The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-27 00:00:00

practicable speed, to an amount not exceeding- the sum
i he. the leaeteen 1' .re. ha:s . .
to be sufficient for the maintenance of the security,
honour, and dignity of the nation." The Hon. Gentle-
man said : I rise, Sir, to put the amendment
into your hands of which I have given notice, because I
have thought it my duty, and a matter of great interest
to the country, that before we went into a Committee of
Supply, and before we went into any details of the esti-
mates, we should take an opportunity of discussing
our financial condition and prospects, and the cause of
the increase of our expenditure for the last ten years.
I wish to explain that, in bringing this motion on in the
shape of an amendment to the motion for going into
Committee on Supply, I by no means wish Honourable
Members to infer that the plan that I propose hers, or
have proposed elsewhere, is one which I expect the
Government will bring forward in their esti-
mates to-night, or on Friday next. I shall be
very sorry if any Honourable Member made
such an inference ; but what I propose to do is,
this: it can be done instanter—all I wish is that this
House shall have the opportunity of expressing their
opinion as to the desirableness of carrying into effect
a great reduction in the expenditure of the country.
Now, Sir, there is another thing which I wish to notice
in connexion with the notice of motion which I have
given. That is the fact that whereas the public expen-
diture of this country was 44,000,0001. in 1845, it was
upwards of 54,000,000 in last year. In stating these sums
it must be recollected by the House that I am only dealing
with round numbers, and that in every instance I have
taken the amounts under those really stated in the balance
sheet of the country.—(l.lear, hear.) I think we are
under a great delusion in this House, and that the '
country is labouring under a great delusion, in supposing
that our expenditure only amounts to that which comes
into account in our finances. On this subject we can
take a much more severe view of the affairs of our neigh-
bours than we can of our own. The French finances
have been very much criticised and remarked upon in
this country.—(Hear, hear.) In France the accounts
are kept in a very different way, and I think in a very
superior way, to the accounts of this country. The
French accounts always show the gross sum put down
on the debit and credit side. For instance, all the ac-
counts of collections, all the drawbacks, everything
which is paid, everything which is put down in this coun-
try as charges for the collection of revenue—every
item of this kind is put down in the gross revenue
account in France. Besides, in France there aro a great
number of items charged, which in this country are put
down as local charges. For instance, there is a large
item for religion, a large item for roads and bridges,
and the whole of the expense of education. We have
heard a great deal of the ateliers nationaux, forgetting
that we have ateliers nationausr in every workhouse
union. Now, I will just lead to the House the amount
of expenditure in rough, for public objects of the same
kind which are inserted in the French budget. Our
Imperial expenditure, as appears by the budget, is
54,000,000/. I beg to premise that I shall give only round
sums, and in every case under the real amount. The
Imperial expenditure according to our budget is, as I
have said, 54,000,000/. The cost of collection and other
amounts not paid into the Exchequer is 7,000,000/. The
expenditure for the relief of the poor in the United King-
dom, according to the latest accounts, is 8,000,0001.;
county rates, 1,000,0001.; highways, 1,000,0004; reli-
gion, 6,000,000/.; showing a total of 77,000,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) Now we have heard it stated over and
over again in this country, that the French Govern-
tnent in a year of revolution, and in an exeeptionary
srate, has expended 72,000,0001. In this country we
have spent 77,000,000/. for the same objects. Nay,
more, I have left out our hospitals, universities, and
the expeieli,ure for education, to such an extent
that I believe if every item were included and a fair
comparison were made between oar expenditure and
that of France, we should have SO 000,0001. expended
against 72,000,0004 in France, for a population of
29,000,000 against a population of 36,000,000.—(Hear,
hear) Now, Sir, I think this fact ought to make us
enter upon the consideration of this question, wills the
intention, if possible, of diminishing this enormous
amount of expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) In bringing
forward these local charges, I must say that I think we
have lost sight a great deal too much of the increase of
local taxation in this country; for we should bear in
mind that in this coun ry it differs from any other,
and that we have four or five different Legis-
latures sitting throughout the country taxing
the people in different ways for a variety of objects.
Now, Sir, in the increase which has taken place in the
local expenditure of the country I see something that is
deserving of the solemn and serious attention of the
House.—(Hear, hear.) I will take, iu the first
place, the amount of money which has been
raised in the shape of rates for the maintenance of the
poor. In 1837 the amount raised for the support of
the poor in Great Britain, was 4,300,0004; last year
the amount raised for Great Britain and
Ireland amounted to 8,841,0001. I take the year
1837 as the first starting point, because in 1837, the
new poor-law was brought into operation, and we then
had a considerable reduction in the amount ex-
pended for the relief of the poor, and we
have flattered ourselves that reduction would
be permanent.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, what
has been the case ? Why, in England itself
alone the increase since that period has been
fifty per cent. in the amount expended for
the relief of the poor—(Hear, hear)—and in the county
rates I find similar results. For toe year ending the
25th March, 1835, the sum raised for county rates
amounted to 671,0001., but in March, 1847, it was
1.266,000/., so that we have been nearly doubling our
county rates since 1835.--(Cheers). And I must say I
think that local charges of this kind form a much surer
index o, the state of the country than the Imperial tax-
ation, because they are expended for the relief of
pauperism, the suppression of crime, and the con
struction of gaols and workhouses.—(Hear, hear.)
Your local expenditure, in fact, is a kind of
barometer, showing the social state of the whole
country—Hear, hear)—and I must say the pro-
gress of these rates during the last fourteen or fifteen
years has been of a most discouraging and alarming
character.—(Hear, hear.) There is another view of this
question which ought not to be overlooked. You cannot
diminish these local rates, you cannot keep them down,
you cannot prevent their increase by any means to which
you may resort in the localities themselves. It is my
firm belief that the progress of extravagance and mis-
government in the Imperial Legislature iai the cause of
the growth and the increase of pauperism and crime in
our several localities, and that to amend, reduce, or
check this growing evil, you must apply the remedy
in this House by general legislation. To reduce and check
the local taxation, to check this growing evil of increasing
expenditure, you must apply the remedy in this
House by general legislation.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Now, Sir, I think these facts will prepare us all for
entering into this subject with a desire, if possible, to
find a means of reducing the expenditure which leads
to these evils.—(liear, hear.) I now come to the point
upon which I have heard much cavilling; but I do not
wish it to form an obstacle in the way of any Hon.
Gentleman joining me who may be anxious for
reduction—(Hear, hear.) It has been objected to me
in this way. lam asked, why do you take 1835 as the
standard to judge by ? It is said that lam taking
an arbitrary standard, and I have been charged with
being dogmatical in the view I have taken of this ques-
tion, and that I have taken an imaginary standard.
No, I have not. What I have done in this case is pre-
cisely what we should all do in our private affairs.
When we find we have been doing wrong we look back
to the point where we started from when we began to
go wrong.—(Hear, hear.) And in doing that lam only
following the precedent applied to similar cases by my
Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose, as well as
many other Hon. Gentlemen, both Whigs and Tories.
I appeal to the House whether, after the French revolu-
tionary war, it was not the practice in this House of the
leading men of both parties to refer to the standard of
1792. _ _ _

- • ---
Mr. HUME—Both Whigs and Tories did so.
Mr. COBDEN—Whigs and Tories did so,
my Honourable Friend reminds me. In.
point of fact men of all shades of politics did so, and
1792 was the point from which they started before they
bad entered into these unhappy hostilities.—(Hear.)
It was the practice adopted by Mr. Pitt after the Ameri-
can war. A Financial Committee was appointed in 1817
by Lord Castlereagh, whereon Lord Castlereagh himself
sat, and that Committee distinctly referred to 1792 as the
standard to be aimed at,and the point of departure to which
they should endeavour to return.—(Hear, hear.) Well,
Sir, I will allude to an expression from an lion. Member
who sat on the Opposition side of the House in 1822,
when ho argued to show the propriety of the course we
are now pursuing. I will quote from a speech made by
the Marquis of Lansdowne, who moved a resolution
somewhat analogous to mine. He said it was necessary
for him to compare the present with former estimates,
derivestimatesa,nays
that was the only way in which they could
advantage from the experience and wisdom of
former times; that the practice was approved
of by the Right Hon. Gentleman whose authority the
House could scarcely dispute—he said he meant Mr.
Pitt, who in 1786 had a Committee appointed which took
for the ground of its inquiry the pt-ace estimates of 1763
—that was the only practical ground on which a
question of this nature could be determined.—(Hear.)
Now, Sir, I hope I may not be unjustified by the pre-
cedent. lam not one who attaches an undue weight to
precedents; but I think this case, to which I have re-
ferred, forms a good example for me in drawing the
attention of the House to the estimates of 1835—
and when I say 1835, I may as well state that
if I took 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, it would make little
difference in the argument. I find that the interest
upon the funded and unfunded debt in 1835 was
28,514,000/., and in 1848, 28,563,0001., so that there is
only about 50,0001. difference between those two periods.
I find that the army and navy in 1835 was 11,637,000/.
and in 1848, 17,645,0001., and the Kafir war, which I
cannot separate from the estimates, for I know not when
it may commence again, cost 1,100,0001., making alto-
gether 18,745,0001. for last year. The civil
expenditure and consolidated fund was in 1835,
4,251,000/, and in 1848, 6,518,000/ I wish to draw the
attention of every Hum. Member to this point—that the
23,500,000/ of this funded and unfunded debt cannot h.
proposed lOr any reduction. You have for the civil x-
nditure 6.598,000/., and more than half of this goes
to the consolidated fund. But I hope you will in time
b., able to make considereble reductions in that.
You comp then to the i•um of throe or four millions a
year for the miscellaneous set vice, upon which you ere
to exercise the pruning knife, unless Sou adopt the
plan Ire-present to yon,natnely, that of reducing your mili-
tary establishments to the extent of 8,000,000/ Many gen-
tlemen connected with the military establishments of the
country think I do this out .‘f personal feelings against
them, I can assure them I do it from no such motives, but
from necessity. If you sigh to make great reductions
you must apply it to the army, the navy, and ordnance.