The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

FUNDED DEBT BILL.

In the evening, on the order tor going into com-
mittee on this bill,
Mr. WILSON moved a resolution,—
That the extraordinary expenditure incurred during a
war beyond what is obtained from taxation should be
raised in the form of terminable loans, the redemption of
which should be provided for within a specified period
after tie return of peace; or, if raised by loans in the
shape of permanent snnnitiea, that a provision should be
made for the liquidation of the same by moderate
annual instalments, after the war expenditure shall have
ceased, from surplus revenue.
He did not desire, he said, to disturb the budget or
to embarrass the finances of the present year ; he
only wished to caution the bless against committing
itself rashly to the absolute repudiation of obliga-
tions contracted at the commeacement of the late
war. In viewing our finansial pr Jspects, he dwelt
upon what he termed the shri&ng aspect of out
national debt, and insisted thy, by gong on as at
present, it would be impossible not to ly to repeal
taxes but to fulfil our obligations, .be succession
du .y having disappointed expectations, while the
income tax, our sheet anchor, was to be abandoned,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promised
snrplus was melting away and becoming a deficiency.
He urged that the bill should be altered so as to
postpone, instead of repealing, the Sinking Fund
clauses, and that there should be an inquiry next
session into the state of our finances.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the resolution involved propositions of a very ques-
tionable character, and that, it there was to be sn
inquiry into our finances next session, it might have
been as well had Mr. Wilson postponed his motion
until then. It was unwise, in his opinion, for the
house to bind itself by such a resolution. The great
objection he had to an artificial sinking fund, created
by imposing taxes, was that it was a mere theoretical
arrangement that would not work. The real practical
question was, would the house support the law of
1829, which had fulfilled its purpose ? We could
not have the sinking fund of 1820 and the artificial
sinking fund adopted during the war. The former
could not be given tap but upon a demonstration that
it had failed in its object, whereas he maintained that
it had succeeded.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS denounced the bill as a breach
of faith with the public creditor, and a repudiation
of an important financial engagement.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied that the bill was an act of
repudiation or a violation of any engagement with
the public creditor. He was grateful, he said, to
Mr. Wilson for having called attention to the sub-
jects noticed in his speech, in which there was much
that was sound. But it was impossible for him to
vote for the resolution, because he was sceptical as
to Mr. Wilson's views regarding a sinking fund, and
because it was prospective and theoretical. Mr.
Wilson bad passed over a capital point, the state of
our expenditure. A true sinking fund was to be
found in public economy. He thought the Act of
1820 sufficient, and that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was right in doing away with the sinking
fund of 1855.

Sir G. LEWIS said be was not prepared to support
the resolution on the ground of any contract with
the public creditor. He admitted that the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer had put the question upon
a fair issue, but be disputed the correctness of his
theory respecting what he termed a natural sinking
fund, resting only upon a surplus, and what he
called an artificial sinking fund. He (Sir George)
could not but think that a compulsory sinking fund,
which was in constant application by the house for
the extinction of debt, was a sound and wise
iuciple.

639

Mr. CARDWELL thought it would not be wise to
adopt the resolution, which would be only a new
prospective engagement for the reduction of our debt.
Nothing was easier than to make such an engage-
ment ; the difficulty was to keep it.
Lord J. Russ Err. said Mr. Wilson had raised two
questions : one was of an abstract nature, relating
to the mode of reducing the debt ; the other referred
to the financial arrangement for the present year.
With regard to the first he differed from Mr. Wilson ;
he believed that the Act of 1829 was founded upon a
sound principle, and he did not regret that we were
going hack to it. AS to the financial proceedings
for the present year, it was indispensable that there
should be a clear surplus revenue, and lie did not
see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad pro-
vided for such surplus.
Mr. W. EwART could not vote for the resolution.

The motion was then negatived, and the bill went
through the committee.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN'S RESOMTION.

On the order for going into committee of supply,
Captain VIVIAN called attention to the resolution
relating to milital y organization adopted by the house
on the Ist of June, and to the unsatisfactory and
unprecedented position in which it was placed by the
reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a
question as to whether it was intended to take any
no:ice of that resolution—namely, that. considering
the importance of the subject, the small number of
members present at the decision, and that the ma•
jority was a bare one, it was not the intention of the
Government to take any stens in the matter. He
explained and enforced the object of his resolution.
which, he said, was not to do away with the office of
Commander-in• Chief as regarded the discipline of the
army, and transfer its functions to a civilian, but to
consolidate the authority of the War Department
under one responsible head.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the Government had only taken the parliamentary
course usually taken under such circumstances, and
which they were bound to take. The motion was
carried unexpectedly, and, he believed very much
to the surprise of the whole house, by a bare ma-
jority. It had never been acknowledged that when
the house bad arrived at a resolution, the decision
was irrevocable and binding. Resolutions of equal
importance to the present had been carried in that
house (and he specified instances) in 'which the
Minister had not thought it necessary to act upon
them, and it bad been the duty of the Government
in this case to consider and be guided by precedents.
He defended our system of military administration,
as more consistent with our • •

form of

government than the centralized systems of military
Staten.

Lord J. RUSSELL denied that the precedents cited
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were applicable
to the present case, with one exception, which ought
not, he said, to sanction a practice of placing reso-
lutions on the journals to be neglected, despised, and
set at nought. If the Government did not intend to
act upon the resolution, they should move the house
to rescind it.

General PEEL said he was responsible for the acts
of the Commander-in• Chief, and so far from thtro
being any difficulty in carrying on the duties of their
offices, they had only one duty and responsibility, to
promote the good of the army.