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

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 187)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-
-9 478 893 .. 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.lillObmju is
...
iin, t 4.3l.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