The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-08 00:00:00

- t-_,,., 314 sleepless nights of which he complains to the House of Lords. We are enabled to state, without fear of con tradiction, that the expressions disparaging to this journal attributed to the Earl of MALMEB - in a speech delivered by him in the House of Lords, in reply to the speech of Lord ABERDEEN above referred to, were used simply as quotations from the preceding speech of Lord ABERDEEN, with the inten tion of showing that Lord ABERDEEN was not justified in employing the time of the House of Lords, on an occasion of great national importance, in replying at length to an attack in a newspaper, which attack he affected, at the same time, to treat with contempt. We state this because certain organs of the Ministry have condescended to avail them selves of a report of the debate which was evidently and accountably imperfect, in con sequence of the simultaneous pressure upon the reporting staff of both Houses of Par liament. THE FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 5, 1854. ENDING MR. GLADSTONE, as a Financial Minister, might receive our pity, if his pride and arrogance did not deserve a fall. We have had other failures among our `inance Ministers. ROBINSON was a failure. Sir FRANCIS BARING was overwhelmed by his difficulties. Sir CHARLES Woon blundered on for several years, making, and withdrawing, and altering his Budgets till they suited the taste of the House of Commons. Mr. DISRAELI I , proposed a Budget admitted now, even by those who opposed it, to have been founded •on sound principles of finance and policy. Perhaps he was too inflexible, but, having pro posed his financial measure, he acted upon the resolution of standing or falling with it. 'His successor, MR. GLADSTONE, entered upon office with singular advantages. The mantle Hof Sir ROBERT PEEL was supposed to have fallen upon him. He had acquired large ex i'perience in the details of office. Mr. Groraseres, the most successful and most experienced of living financiers, sat behind !.him to assist him. With nine millions in the Exchequer, and an ample revenue, Mr. GLADSTONE, at least, could not make a mistake ! Such were the impressions this time last year. What are they now ? Why, that his whole 1 , career as Chancellor of the Exchequer has been one of disastrous failure. His great plan for the establishment of a new stock, he has been forced to acknowledge, has proved abortive. " Mr. GLADSTONE at a discount" has become a byword in the City. With a knowledge of impending war, he deluded the country last year by proposing a Peace Budget, remitting taxation and lessening the resources of the country, for the sake of a temporary popularity : under false pretences he obtained the sanction of the Legislature to a renewal of the property tax. This year it became necessary for him to double that property tax, and we think we shall be able to show from the accounts just published that on this oc casion likewise he has done so under false pretences. On March the 6th he proposed his Budget for the year 1854-5. Our readers will recollect that he founded his scheme upon his estimate of the produce of the revenue as it would turn out on the sth of April. His words were these : " The first and most satisfactory part of my " task is to exhibit, in comparison with the " estimate I made last April, the present actual " state of the income and expenditure of the " Country." And, iu reply to a question put to he stated that it was months accounts and one bringing the account, ) sth of April. Resting carried on his estimate to in fact, tile Budget for of by the accuracy of statement and estimate for in mind, we ask our us while we compare his him by 'Mr. DISRAELI, made up of eleven mon TIT ~ . . . ii I ft, ... : s , to . ate, the 1 .'"il ; . .s • : he can 4 _ixt ie gs:, -I. that, #yi 1 , , ' • . ~ .• a dged _,""tk \ *. ~ .ll -"" ~ AA atat( V, VA - - --),. ' ll i.. 7 .7. ed. AS ki hib• ' ~ ,L . 41.. , itgor • g this i.. i . 4 .• with US 11:1c c .*A‘.. 1 THE PRESS. statement made so recently as the 6th of March last, in reference to the year 1853-4, with the accounts for that year just now pub lished : cording __ _ _ .ccording to accounts . 3,241,701 INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX. According to Mr. Gladstone £5,700,000 According to accounts POST OFFICE. According to Mr. Gladstone According to accounts CROWN LANDS. According to Mr. Gladstone 0191,000 According to accounts MISCELLANEOUS, AND OLD STORES. According to Mr. Gladstone According to accounts, and including imprest 1,101,863 Total as stated by Mr. Gladstone on March 6, £54,025,000 Total as now exhibited in accounts published, £50,659,260 We are quite aware that the astute framers of these periodical accounts take good care to mystify and confuse, and thus to leave room for explanation and evasion; and it may be that this extraordinary discrepancy is suscep tible of explanation. We place the facts plainly before the public. Mr. GLADSTONE told us on the 6th March last that, whereas on the 18th April, 1853, he had estimated the income of the country for the year ending sth April, 1854, at 52,990,0001. (leaving a surplus of 495,0001. after the estimated expenditure), it might be assumed that on the sth April it would be 54,025,0001. It turns out to be 50,659,260. As regards the future, he tells us that for the year 1854-5 the income of the country may be taken at 53,349,000/. ; the necessary expenditure, including the war, at 56,189,0001., leaving a deficiency of 2,840,0001. This deficiency he proposes to supply by the additional income and property tax, which he estimates at 3,307,0001., which would leave a surplus of 459,000/, Now, will our readers just ask themselves these plain questions ? If Mr. GLADSTONE, on the 6th March, 1854, told us we might take the income of the country on the sth April at fifty-four millions, and if on, the 6th April it turns out less than fifty-one millions, what possible reason have we for sup posing that on the sth April, 1855, Mr. GLAD STONE'S estimate of fifty-three millions will be realised, or that the income of the country, making due allowance for the effects of the war, will be more than it has been in the year just ended, namely, 51,600,0001.; and, if such should be the case, what has the country to expect, in the shape of additional taxation, not only to meet the enormous expenses of the war, but to supply also the under calcu lations of the paragon Finance Minister! MR. EWART AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES. A VERY unreasonable complaint, as it appears to us, has been raised against those Members who on Wednesday last enabled the Govern ment to throw out Mr. EWART'S Public Libra ries Bill on the second reading. The cause of such complaint is not hard to find. The public out-of-doors knows nothing of legisla tive details, entertains very vague ideas of the actual provisions of a measure pending before Parliament, and is always apt to judge of such measure, not with reference to its practica bility, but to the professed intentions of the framer. So it is here. Public libraries are good : the increase of public rate-supported libraries is desirable. Mr. EWART'S bill pro fessed to create such increase; therefore Mr. EWART'S bill must be good also, and those who oppose it are obscurantists. Nothing simpler than this logic. Its justice is another question. The real case stands thus. In 1850 Mr. EWART carried through Parliament an act thoroughly sound in principle, and which SATURDAY, practically has worked well. By this act the ratepayers of a town were enabled to supply themselves with museums and public libraries by a moderate rating, which, however, could not be imposed without the concurrence of two-thirds of their number. The provision was wise and just. It ensured unanimity, or at least considerable preponderance of opinion, as a necessary preliminary to action. Some might argne, and did argue, that action was thus rendered ittiposaible; but the result tells a different story. Under this law nearly every great town in the kingdom has estab lished, or is establishing, a rate-supported library. There is no doubt or dispute about the fact. The experiment has proved a suc cess more complete than its warmest advo cates anticipated. Its extension to small towns and rural districts was suggested and justified by the experience of those large cities where it was already in force. To such extension no fair objection could be urged; for, we confess, the argument " that you have " no right to tax those who cannot read for " the sake of those who can," does not weigh greatly with us. All that a reasonable man could require was thus within Mr. EWART'S grasp ; and he might have adorned a public life, which, if fussy and pedantic, has been in dustrious and not discreditable, with a second success founded upon and surpassing the first. But his evil star led him astray, • Having once done well, he aspired to do better, and failed. His new proposition, instead of merely enlarg ing, went to destroy its predecessor. The power of self-taxation, so largely and wisely used by the ratepayers, was to be taken away, and trans ferred to the town council in towns, to some local board in rural parishes, and this while the amount of possible taxation was at the same moment doubled. The result of these changes, had they passed, would not be hard to guess. Either the taxing body, afraid of exceeding its powers, would not dare to use them, or, using them rashly, it would dis credit the good cause of education. For a library is not like a police force or a system of drainage, both public benefits of which the advantage is equally received, whether they be popular or no. The majority in a borough may be opposed to the establishment of a police, which yet, being established, shall be recognised by all as an advantage. The Board of Health may be disliked, yet its in terference be none the less successful in averting cholera. With a library or museum it is otherwise. Its whole use, its whole value, depends on popular appreciation. If nobody cares about it, it is of no benefit to any one. To force its foundation at a consi derable expense on an unwilling population is to retard, not advance, the educational move ment. Mr. EWART did not see this, the House of Commons did ; whence his defeat, involving the loss, unfortunate but inevitable, of some useful reforms embodied in a faulty project. The following analysis of the division on Mr. EWART'S motion may prove interesting, as an illustration of the great parliamentary following of the present Government :- 3 Ministers spoke, and the bill was rejected by 3-85 Ayes to 88 Noes. The majority was composed of 16 Ministers and Placemen, 19 Ministerialists, and 53 Derbyites. Thus, had the latter voted with Mr. EWART, the Govern ment of All the Talents would have mustered 33, and been beaten by a majority of 107. MR. STONOR'S CASE. A SELECT committee to inquire into the cir cumstances attending the appointment of Mr. STONOR was moved for on Thursday by Mr. MOORE, seconded by Mr. GLADSTONE, and, though not without much hesitation, sanctioned by the House. The CHANcELLoa of the EXCHE QUER, not being able to shake the facts of the case—viz., that Mr. STONOR had been guilty of bribery at Sligo ; that the Duke of NEWCASTLE immediately afterwards appointed him to a colonial judgeship, although the circumstance was frankly stated in the testimonials sent to the Duke, but never read by him—assumed a tone of morel and virtuous indignation, which usueu CIJSTOMS. He stated might be taken at The accounts now published represent them as 18,871,322 EXCISE. He stated might be taken at .., £15,170,000 The accounts represent them as StAMPS. According to Mr. Glidstobe oti the 6th March.. £6,266,000 According to account. , TWA. According to Mr. Gladstone I