIS'S own admission, of last year, of a permanent character; and that the country is now much richer than it was in ships, in stores of all kinds, and in improved material of war. This enormous amount will appear more extravagant if contrasted with the total expen diture for the ten years from 1830 to 1840. The figures were these : We cannot believe that this financial state ment will be accepted with satisfaction by the country ; still less do we believe that it will meet with the approval of those thoughtful minds who look beyond the necessities of the hour and believe that the time has come for a well-considered and settled scheme of finance. It is the first requisite of really efficient es tablishments that they should not be more extravagant than the public will cheerfully support in future. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER indicated that his Budget must be regarded as exceptional to some extent. We believe the time for exceptional schemes of finance is over ; and we entertain the clearest and strongest conviction that if the House of Commons sanctions the extravagant expendi ture proposed by the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, it will betray its duty to the country, and ultimately impair instead of strengthen ing the efficiency of our national defences. 1830 X 51,711,46.5 1831 • 00,908,3 . 28 1832 49,166,314 1833 49,223,116 1834 48,727.834 ~_...._.. 1835 50,819,305 1830 51,319,113 18.37 51,720,748 1538 53,440,287 1839 • 53,444,083 The expenditure during that period may have been too low—we believe that it was. But d firing that period of economy the foundation was laid for that extension of the industrial resources of the country which we have sinca witnessed. It is impossible to suppose that there can he any real necessity for such an amazing increase of expenditure as the Budget of last night presents. The practical point to be determined, then, is, whether the expenditure proposed by the Government shall be sanctioned. The country did not expect, as the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER seemed to suppose, that a return to peace establishments could be effected by magic. One clear year has elapsed since peace was concluded, and in that period arrange ments might certainly have been made for placing our armed establishments on the scale it was desirable should be maintained in future. Either the expenditure published by Sir G. C. LEWIS last evening is intended to be of a permanent or a temporary character. On this point the Legislature and the public should be thoroughly satisfied. If intended to be permanent, the Government propose what the result, we are fully convinced, will show to be impracticable. The country will not perma nently maintain establishments at a cost ex ceeding 20,000,0001. Sooner or later retrench. ment will hare to be adopted, and that If we take the two years previous to the war, the financial years 1852.3, and 1853-4, we find the total expenditure, excluding charges of collecting the revenue, was estimated at— THE SECRET TREATY. THE argument in the tween Lord PALMERRZ) partly a question of of inference. Neithi is yet complete, but have dono much to case. (Mr. Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer.) 1152-3 (Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.) 18534 To both accounts the charges of collection must be added, amounting to about 4,600,000/., so that the national expenditure under Mr. DISRAELI'S financial rule would be LATEST EDITION. .... E• ie Hpustof -CAT mons be- a‘fas and itr. l illObmju is ... iin, t 4.3 l .otlmitastion i b . 7 - 'Velment 1 lf, eli, So " week ° E.7... ~... of the . -, . • - . t.- ..j 1P..• ' <e: . ..,...... ",.... 4 -N • ~...., EMI ) is- -47 •• • 15.:;:- ' CTI • These three figures are taken from the Budgets of Sir C. Wood, of Mr. Disraeli, and of Mr. Gladstone respectively. The other figures are from Parliamentary returns. es in of RS 118 of it' di fa SI tt P 1 tt cc SE 01 di Tl he d. tvl re 'V•i th all of R•i fii of T 4, U 1