Star. — London, England, 1826-05-05 00:00:00

*easing the burdens of the people, the distress that new stalked over the land would continue its ravages. The increase of crime also he should establish by returns' on the 'table. (Hear, hear). He found that the average annual number of persons committed for trial in the years 1821 and 1822 was 21,000; in the year 1823 it -had increased to 22,000. At the list Old Bailey Ses sions, 450 - prisoners were tried for larceny and other petty crimes—most of which might fairly be ascribed to distress. Thus, pauperism had been produced by taxa tion, and crime had ft 'wed from pauperism. Taxation 'was the primary cause of pauperism, although he ad mitted that the Corn Laws, the Currency, and other 'grievances, most have added to it. Undoubtedly many 'reductions in the public expenditure might be made— the Sinking. Fund might be added to tte.public incom -but unless taxation were reduced, the relief from these Sources would be comparatively trifling. (Hear, hear). tie shr.uld, therefore, call upon the Right Hon. Gentle 'man (the Chancellor of the &chequer), and would day, if any thing should happen that could affect the credit of the country, he would be accountable for it. If war should t.ccur, the country was naturally strong, enough to meet it—but if we were—pow in the eleventh ye rr of peace, to keep up a war eatabli-hment,' I.e very much reared that when war should actually happen, we should not have the means of supporting it. However, let what mischief might occur, he, for one, could acquit his conscience of any participation in its production. He had repeatedly warned Ministers of the convquence of the system they had pursued. He trusted they would now turn round and candidly admit they had blinded the House and the country. If it were necessary . ao prove the distress which existed in tbe country, he had in his possession letters so descriptive of it, nut merely of individual but of general distress; and which he could ascribe to no other cause than the great and unnecessary establishments that were kept up, and to maintain which the people were so ground down by taxation. He should therefore implore of the House to concur in the resolution which he should have thel honour to propose. In taking that step, he hacrno °Nett but to warn• the country of the calamities with whiclr it was threatened. He was no gloomy anticipator; but he had felt it his duty to point out the state of the country whenever it had appeared to him that matters were not going on well. England possessed energy— England possessed capability—but he would still say, that one class should not be benefitted ai the expeuce of all the rest, and of the public safety. He was not afraid of the amount of our debt—but' he would say, " let us not increase it by keeping up unnecessary establish ments." He was, he trusted, the last man in the House, whir would refuse to keep up establishments necessary to the rank and security of the nation. But , those which he sought to reduce, were unnecessary for either purpose. The Hon Gentleman concluded by moving—" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to take into his con sideration the present alarming state, of the nation; and to direct an inquiry into the causes which have produced such wide-spread distress, and to direct measures for relief of the existing ember rassments."—(llear, bear!) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—When 1 state to the House that it was about eleven o'clock this forenoon that I first saw the series of those Resolu tions to which the Hon. Gentleman, so much in det iil, has called the attention of the House; and when I state, that those Resolutions are no less than forty-five in number, and that they occupy twenty-six printed pages; that they embrace all imaginable questions of finance In all their complicated details; that they relate to matters concerning the funded debt, the unfunded. debt, and the sipking fund; that they embrace also the general receipt bf the revenue, divided, as it is, into such numerous - branches; that they include every ima. ginable topic that can be introduced into such a ques tion, involving all the prciduce of the country ; I think the House will not be surprised when I say that it is absolutely beyond the physical powers of any man to enter fully into the discussion; and I shall therefore take the liberty of entreating pardon of the House for saying, that with respect to II far the greatest part of that Honourable Geotleman s statements, I cannot attempt any satisfactory or even intelligent esplaaation—( Hear). When I received this morning the long series of Resolu tions which the Honourable Gentleman has stated to night, I had no conception that the conclusion of that Honourable Member's address would be a motion like that which he has now proposed, namely—a motion to, Address the Crows, praying that certain measures may be adopted, the first of which is the reduction of taxa tion. When these Papers, containing the Honourable Member's Resolutions, were presented to me, I felt it to be my duty to read them with the view of seeing how far I could accede to them, and what portion of them I should be compelled to oppose—.(Hear, hear).—ln doing this, 1 was, of course, struck with the first Resolution; which I find, charges me with having been guilty of making false statements to the House.— [Mr. Huwa here said across the table, that he had not made such a charge.]--I cannot descend to such quib bling, nor will I, at the Hon. Gentleman's suggestion, affect to misunderstand the drift of-his Resolution. That it contains a charge of deliberate falsehood is obvious, from the words in which it is couched. What does the Resolution say ? " That the assertions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not consistent with the accounts before the House." sir, if they were not con sistent with the accounts before the House, they were delibet ate falsehoods, and with uttering such the Hen. Gentleman's Resolution charges me; but I never did say that the reduction which had taken place *as ef fected by the operation of the Sinking Fund ; on the contrary, I took especial care to state that it did not.= If the Hon. Gentleman charges me with having made unfounded statements, let him.read the documents on which he rests that charge. On the day referred to, I bad the honour, in the discharge of my duty, to propose certain Resolutions to the H ouse, for the purpose of simplifying the opetation of the Sinking Fund; and be fore doing so, I felt myself bound to spew to the House what was the actual state of the public debt, which I did in terms which-I shall presently read to the House, fi on) which the Hon. Gentleman and the House will' see that the words " Sinking Fund" de not occur in that statement ; and, consequently, it is impossible that be can have referred to it—(Hear, hear, hear). Now, I first protest against being bound by any thing which i is reported of me; and next, I deny that I used the words ascribed to me by the Honourable Gentleman. [Mr. Hulas said, he did not rely on the words stated in any publication to have been uttered by the Right Ho nourable Gentleman, he relied on the statements made by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself; statements of which he had a perfect recollection, for when the discussion was over; he had gone over to the bench on which the Right Hon. Gentleman sat, and had pointed out to that Hight Hon. Gentleman the errors of his statement] Still I dolly that I ever used the words " Sinking F Ind" With reference to the reduction. have compared what I did actually state on the taxa sions alluded to with that 'Which - the Hon. Gentleman ascribes to me, and I find that his chirge is unfounded. What I then stated *was—" It hid been said, that no reduction of our debt had taken place, and that none can be hoped tor. I trust it will be satisfactory to the House to find that such is not the fact—for in the year 1816, the whole debt funded and unfunded, was much higher than at present ; and that in the last seven years there has been a diminution of the debt, which, al though compared with the whole amount, was no great sum, yet, as a diminution, it was important, and never could have been effected but by a surplus"—(Nenr).— To sustain this statement, I may here be peimitted to repeat what.was the actual state of the public debt at the two former periods ot 1816 and 1823. On the sth January, in the former year, the funded debt was 816,311,4461.—the unfunded debt, including Exche quer Bills, and a charge for Ireland, was 48,511,0001. —On the sth of January, 1823, the funded debt was 796,530,000/—the unfunded debt 43,526,0001. If, therefore, the amounts be compared, it will be found, that in the funded debt, within seven years, a diminu tion had taken pl4ce to the amount of 19,701,7961. and of 4,984,0001. in'the'unfunded debt, making a total of 24,68.5,7961 . ; but it was utterly impossible for me to have ascribed to the operation of the Sinking Fund that reduction. I never used the words " Sinking Fund," because I know very well, that other things, in addition to the Sinking Fund, had operated to produce that re duction. If, therefore, I am to be condemned by the Hon. Gentleman'sßesolution,of making false statements to the House, it must be on good, sufficient, and authentic grounds. The Hon. Gentleman call, upon the House, in the first Resolution, to declare me guilty of having made false statements, as appears by the facts con tained in the following Resolutions." So that he calls upon the House to condemn by its first vote, and then to prove the charge contained in it by agreeing to those subsequent ! Such is the justice, and such the clemency of the Hon. Member for Montrose. But the Hon. Gentleman does not Stop here; he is so enamoured ot this singular mode of arriving at a conclusion, that he proceeds with it in his thirty•first Resolution, which runs thus: " That the repeated assertions made in this House, that there has been a diminution of taxation, to the extent of 57 millions, since the termination of the war, are elusive and fallacious, whether applied to the amount of money actually collected from the people, or the value of the currency, in which the taxes were collected, as will appear by the facts stated in the following Resolutions." So that here also, the Hon. Gentleman imputes that sty state menu were " delusive and fallacious " " u will appear by the facts stated In the following Resolutions." —(Loud laughter.)-- I am, therefore, to be condemned by false reasonine, and by false inferences, and on what grounds? On those which are not yet under consideration—(Cheers and laughter.}—lt is utterly impos sible that the House can agree to such a proposition ; it is equally impossible for me to follow the Hon. Gentleman through that dis cursive course in which he has danced backward and forward, and which led me to think that " chaos had come again." (Laughter.) Let us see what he says in the second resolution. " That it appears, by the annual Finance Accounts, the Public Debt of the United Kingdom, funded and unfunded, on the sth of January, 1817 (after the Union of the English and Irish Exche quers) was 846,785,0781. and that on the sth of January, 1856, the amount of funded and unfunded debt of the United Kingdom was 819,457,2981. 'hewing a decrease in the nominal amount of capital of 27,327,7801." The statement which this second resolution is intended to disprove is that which I made with reference to the amount of the public debt, on the sth of January, 1816 ; the year in which the public debt had reached its maximum, 816 millions. and that it was reduced to 796 , 530,0 001. The Hon. Gentleman asserts, that that statement is incorrect, and he proves it by re ferring to a period in which the whee of the accounts of the year 1816 were included. In order to convict me of mis-statement, he ought to have taken the same period with me ; now he took the year ending sth J an. 1817 ; my statement referred to that ending sth Jan. 1816, which was a true one—and if the Hon. Gentle man refers to that statement, he will find the proof of it. Even if the Honourable Gentleman were to look back to - his own Resolution of 1822, and which was mot carried, it would prove to him that he has no right to charge me with the mis-statement in question, for he will find it embodied in his own ; and, therefore, 1 will say, these charges must fall to the ground, hav ing, I trust, to the satisfaction of the House, proved that they are unfounded. (Cheers). I fear it would be wasting the time of the House, were I to follow the Honlurablo Gentleman, which I do not intend; for, after speaking for two hours (Four, and a laugh) on the Sinking Fund, he very coolly says, he does not mean to call the atten tion of the House to that subject, but would take some other opportunity. I call upon the House not to attend to the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, and shall therefore take leave of the Hon. Gentleman, until that fit period shall arrive to which he looks forward, and when, I trust, I shall fully justify my conduct. Here I maybe permitted to observe that it is not imperative on me to vindicate all my predecessors in office. The Hon. Gentleman in making war upon the Sinking Fund, attacked Mr. Pitt, than which nothing could be more unjust ; but even if well founded, how could it apply to me ? The first thing I did witb respect to the Sinking Fund, was to endeavour to put it on a better footing than it had been. I shall not therefore, 1 think, be treating the subject improperly, if I decline going into the defence of the principle of the Sinking Fund, and of Mr. Pitt, or the policy on which it was conducted during the war. I know that with respect to the Sink ing Fund there are a great variety of opinions with re ference to that period, but I have never operated with it at all. If, indeed, I had come down to this House in order to raise a loan, and in doing which I might rely upon the Sinking Fund, the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman might be justified, for be would not be blameable in taking up the subject, but certainly be was not warranted on the present occasion. • Having disposed of the Sinking Fund, the Hon. Gentleman next comes to that which he calls the 44 mystification" of the public Funds. Now, if anything could be conceived more ridiculous than another, for a Government to do with respect to its systeln of Finance, it surely would be to mystify it—nothing could be more absurd, for every man of common understanding must perceive that to simplify its system was the very best thing that any Government could do. But how could the Hon. Gentleman, or indeed any person, understand anything of the system of the public funds, or of the numerous and varied operations, by merely taking up and reading a single return respecting it ? As well might they pretend to a knowledge of a great mercantile concern and of all its trAnsactinns, by merely glancing neer a balance sheet. But while I deprecate this proceeding, I beg leave to say, if any mode in the improvement of our system be suggested to me, no matter by whom—any mode by which our financial uperations can be simplified; even, though it would expose r'e more to attack, I should not rct it, even were it to come from the Honourable Member him- self—(di laugh.) The Moo. Gentleman accuses nu of cousins down tq this House to increase and maintain taxation; now, on the contrary, I have frequently had occasion, year after year, to bless my stars, that it fell to my lot to have the pleasure of proposing a reduction of taxation, and since I have had the honour to hold my present office, the annual burdens of the people have been reduced by eight millions and a half, though the Hon. Gentleman says they have not been reduced ; for that though rases are nominally less, they are in reality the same as before, on account of the dif ference occasioned by the change in the currency. Sir, this is not the case: I have been able to effect a ieduc- tion of taxes on fbreign wines. Why did I reduce them? Because I found that the high duties diminished their consumption. I, therefore, brought them back to the standard of 1801 and 1802 ; or rather below it ; and the result was, that the consumption of wines wAs in creased beyond even the proportion which I had anti cipated. I had anticipated that a loss of about 250,0001. would be occasioned to the revenue, and I believe that, in consequence of the increased consump tion, that loss will not amount to so much. More wine, therefore, has been drank, and if I have been the means of giving to any man a bottle of wine, which he had never been able to obtain before, I have had the happi ness, so far, at least. to increase the com:orts of the people, and surely the merit of such a change, sniail though it may be, ought not to be denied me. But the Honourable Gentleman, Sir, conten is, because neatly as much revenue is raised by this diminished rate of duty, that no relief has been given to the pe ,ple.— To me, Sir, it appears that it is contrary to all principle to assert that the reduction of the rate of taxation gives no relief to the peoph-, because the amount of revenue raised was nearly as great as before. This principle of the Hon. Gentleman is one I fed no disposition to con• tend agains.. The Hon. Member talks of the consump- tion of spirits having Callen off. Sir, I know it did ; and what did I do? Why, finding the consumption of spirits did not increrse in proportion to the increase of the people—finding, on the contrary, that it was gra dually diminishing, I reduced the duty, and the con sumption increased. Whatever may be the full benefit of this reduction cannot yet be known, for in this coun try it only came into operation on January sth of the present year, and the Hon. Member has no tight to draw any conclusions concerning it from Returns that only come down to that period. Either I have misun derstood the Hon. Members argument, or he has mis understood this part of the subject; and he is quite mistaken in saying that it has been overlooked.— Sir, this diminution of consumption has not been over looked, and I endeavoured to find a remedy for it in a I diminished rate of taxation. The Hon. Gentleman finds fault with me, Sir, for having stated, during three sue eessive years—with some feelings of exultation, I admit —that the consumption of the people was increasing, and that the revenue had increased; but he finds fault,' because he thinks I had no other view in making these. statements but to express my satisfaction that a greater amount of revenue was extracted from the pockets of the public. But why did I lay any stress on this ? Because, Sir, I felt a full reliance on the system we were pursuing, and I was happy to be able to shew that under it the condition of tit* people was improving.' The Hon. Gentleman says that it is not, and hefounds his assertion on drawing a comparison between the )eriod of 1792 and the present period. 1, Sir, did not advert to the increase of consumption, and the increase of revenue only—l called on the House to recollect the greatly decreased distress. I adverted to a proof more convincing, in my opinion, than any statement of the amount consumed—the actual condition of the country —the absence, during these three or four years, of all confusion, disturbance, and distress. I called, Sir, on the Gentlemen connected with the cl , ffeient parts of the country, to bear witness to its improved condition.— Where there had been tumult, violence, and bloodshed, I said there were only peaceful industry and prosperous exertions ;. and I gave these as plain unvarnished proofs of the condition of the country being improved. The Hon. Gent. says there was nothing but flummery and flourish in my statements in 1824 ; thatthe consumption of the people was greater ; he says the same thing of my statement last year, but those statements were true; and what more striking proof could I give of the prosperity of the people having increased—of their comfort having increased, than that the consumption of all those articles had increased, on which their prosperity, their comforts, and their enjoyments depend ? I know no better proof of this and I can give no other. The Hon. Gentleman finds fault with the comparison I made this Session, of the consumption of the year 1825, and he says this was done with a purpose. Sir, I admit It was done with a purpose; but with the purpose of supporting an argu , went, and the argument was this—The Government and the Parliament had, since the peace, reduced taxation very considerably; and the statement was made to shew, by comparing the consumption of 1816 with the consumption of 1825, that under the reduced system of taxation which was gradually effecting, the revenue of the State and the consumption and comfort of the people had all been increased. This, ,air, was the purpse of that statement, and on it was founded what I thought legitimate argument. The Hon. Member taunts me with including wool, and asks, are' we to take this, which was a mere speculation, as • the test of an increased comumption ? Sir, I took care not to include wool as one of the proofs. But it happened to stand one of the last articles on my list ; and I said Gentlemen would excla;m, 44 Do you mean to say that the increase is to be taken to have been at that extrava gant rate, as upon wool, for instance, 443'per cent.?" I answered, certainly not, but I produce the document to shew, notwithstanding the high rate of taxation, that there is that progressive power of consumption in this country which is indispensable to her greatness, and which forms the most convincing proof of that inhe rent vigour which enables her to meet and overcome difficulties the most formidable. It is this incontro vertible evidence which makes me rely on her strength for the future. Was there anything extravagant in this, anything delusive, or intended only for shew ? I say,' Sir, there was not, and the statement by no means dew serves the imputations the Hon. Member has attempted to can on it. The Hon. Member has said much about our expenditure; and we are accused of unnecessarily augmenting particular duties, in order to be able to • distribute offices. The Hon. Gentleman has attributed to me all the necessities of the country ; but for these I am not, nor cannot be responsible; but we should sacrifice 'the interests of the country, if we did not keep up the establishments necessary for their preservation ; and, no doubt, it would be the greatest dereliction of ducyif these establishments were unnecessary to continue them.— Now, after all, this Resolution refers to 1792, but how can it so refer ? The qdestion is one of degree; and r n this subject, the more especially, as it must be con- sidered with respect to the present state of foreign countries, and of those parts of our dominions con tiguous to foreign powers ; and if that part of the ques tion be analysed, no Military or Naval power has been proposed which is not necessary for the safety. of our Colonies. Both on this, and the last, and t prea• ceding years, this question has been discussed • d , Isit eitte, the Government has been supported in it, by per; •- sons who do not usually agree in their opinions.-- 1 Why, then, should our time be taken up with this im- , measurable trumpery? To the Hon. Gentleman do I, therefore, oppose those who are usually opposed to me— although he usually ascribes to those who oppose his measures motives of a private nature, and can never talk of any one's conduct but with some miserable in stance of that description of treatment which I shall pass over with indifference—(Hear, hear). I do not intend-to trouble the House for three hours and a half, but do say, that it is impossible fur any one to call on the House, by forty-seven Resolutions, to move an address. It is certain that, with any re gard to truth, the Haus_ cannot agree to the first resolution ; and if that be the case, there can be - nothing either of sense or justice in supporting tke ethers; and, therefore, it irtlet the duty either of Parliame.it or of the Government to assent to them. The Hon. Gentleman is not entitled either to charge the Government with want of humanity, because they do not enter into his views with respect to the scale upon which the expenditure of . the country should he regulated. Although, therefore, I have the • strongest objection to the address proposed, it cannot be said I do so from indifference, or insensibility to the distress which Mete some portions of the community. Mr. BROUGHAM said, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer seemed to misunderstand the proceedings as well as the motives of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume); and the House would agree with him when they re ceived an explanation. The Chancellor of the Exche quer complained that, until eleven o'clock, to-day, he was ignorant of the nature of the motion ; but if that were a cause of complaint, he (Mr. Brougham) had a gteater.one, as, until half-past seven that evening, he ' knew nothing of it, and came to the House supposing that the Corn Laws, or the Court of Chancery, were the subjects of debate. He would beg to know, and the House in candour to recollect,in opposition to this charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, on any former occasion, on a motion on the state of the nation, there were an instance of eight hours possession in hand of the printed details ; and whether or not they would not have heard, at the close of a speech, those calcula tions, those minute and complicated details, which his Honourable Friend had given in writing? Was this un fair, was it taking an advantage, or could it be called a hardship? Oa common occasions they were never heard before the motion, but here the details were can didly printed in order that they might be discussed and answered—And then, with respect to the form of the proposed resolution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued as if he conceived that his Hon. Friend charged him with wilful mis-statement of the accounts. But he did not ; he only shewed that, on the same statement of an account, two men might reasonably differ in their conclusions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer charged his Hon. Friend with taking the accounts on other authority—Chere Mr. Brougham and Mr. Hume had, some conversation]—but he understood him to say that be did not take those accounts from any printed speech, but from a note which he had made at the time, and which he went across the table to explain with the Right Hon. Gentleman. There was another measure (the Sinking Fund) and the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his Hon. Friend charged him with the faults of the proposer of that measure, and of every suc ceeding Minister who upheld it. But it was no such thing, and he fully agreed with his Hon. Friend, that that fund was an impolitic one, by its tendency to pro. duce extravagance in time of war. It was an arithme tical blunder, and his Hon. Friend proved, that to keep up that fund, was, in practice, and in substance, and in effect, only to be done by loan, that it raised the money market, and compelled the country to raise money at a loss, by the bungling, clumsz manner in which it was carried on. In this, he (Mr. Brougham) not only agreed with his Hon. Friend, but also with the Chancellor. of the Exchequer himself, and he rejoiced to find, that Men who had before approved that measure, now, in plain and distinct terms, said, that the Sinking Fund was, at a considerable discount. •There WAS also a new mode of keeping accounts, and he did not see why the public balance sheet should not be' kept with as much distinctness and clearness as any private Man's accounts. He could not discover why there should be a greater number of figures than were necessary, nor why it was pot as easy to keep a balance sheet regular, with respect to millions as to thousands. If not done from arguntento a priori, he would expect it from other causes. There was no occasion of mystification, but everything should be done plainly and intelligibly. Here he had again reason to praise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be cause he had said, that if his Honourable Friend, or the Honourable. Member for Abing&a, gave information on the subject, it should not be thrown away.—Upon the subject of taxation he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) agreed with him in print, but he seemed to c:•ntradict him in his speech. Also, with respect to the 31st Resolution, it, was true that, though there was a nominal diminu tion of taxation, yet, when there was sixty-nine millions of taxes, the currency was of greater value. Gold was then 51. the ounce, while the Mint price was Si. I7s. 10Id. Thus there was a difference of 25 per cent. and this would make the diminution, instead of being twenty seven millions, taking the present income at fifty-two millions, was only one million aad a half, because the sixty-nine millions was in a 'depreciated currency ) and the others were at par.. If then that were admitted, as he thought it should, where still was the difference? If seven or eight millions of taxes were taken off, and yet if the revenue increased, it could not be said that there was no diminution, because if the people chose to pay, and if, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer sa;cl, a man had his two bottles of wine instead of one, it was all for the benefit of trade and of commerce, and to the advantage of the country. The Honourable Gentleman then observed on the diminution of consumption in proportion to the increased number. of the people, and taking it for granted that, since 1785, the increase of the population was forty per cent. said, that it was a melancholy consideration that the consumption of the latter ten or twelve years, as compared withl7B4, 1785, and 1786, instead of increasing in proportion to the population, was not perceptible. He took malt as an article in most common use, aid the avt rage consump tion of 1785 was twenty•five millions and three quar ters, while that of 1825 was but twenty-five millions and one quarter, Thus, instead of an increase of .40 per cent. there was one folirth. If that was correct, it was an unfavourable view of the state of the country. As Lo spirits, his Hon. Ft lend had not gone so far as he m i g h t , a s the average of the first five years, from 1810, WAS this teen millions; and of the last, only twelve. The fl