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

tentn 01 :----111,111",
_
4

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1849.

The House of Commons assembled last evening at
Four o'clock.

On the order of the day being read that the House re-
solve itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. COrDEN rose
to move the resolution of which he had given notice,
pledging the House to reduce the national expenditure
to the standard of 1835. In bringing forward this reso-
lution he by no means intended that what he was about
to propose should be done instanter, he was not so un-
reasonable, he only wished to pledge the House to the
desirableness and necessity of what he was about to sug-
gest. Comparisons had been made between the expen-
diture of France and that of this country, but in taking
the expenditure of this country at 44,422,0001. in 1835,
and at 54,185,0001. last year, it should be recollected that
in France there were a number of items charged
in the Budget which in England were local charges,
such as the charges for religion, education, roads, and
bridges; and for the Ateliers Nationaux, of which of late
they had heard so much, as if every union workhouse in
this country was not an Atelier National. Taking the
-.est of the collection of the revenue in this country
last year at 7,000,0001., the poor-rates at 8,000,000/.,
county-rates at 1,000,0001., the highway-rates at
1,000,0001, the expense of religious establishments
at 6,000,000/., and adding these several sums
o the 54,000,000/. which appeared in the Budget, it
would appear that our actual annual expenditure last
year was 77,000,0001, while that of France was only
72,000,000/e and that during a year of revolution. The
Hon. Gentleman then drew the attention of the House
to the great increase which had taken place in the
amount of these local charges. The poor-rates had
increased from 4,300,000/. in 1837 to 8,341,0001-
n 1848. The county -rates had increased from
671,0001. in 1835 to 1,266,0001. in 1847. He
was convinced that this tendency to progres-
' •iye increase in the local charges could only be stepped
by general legislation—it would never be stopped by
1 the local authorities themselves. The Honourable Gen-
leman then proceeded to justify his adoption of the
year 1835 as a standard by the example of those who,
n 1816, adopted 1792 as the standard for the reduction
,f the expenditure, and by the examples of Mr. PITT and
Lord CASTLEREAGH. He found that in 1835, the in-
erest of the debt was 28,514,0001., and in 1848 it was
28,563,0001., being a difference of 50,0001., but the esti-
mates for the army, navy, and ordnance were, in 1835,
11,697,000/., and in 1848, 17,645,000/., to which must be
added 1,100,000/. for the Kafir war, making a total of
18,745,000/. for our military establishments. The civil
expenditure, consolidated fund, and miscellaneous expen-
diture amounted, in 1835, to 4,251,000/., and in 1848 to
6,598,0001. This included the grant to Ireland. The
,„ only portion of the civil expenditure upon which any re-
duction could at present be effected was on the miscella-
neous eat imates, and ho therefore felt they must reduce
the enormous expenses of our military establishments.
In 1336 there had been 5,000 seamen added to our navy
on account of the apprehensions entertained of a war with
Russia; in 1838 there had been an addition of 8,000 men
to the army on account of the rebellion in Canada; and in
1839 an addition of 5,000 on account of the Chartist out-
break at Newport; in 1840 there was an addition of 5,000
sailors on account of the Chinese war, and the operations
on the coast of Syria; in 1842 another addition of 4,000
sailors on account of our disputes with America on the
boundary question; in 1845 there was an increase in the
army, navy, and ordnance estimates of 1,700,000/. on ac-
count of the Oregon dispute; and in 1846 they had a
further increase of 1,200,0001. in these estimates owing
to the hostile attitude assumed by France on the question
of the Spanish marriages. None of these causes which
had led to these successive augmentations in our navy,
our army, and ordnance, now remained, and yet those
estimates had never been reduced, although the causes
for their augmentation had long ceased to exist.
We stood at this moment in reference to our foreign
relations in an infinitely better position than we occu-
pied in 1835. We were then in an uneasy position with
regard to Russia and the Northern Powers, and were
marauding on the coast of Spain. With whom did we
now dread a collision? With Russia, with her serfs, who
would give her plenty to do?—with Germany, or with
France? If England took advantage of her insular po-
sition, and would not interfere with other powers,
never had she stood in less danger of war than at present.
It was said that the establishments were much too low
in 1835 ; he denied it. The Honourable Secretary
to the Admiralty said that the dockyards establishment
were almost in a state of ruin in 1835. That argument
had been used in 1816, when it was proposed to reduce
the establishments of 1796. It was said that Mr. Pitt
had expressed his regret for having reduced the estab-
lishments so low in 1796, until Lord Grenville:declared
in the House of Lords that Mr. Pitt had always
expressed his approval of the reduction of 1796.
lie would appeal on the subject, to the Right
Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham), whose ad-
ministrative powers he admired, and ask him if the
dockyards in 1835 were in a state of desti-
tution. The time was now come when it
was their duty seriously to consider whether
they could reduce this expenditure. He could
understand how Protectionists might consistently
vote for maintaining our colonial establish-
ments, but he could not understand how Free-
traders, or those who thought Free-trade must be
henceforth the rule of the country, could vote
for these establishments. We had gives the
colonies Free-trade when they liked, but they must
defend themselves. It was said we were to make the
colonies integral parts of the kingdom ; but how could
we do that unless they shared our taxes and our
debt? Henceforth this country could not expect to
derive aiy greater advantage from her colonies than
other nations, and therefore she was not bound
to keep up an establishment for their defence.
It might be proper to keep up such garrisons
as Gibraltar, or Malta, but it was unjust to the inhabi-
tants of
,this country to tax them for the maintenance of
colonies such as Australia and New Zealand,
which could support themselves, and in which the
condition of the labourers was infinitely superior to that
of the small farmer in this country.—(Hear.) They
must prepare to relieve themselves from the expenditure
they had incurred in those colonies. Why, in Now
Zealand they had to every ten colonists one soldier,
armed, fed, and clothed at the expense of the
people of this country, among a population, every
man of whom carried his rifle as a matter of course, and
knew how to use it. What did they want with troops
in Australia, when there was not a single aboriginal
inhabitant? He believed those troops wore intended
rather to keep down the colonists than to defend
them. This was a system requiring a total
change, and if that change were made there
would be no difficulty in making the reductions he pro-
posed. With regard to the troops at home, he
thought that there were an infinitely greater
number of troops than there was any necessity
for. At no time, either in Ireland or England,
had there been one hundred men in arms assembled
during the last, year against the Government. He be-
lieved, as far as England was concerned, that
had it not been for the Irish element there
would have been no turbulence in this country,
notwithstanding the heavy distress which weighed
upon the working classes in 1847, who, aware
that every morsel of food that could come
from abroad was permitted to come, were per,
fectly loyal and tranquil. He had heard with some in-
dignation that it was the troops and special constables
which had prevented a rising last year. He did not be •

. ,
47, ,
crS
i)1 E U "" •