The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-08 00:00:00

elusive proofs that a " tide of prosperity was flow-
ing in upon the nation, through the portals of a Con-
stitutional monarchy"—Lord Goderich, who, as
Prime Minister, fled in dismay from the post of
honour which he had just received the Royal com-
mission to defend—Lord Goderich, who, as a simple
Member of the House of Peers, ought to consider
himself happy in the obscurity from which he
ought never to have emerged—has just an-
nounced another discovery, and that is that
the national debt is not an " intolerable burden"
to the people, because, in fact, it is no debt: in
the proper sense of the word, but a contract to
pay an annuity. It would be a happy thing indeed
for the country, if this enormous load of debt—a
debt unparalleled in amount in the history of the
world, could be wiped out by the sponge of his
Lordship's financial rhetoric ! But we fear this
mode of gating rid of the principal of the debt
will be as ineffectual as the Sinking Fund itself !
that grand delusion, which is about as rational
as an attempt to put out the flames of Mount
Vesuvius by a pail of water ! We had al-
ways supposed until now that borrowed money
constituted a debt, whether the borrower was a
private individual or a nation—but it was reserved
for this admirable financier to discover that
money borrowed by a Government, and for which
interest is paid because it is not convenient to pay
off the principal, is not a debt, but a contract to pay
an annuity ! lie says " a common debt implies
that while it is competent for the debtor to relieve
himself from the debt, it is equally competent for
the creditor to demand interest as well as principal;
but with respect to the national debt, the public cre-
ditor cannot claim the principal—all he can demand
is art annuity in the shape of interest." Now we
will ask his Lordship, if this be the case, why is it
that, in tat der to keep faith with the creditor, it is
necessary, whenever the interest of any portion of
the debt is about to be reduced, to give him the
option of receiving back the principal ? Does this
' show that it is a debt merely of interest ar►d not
capital ? Let us suppose, in the present instance of
lowering the Four per Cents., that all the holders in
that Stock preferred having their capital returned to
submitting to receive the reduced interest, in what
situation would the Government be. What would
be the consequence, we ask, if they could not, as we
believe they could not, pay that portion of the capital
in gold ? Would the notable distinction taken by
Lord Goderich between a common and a public
debt relieve them from an act of bankruptcy ? We
do not in this say a word about the policy of the
measure, which we consider a fair and proper one so
long as no financial stratagem is had recourse to for
the purpose of carrying it into effect, though we are
aware that in many instances it must work indivi-
dual hardship. Let us suppose the time had come
when the Government could no longer squeeze
more taxes out of the country than would
be sufficient to pay half the present rate of
interest on the whole debt. They must then
also give the creditors the option of taking back
their capital, or receiving the diminished inte-
rest. Suppose the creditors chose the former alter.

native, the Government must then be prepared to
repay the whole capital—a sum which all the
kingdoms of Europe could not pay—or they must
declare the nation in a state of insolvency, and meet
or fly from the consequences. But let us suppose,
for a moment, that the public debt meant nothing
more than a contract to pay an annuity—annuitants
are proverbially said to be very long-lived; but
Lord Goderich, in drawing distinctions between a
public debt and common one, forgot to draw a dis
tinction also between a public annuity and a private
one. In the latter case the annuitant may be, in-
deed, very long-lived, but in the former case the
annuitant never dies—for he will not pretend to say
that the interest of the debt, or what he calls the
annuity, can never expire until the principal is paid
off—which, without claiming any gift of prophecy,
we may safely say will never happen. Well, here
is an annuity which, in point of time, is not termi-
nable, and, in point of extent, is equal to about
half the taxation of the country—being, at least,
28 millions I.—a burden which causes, along with
extravagant expenditure, a war-taxation in the 15th
year of peace. We say a war-taxation, for we con-
fidently affirm, and we defy Lord Goderich or any
body_ else to disprove it, that the quantity of taxes
reduced since the war has been more than laid on
by the change in the currency. If one-fourth of
the taxes have been reduced, money has been en-
hanced by Mr. Peel's Bill in more than that pro-
portion. We believe the enhancement has been
shown to be nearer one-half than to one-fourth—
certainly more than a third, so that 80,000,0001.
of taxes paid in the depreciated currency of the
war, would be less in value, and, therefore, less
burdensome than 54,000,0001. of taxes at present.
Lord Goderich, with great liberality of calculation,
says that, since the year 1816, the public debt
has been, or rather will be, as soon as the present
plan relative to the Four per Cents. is carried into
effect, reduced to the extent of 150 millions. Even
if this statement were correct, which it is not, the
reduction has been more than couriteibbalanced by

the addition of upwards of 200 millions in value,
which the alteration in the currency has made to
the debt. 1,000 millions borrowed in the depre-
ciated currency being nominally greater, but virtually
less, than 800 millions to be paid in the currency,
as enhanced by Mr. Peel's celebrated Act. An
enhanced currency has produced low prices. But
Lord Goderich says he is a friend to " low prices,
and does not grudge the stockholder the full benefit
of them." Indeed ! 1., his Lordship then a friend
to that state of things which beggars the farmer—
which breaks down the manufacturer—which starves
the artisan—which banishes the vigorous and sub-
stantial yeomanry to fore►gn climes, and gives up
those who remain behind a prey to pauperism and
destitution ? Low prices may do very well with
low taxation, low poor-rates, and low rents—but as
prices are the means out of which the farmer and
the manufacturer pay their taxes, their rates, and
their rents, together with the expenses of their
farms and factories, it follows that, if the prices are
so low that taxation of itself nearly swallows them
up, the farmer and the manufacturer cannot go on,
even although they reduce their wages miserably
low, without paying their rents and rates out of
their capital, a practice that soon converts embar-
rassment into irretrievable insolvency.—Morning
Herald.

Ministers have repeatedly pledged themselves to
effect every possible reduction in the national expen-
diture. How far they have kept their promise—
how far they are sincere —how far this promise is
not a delusion, may best be seen by the present
state of what is called the dead weight. The sum
paid annually in the shape of half pay, pensions,
superannuations, allowances, &c., amounts to up-
wards of five millions, and yet it is no matter
who dies, or who lives, or who compounds, the
sum never diminishes, but, on the contrary, rather
increases. This might be satisfactorily explained if
we were at war, keeping up enormous establish-
ments by sea and land, continually increasing the
numbers of the lame, the blind, the orphans, and
widows of officers. Our military and naval esta-
blishments have been reduced since the peace, the
former two-thirds, and the latter three-fourths; but,
notwithstanding this, we have as many half pay
::idows,
and orphans people; as many superannuated Generals and Admi-
rals;
tas many poor soldiers and sailors; as many
Captains, Commanders, and Pursers ; as many sur-
geons, ; and as many foreign
pensioners as we had during the war. Good God T.
do these
a
peopleti officerlle errdett ? When a man obtains a
pension, es on half pay, or when a
widow comes within the embraces of the Treasury,
does she receive a patent of perpetual life ? Do
these persons, with a portion of their pensions,
purchase a charm that renews their youth and pro-
longs their existence ? Not one of them seems to
drop off. Other people die, as we are told. Some
are killed in the streets, some are drowned, some are
burned, some are murdered, some are hanged. But,
if we can credit the Parliamentary papers, none of
these little casualties happen to the ladies and gen-

tlemen of the dead weight. Their life is an eternal
autumn—all are sick, or lame, or in the sear—
yet not a soul thinks of leaving us, even from cha-
rity, or from a benevolent desire to reduce the pres-
sure of the public burthens. This must be inferred
from the documents just published. In 1826 these
immortal beings cost the nation .5,376,6744, in
1827 they cost 5,455,9904, in 1828 they cost
5,362,6701., and in 1829 the cost actually showed
a trifling increase, namely, .5,363,64.01. How this
happens it would be presumptuous in us even to
conjecture. We only know the fact, and see that
we pay accordingly. We may on the whole be re-
ducing our expenditure, but this surely is an odd
way of doing it. How the number of our pen-
sioners and half-pay officers should be increasing, in
our sixteenth yt ar of peace, is a mystery which we
confess we cannot solve. There must be fraud or
corruption somewhere—there must be pensions paid
to people in Heaven or elsewhere, otherwise the
increase can only be explained by gross negligence,
or grosser extravagance, on the part of his Majesty's
Ministers. Some of the items in this return are of
a curious sort. To militia anjutantF, serjeant-majors,
and local militia adjutants we are paying 28,017/.
per annum. To foreign pensioners, most of whom
ought by the laws of nature to be in their graves,
we are still paying about 100,0001. a year. To one
class of these foreigners we paid in 1828 the sum
of 14,0994; but the same class received in 1829,
their numbers we suppose have increased, 18,7121.
How is this accounted for ? Here is an increase of
upwards of 4,000/. in the annuities of one class of
these foreign pensioners, without any visible deduc-
tion in the other class. Will Sir Francis Burdett,
or any other patriot, do the public the favour to
inquire into this—and explain ? Again the
" widow's charity" (what is it ?) cost us in 1826
just 138,780/., but in 1829 its cost was 148,372/.
These must be fruitful widows or do they beget
one another, and additional pensions at the same
time ? Ten thousand pounds is something—but
the widows have it all their own way. The follow-
ing are also increasing charges—mostly, we admit,
in favour of the fair sex :

1126. 1129.
Widows' Pensions (Military) £144,103 £151,226
Compassionate List (Ditto) 37,166 37,592
Allowance to Widows, &c.(Navy) 7,731 12,801
Pensions, Widows and Children (Ord.) ..... 21,614 22,910
Pensions, Widows (Civil) 3,974 4,666
Irish Widows, &c. (Ditto) 4,261 4,09

£219,549

233,63

This exhibits an increase in favour of widows and
their children, &c., since 1826, of about 14,0001.,
which with the 10,0001. previously stated gives an
increase highly flattering to the liberality of the
times and the prosperous state of the country. But
there is one charge that surprises us most of any,
namely, the enormous sum of 416,9981. per annum
paid to retired tax-gatherers. Who these persons
are, where they are, what they have done, or what
they are doing, Heaven and, perhaps, Horace Twiss
only know—but it is a shame !—Morning Journal.