The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-23 00:00:00

native. One of the leading journals announced to the
country that there was a proposition to increase the na-
tional debt by the amount of 50,000,0)0/. When we came
down to the house to consider these resolutions, by the
courtesy of the hon. member the Secretary to the Treasury,
a second edition of the resolutions was put into ray hands
informing me, at the same time, that there wore a few
trifling alterations proposed to be made. Upon casting
my eyes over the amended resolutions, I saw that.the very
subject which had agitated the city of London, and had
created such consternation had disappeared, and the
second alternative was to be limited in its operation.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not say the limit' was not wise, dis-
creet, and proper, but surely, irrespective of the fact that
it it is always as well to have time to consider resolutions
of this character, the very fact that before we had had
any opportunities for consulting them so great an altera-
tion should have taken place—surely was some reason why
have been_ given not merely for the house, but for the Go-
vernment to consider the resolutions to be submitted.
(Hear, hear.) In addition to the first proposal of limiting
the Two-and-a-Half per Cent. Stock to 30,000,0001., an-
other great chews:, has been introduced by which Three-
an -a-Half per 'Cent. Stock has been limited also to
30,000,0001. I understand that there has been a third pro-
position made to-night, viz., that in order to meet the
great objection felt against the consequences of the second
alternative, viz., the increase of the national debt, an amount
of three or four millions should be funded for the purpose
of forming a " sinking fund." On such a proposition two
considerations very naturally occur. In the first place, is
it wise that there should be a " sinking fund " established
upon such a principle ? Arc we, in 1853, to be borrowing
with ono hand in order to pay with the other ? Is it, in
an age of financial reform, that you are to establish asink-
iug fund based upon that vicious principle which you have,
so denounced, and so energetically rejected? (Hear.) Ano-
ther consideration was, what would be the effect of the es-
tablishment of this sinking fund upon the financial state-
ment with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer favoured
us the other night ? But there was a further alteration.
Not only had the limit of the 21 per Cents, had been placed,
at 30,000,0001., and a similar limit placed upon the 31 per,
Cents., and a sinking fund had been proposed, but a fourth
proposition had been made to-night, by which the Two-
and-a-Half Stock was to be limited to 25,000,0001. and not
to 30,000,0001. as at first proposed. (Hear, hear.) Ido
not say that these changes are not wise, discreet, and pro-
per, but I think they show clearly that the scheme has not
been sufficiently matured, and that there has not been
given to the subject that consideration, that large devotion
of time and thought which becomes a question of this na-
ture—(hear, hear)—and that when a minister of finance
and his colleagues deal with so vast a question as the pub-
lic debt, and deal with it unnecessarily, it is just as well
that the propositi- _ which they putbefore the house should
show some bettez evidence of consideration and of care.
(Hear, hear.) All I want to do is this—l do not want to
make unnecessarily a party ilivision on the subject; but I
ask the righ hon. gentleman not to precipitate this ques-
tion, and to give it further consideration, and not to let us
be forced to vote on the amendment of my hon. and learned
friend. What is that amendment ? It is one which says
virtually that in all these changes and conversions of the
public funds, and reduction of the public interest, it is not
wise or expedient, or politic, to increase the capital account
of the public debt in this country. If there is a division I
must vote for the amendment for the sake of the principle
which it enunciates, and which I think is a sound and sa-
lutary one. But I say at the same time I hope to be pre-
vented from that division, by the right hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer telling us—and it is no great condescen-
sion—that he will give to this subject more time and more
thought than it has yet apparently received. (Hear.)
Mr. GOITLBURN said the right hon. member for Buck-
inghamshire had made some remarks upon what he consi-
dered the very limited results of the measure proposed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had said that in the
first instance the saving under the contemplated arrann-
ment would be only 600,0001. in annual interest. The right
hon. gentleman seemed, however, to have forgotten that
what they were principally endeavouring to attain was a
reduction of the capital of the national debt. The right
hon. gentleman was evidently anxious to depreciate the
value of the measure, and he endeavuured to do so by con-
trasting it with antecedent measures of a similar nature
which had been adopted. He (Mr. Disraeli) had alluded to
the reduction of 300,0001. during the administration of Sir
11. Walpole, when the whole interest of the debt was
1,200,0001., but he did not tell the house that at that time
the debt was paying an interest of 7 per cent. When they
reduced the interest from 7 to 5 per cent. the Government
had of course the means of making a much larger pislipor-
tionate saving than when it was afterwards reduced from 5
to 4 and from 4to 31. The right hon. gentleman had re-
ferred to the reduction effected by Lord Bexley in 1822, and
stated that Lord Bexley did not increase the public debt by
the measure which he proposed. But in 1824 Lord Bexley
gave 1381. Three per Cents, for every 1001. Five per Cents.
thus increasing the public debt by a considerable amount.
He (Mr. Goulburn) thought, then, that the proposal of his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
fairly bear comparison with Lord Bexley's measure. [Mr.
Disraeli said he had mentioned that the amount of the bonus
given by Lord Bexley was something under 5,000,000/.1
Yes, the right hon. gentleman had mentioned that in speak-
ing of 1822, but had omitted what took place in 1824. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) then came down to the
period when he (Mr. Goulburn) effected a large reduction of
the debt under circumstances peculiarly favourable to such an
operation, and he stated that, although a guarantee was then
given against the further reduction of theinterestuntil a cer-
tain period had elapsed, it was a short guarantee compared
with that now proposed bythe Chancellor of the Exchequer.
With regard to guarantees, as they proceeded in the reduc-
tion of the interest of the debt, and required a considerable
sacrifice from those who received a smaller interest, they
must necessarily give such persons some advantage in order
to induce them to accept the terms which were offered. He
believed that if, in 1844, he had not given the protection
for 30 years from the period at which the bill passed to
the holders of 3 per cents., the measure he then introduced
would probably have been a failure. There were, how-
ever, particular reasons in the present instance why the
guarantee to 1894 should not excite no apprehension.
Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer should succeed—
which he did not suppose was likely—in inducing the
holders of the whole 500,000,0001. of stock to come into
his arrangement. That stock was irredeemable till 18.94,
and there would therefore at that time be 500,000,0001. of
stock upon which they might operate. But would this in-
terfere with the reduction of the national burdens ? Why,
they had 250,000,0001. locked up till 1874, but it would
then come under their hands, and upon that amount they
might reduce the interest with advantage. (Hear, hear.)
He must say he thought it was a great advantage to have
the opportunities for the reduction of the debt so divided.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had said that
there was a great difference between the present period
and that at which the last reductions of debt were effected
In the two cases when he (Mr. Goulburn) reduced the pub-
lic debt he had to deal with a debt which, with the excep-
tion of a very small portion, was entirely open to reduc-
tion without any notice whatever ; and he had nothing to
do but to signify to the public the terms which the Go-
vernment were prepared to offer, and to ask those who
dissented to express their dissent. There was, therefore,
no interval between the time at which the prodosition was
made and that which it could be accepted. The difference
between the two periods was this, that in 1844 the Govern-
ment had the power to effect the reduction, whereas, at
the present moment, the Government had no power at all,
except that of holding out to the public what the
public would choose to accept. (Hear, hear.) His
right hon. friend (lid not bring forward his measure as one
that was to effect large and enormous reductions of the
national debt in a moment ; but what he said was, that in
the present monetary transactions of the world, there was
a prospect of holding out terms to those who had a redeem-
able debt to transfer that debt, so that it might become
irredeemable on certain conditions, and that ho was pre-
pared to make such a proposition. In making that pro-
posal he thought his right honourable friend was justified
in stating a variety of modes to the house. (Hear, bear.)
It was true, as had been observed, that there were no more
wary animals than the gentlemen of the Stock-Exchange ;
but, wary, as they were, those gentlemen were
composed of different classes, and the stock that
suited one individual might not suit another. There were
advantages that belonged to the different classes of stock
that made them acceptable to different classes of indivi-
duals. (Hear, hear.) There were objections, no doubt.,
sincerely entertained to any increase of the debt, but his
right hon.- friend had suggested that if that was inexpe-
dient it might easily be accompanied by an arrangement
which would give them a yearly increase of the surplus to
be applied towards the reduction of the national debt.
(Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was premature in his
proposition, and that he should have waited till a future
and more favourable period. He wished the right hon.
gentleman had stated the period at which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was likely to be able to give the requisite
notice ; but, if that period could not be fixed, then the
sooner they gave holders the option of taking 'that course
by which a reduction might be voluntarily effected the
better for the interests of the public. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon gentleman also objected to the changes which had
been made in the measure during its progress. He was
quite aware that it was easy. when alterations were made
in committee, to inculpate those by whom the measure was
introduced ; but what, he asked, was the utility of going
into committee at all, and wasting their time in diseus-
sions of this kind, if it was not to receive the suggestions
of those who had given their attention to the subject, and
to make such improvements as might be adopted without
infringing upon the principle of a measure? (Hear, hear.)
Then the right hon. gentleman adverted to the smallness of
the surplus announced in the budget. That was an obser-
vation which he did not expect from the right hon. gen-
tleman. (Hear, hear.) Small, indeed, the surplus was, but
his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
at least this advantage, in staing that it was derived
wholly from legitimate sources. (Hear, hear.) In conclu-
sion, he had to express his belief that the scheme of his
right hon. friend would lay the foundation of future reduc-
tions in the annual expenditure of the country, and that it
was a scheme alike honourable to him and advantageous to
the country. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, the right hon. gentleman who
had just spoken had given his opinion that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was right in submitting several alterna-
tives in the propOsition he had laid before the house ; but
such was not the course taken by the right hon. gentleman
himself n i
re
t t8464n,
gwthheen3hi e
per p r o
ep ons
te da.
aeTxmhpeor
sts
housesed importantby must,
the thralter-
ationthere-
fore, fore, choose between the opinion
t
hon. gentleman in 1844, and the opinion which he expressed
now. (Hear, hear.) For himself he was disposed to think
that the view taken by him in 1844 was the right one,and
that it was the view which ought to be followed by, the
house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY briefly replied.
The committee then divided on the question, " that the
words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill," when
there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

231
... 175

59
Majority for the Government ...
The clause was then verbally amended and agreed to.
Clauses 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 wore agreed to.
Clause 13 and the following clauses, up to the 31st, were
agreed to.
On clause 32, for the issue of Exchequer bonds,
Captain LAFFAN suggested that it might
.be well to
frame the clause so that they should not be issued and
sold below par.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the clause might well be left as it was. There were some
things that it wasafelter not even to talk of. (A laugh.)
Mr. GLYN observed that many of these bonds might
got into the hands of the trustees who might have an ob-
jection to the risk of instruments payable to bearer ; it
might be advisable to allow them to bo written up into
stock.
Sir F. KELLY thought a power to the holder to convert
them into stock would aid in the great object of establishing
a 21: 10s. per cent. stock.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER fully in-
tended-that such a power of VQnvertiog_them into A regis-
tered security should be given, and belierxl that the bill,