The Express.
London, England, 1868-10-13 00:00:00

IS PLIILISHXD

EVERY EVENING.

LONDON, TUESDAY, OCT. 13.

MR. GLADSTONE ON TORY EXTB.11:1-

04-VCE.

TIIE Conservative managers are slow to learn
the prudence of not getting further into the mire.
Thep would have been bettor advised if they had
left Mr. GLADSTONE'S charges of extravagance
altogether unanswered. In that case they would
at least have been able to plead that such tran-
sparent fallacies were not worth refuting. Inability
to speak to any purpose is always best veiled under
an as.umption of silent contempt. Instead of this
they chose to put out sundry letter* and placards,
in which they succeeded, as they meant people
to think, in disproving Mr. Guntrross's state-
leents. Their manner of doing this was as ill-
judged as their determination to do it. If they
bad kept to generalities they might even yet have
escaped serious harm. So long as they contented
themselves with saying that they had spent
no more than was necessary, whereas the
Liberals had spent less than was necessary,
it would have been difficult to make their
misstatement obvious to the unfinancial public.
But in an evil hour for their own credit they have,
committed themselves to detailed assertions which
are capable of being reduced to figures, and the re-
sult of their rashness is to be seen in Mr. GLAD-
STONE'S speech at Warrington last night. Pro-
bably the class of politicians who secrete menda-
cious placards are long past any sense of discom-
fort at seeing them held up to the light. But
it would have been well to remember that the
i eople who read their productions are not as proof
against conviction as the authors of them are
against shame.

Let us put the Conservative statements in juxta-
position with Mr. GLADSTONE'S rejoinders and see
how they bear the contact. See, says the minis-
terial panegyrist, how lightly the Conservatives tax
the people : in 1859, when Lord DERBY was in
office, the income-tax was only sd. in the pound.
But the economy seems less remarkable after Mr.
GLADSTONE has explained that, owing to the man-
ner in which the tax is levied, the Conservative
Government received during the first half of that
year an income-tax of 7d. in the pound; and,
where economy is concerned, what a man really
gets is of more consequence than what he says
he gets. Then to balance this low in-
come-tax in 1859, we have a long list
of figures tending to show that the
Liberals never brought it down to that
level. A writer may say that so long as he gives
them accurately, he has a right to choose his
figures for himself, and on this theory the Con-
servative advocate was perhaps justified in
making 1864-1868 the last year in his table.
But at any rate there was an obvious reason
why he should stop there, since in the very next
year-1888-1866—the Liberal Government re-
duced the tax to 4d., and this simple fact makes
the whole previous array of figures worthless. It
is quite true that, if you take certain years, the in-
come tax levied by the Conservative Government
has been lower than that levied by the Liberal
Government. Only, to make it true, it is necessary
to leave out the year in which the income tax
levied by the Liberal Government was lower
than that levied by the Conservative Govern-
ment. The next point is the comparative
magnitude of the estimates for the years 1858-9,
1859-GO, 18W-1. In the first of these years, it is
said, the country WWI blessed with a Conservative
administration, and everything was done cheaply.
The following year the folly and ingratitude of
the public had turned their benefactors out of office,
and the wanton waste of a Liberal Cabinet made
increased expenditure inevitable. The third year
things had gone from bad to worse, and the esti-
mates were higher still. So far our Conservative
instructor ; now listen to Mr. GLADSTONE'S
version of the alone facts. It is true the
estimates were low in 1858-9, but the
reason is that, though proposed by the Con-
servative Government, they had been prepared
by their Liberal predecessors. The Opposition
leaders do not carry the particulars of national
expenditure in their heads. They are bound, if
they come into office in the spring, by tho calm-

lations made by the outgoing Cabinet. All that
Mr. DISRAELI and his colleagues had to do
with the estimates of 1838-9 was to oxoood
them in practice by more than 400.0001. In June,
1860. the Liberals returned to office and imme-
diately found a 'ler necessity laid upon them.
The Conservatives had prepared the estimates
indeed, as the financial year begins on the Ist of
April a great deal of the money had been
actually voted and spent. Consequently the
Liberals had simply to take the estimates
as they found them, and they found
them higher than their own of the year
previous by nearly 3,000,0001. Be that as it may
- a Conservative objector may perhaps say—you
cannot get out of the fact that the estimates in
1860-1 were higher still. I have no wish to get
out of it, Mr. aktrorroxs answers ; I am, on the
contrary, anxious to lot every one know how costly
the nation found that Chinese war into which a
Conservative Government had dragged it, and
which the Liberal Government bad no choice
left them but to pay for. Thus tho estimated of
1838-9 were low—the Liberals had prepared
them ; the estimates of 1839-60 were high—the
Conservatives had prepared them ; tho estimates
of 1860-61 were higher still—the Conservatives,
though they had not prepared thom, had committed
the country to an outlay which the Liberals had to
provide for.
This is not the only charge which Mr. GLAD-
STONE brings against the financial policy of the
Conservative party. " There are three ways,"
he says, " in which opinions are promoted and
•' forced forward in the House of Commons," and
" in every one of these ways the Conservatives
" have promoted extravagance." Mr. GLADSTONE
challenges the Government to reckon up all the
questions which have been put, all the motions
that have been made, all the divisions that have
been taken, from 1839 to 186,5, with a view of in-
creasing the public expenditure, and then to say
" by whom those questions were put, by whom
" those motions were made, and who voted in
" those divisions." In support of this challenge
he brings forward two particular instances. la
1839 it was proposed to provide for certain
fortifications by moans of a loan. The Go-
vernment resisted the motion, and it was re-
jected, but the minority who voted for it con-
tained six members of the present Govern-
ment and two members of the present Cabinet.
Again, in the following year, it was proposed to
lay out several millions in the formation of har-
bours of refuge. Lord PALmeastox refused to
entertain such a scheme, and a motion was made
to compel him to do so. In the majority which
carried that motion there voted nine members of
the present Government, and three members of the
present Cabinet, and it was only by Lord PAL-
MERSTON'S refusal to act upon the resolution
of the House of Commons that the country
was spared a large addition to the public
outlay. Perhaps some of our readers may wonder
why lavish expenditure should be so marked
a characteristic of Conservative policy. No
doubt the fact is partly the result of their parlia-
mentary position. A party which is always in a
minority is constantly exposed to the temptation
of catching stray votes. There is " a great
" deal of trouble and unpopularity to be
" escaped, and a great deal of political
" influence to be obtained in local towns by
" making things pleasant all round." This is
Mr. GLADSTONE'S experience, and we may
be quite sure that Mr. DisitArai has nut failed to
make the same discovery. Is it to be supposed
that if these fortifications had been built, and
these harbours of refuge constructed, tho Conser-
vatives would not have alleged their sup-
port of such schemes as a reason why the towns
which ben( fited by them should support Conserva-
tive candidates at the next election Gratitude
is so holy a sentiment that we are sure they would
never have neglected so goo I an opportueiV of
promoting it in electoral bosoms.