The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-11 00:00:00

MA RC Ft ll, lB4B.

lous and prosperous possessions in the West Indies, in-
r• s, ee•
toe), t»“ my-three pi:tette to ttie rtriere trifle ! It tiley
wi re thus to go in sear ell of posses:.ii,na and make 'go-
vernors and deputy-governors, and send out ships to
protect them, in obedience to the mania of the public out
of doors with reference to extending our territories, how
could they call upon the Government to reduce the ex-
penditure ? The other day he saw in a Singapore news-
paper a memorial to be seat to the mother country to
fit out additional ships to protect them from pirates. The
same sort of thing came from Penang, and was continu-
ally coining from elsewhere,—(Hear, heir.) If the com-
mercial world must continue thus to extend their mar-
kets, it was ridiculous to talk of cutting down the ex-
penditure and leaving them delenceless.—(lleer, hear.)
He would, therefore, say to those Hon. Gentlemen who
talked of economy, "let U 3 begin with the system which'
occasions the profusion—let us go to the foun-
dation of the expenditure."—(Oh, eh.) They could
not then look to a reduction of expenditure this year.
Hon. Gentlemen might look, year after year, with un-
easiness on the increasing amount of our annual expen-
diture, and he confessed that he shared that uneasiness;
but there were a variety of circumstances to account for
it, and it was more consistent with the dignity of the
House to look to the whole system, rather than to
complain of the Government having paid that which
public opinion and the recorded opinions of that House
had forced upon them. As he could not delude his mind
with the ides of a reduction to meet such a vast defi-
ciency; and that to commence the financial year without
some prospect of fully meeting the probable expenditure
was a course of infinite peril, and one which he could
neither sanction by his vote, nor by his speech, parti-
cularly with such elements around them; the question
again recurred, " What were they to do?" The only
thing left was, that which the Government proposed
in the first instance. It might be unpopular; but he
believed that the country was wrong, that the House
was wrong, and that the Government were right.—
(Ministerial cheers.) He believed, also, that in less than
two years the House and the country would have cause
to regret having interposed between the proposition of
the Government and its being carried. He repudiated
any connexion or communication with the Government;
but, looking et the question dispassionately in all its
bearings, he did not see any other mode by which the
present emergency could be met. Suppose the proposal
of the Noble Lord opposite again to revert to the Cus-
tems were considered, did the Noble Lord believe that,
in the present depressed state of the country, the impo-
sition of duties which would increase that depression,
would not be resisted by the commercial part of the
community? This was not a question of protection, but
of revenue.—(Hear, hear.) Suppose they were to in.
crease the sugar duties ; well, thet would in effect fall
upon oar own colonial produce, and would that be
borne in the present state of the West Indies ? Such
a proposition was not possible in the present state of
public mind. Would they, thin, impose Excise duties?
There was no class of duties more vexatious, unjust,
or inquisitorial ; and it was clearly, therefore,
impossible to re .impose either Customs or Excise
duties. There was, then, nothing to fall back upon hut
direct taxation. Every tax, in some shape or another,
was an income-tax. It was contrary to every sound
principle to tax capital. The annual expenses of the
country, as of individuals, must be derived from income
and not from capital. The one great objection he had
to the probate duty—and that was a good reason why it
should not be extended to real property—was, that it
was a tax upon capital. All taxes, then, being derived
from income, the question was resolved into one of mode
—whether thei revenue should be raised from income,
and paid as a tax, on articles of consumption, or in a
direct sum paid at stated p Hods to the tax-gatherer.
The income-tax, in his opinion, was open to less objec•
tion than any other kind of tax. In the first place, there
was the whole machinery of collection in full opera-
tion ; next, the public mind was in some degree re
comciled to direct taxation.—(Loud cries of " Oh,
oh," from all sides of the House.) He could only
say that, if the people were dissatisfied with it, Ho-
nourable Members themselves were greatly to blame.
Some of his friends around him had unwittingly aided
in the creation of a feeling against a principle they had
all their lives advocated.—(Hear, hear.) The income
tax was said to be odious, and inquisitorial, and he (Mr.
Wilson) was very much of that opinion himself in 1842,
the tax having a sort of historical character of that na-
ture. But he would put it to the House whether they had
not been disappointed as to the extent to which it had
answered this description?—(Loud cries of "No, Tin.")
Well, he had heard very few objections to the mode in
which it was collected. He was quite sure, taking the
three taxes together, the excise duty, the property, and
the income-tax, the latter was the least vexatious and
odious. The other night an Hon. Member had referred
to the objection raised against this tax in 1842 by Lord
John Russell, but a more futile objection than that was
never heard. The Noble Lord said that it would with-
draw a portion of the funds designed to employ labour;
but was there any tax whatever which did not do that ?
That objection affected the amount not the character of the
tax.—(Hear, hear.) What tax was there that withdrew
so little from that fund as the income-tax? If they took
the Customs duties, that not only withdrew a portion of
the amount, but it interfered with trade, commerce, and
manufactures, and impeded the progress of industry in-
finitely more than payments made by a person from his
income.—(Hear, hear.) Another objection was, that it
was a war tax, but that was a mete matter of opinion.
A war tax meant that a larger revenue was required in
war than in peace, and what difference did it make to
the country how the extra millions were raised, it they
must be raised, provided they were levied in the least
onerous way possible. Another objection, and one of
the most important, was, its ineqaality.—(Loud cheers.)
Nothing, however, that he had yet heard had persuaded
him that an attempt might not be made successfully to
reduce that inequality. —(Cheers.) He listened the
other night with great interest to the speech of the
Honourable Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman).
and was sorry that a mere accident prevented his
being in the House to vote for the Honourable
Member's motion. But what surprised him was,
the argument of the Right Honourable Gentleman
the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburre)
The Right Hon. Gentleman started by saying that all
taxes were unequal, and he laid down a general proposi-
tion that no tax could be made equal. He (Mr. Wilson)
was ready to admit that, mathematically speaking, that
could not be done, but, in the words of Mr. Pitt, " there
was no reason that we should not do what we can to
make it as equal as possible."—(Loud cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman as an examp!o quoted the land
tax which was said to be monstrously unequal. Did the
Right Hon. Gentleman know that the tax originally was
fixed at an equal sum, and that its inequality had arisen
since from the greater improvements of some lands
than others. It arose, in fact, out of the wisest law ever
enacted, and was made equal solely to prevent impedi-
ments being thrown in the way of improving the land.
It was on that principle that it was now sought to fix an
annual land tax in India, because the uncertainty of the
present system prevented improvements being under-
taken. The Right Honourable Gentleman had re-
ferred to the local burdens borne by the land, but it
was absurd to say that they should be put into com-
petition with a general tax. The Right lion. Gentle-
man had compared the cages of a landed proprietor with
5,000/. a year and a physician with a like income; and
he said that if the latter fell to 4,000/. he could claim
the difference in the tax. Surely, he did not mean to
say that the landlord had not the same right.—(Hear,
hear.) The tenant now paid the tax, and if the rent
was less, the tax was also reduced. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had also referred to Mr. Pitt coming down to
the:House, and allowing that Mr. Addington's proposi-
tion to touch the funds was a breach of public faith.
He (Mr. Wilson) had carefully read Mr. Pitt's speeches
in 1789, when the income-tax was first proposed, and he
had not found a single passage which denied the justice
of taxing funded property.—(Hear, hear.) But the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth classed
funded with other property, and did not purpose to tax
it more than other property. The ex• Chancellor had
also said there was no deduction for repairs on real pro.
perty. True; but at the same time there was no deduc-
tion allowed for repairs in cotton mills, or for the depre-
ciation of the machinery, which amounted in a large mill
to 2,0001. a year.—(Hear, hear.) But with regard to all
the inequalities which existed in taxation, it was quite
clear that in course of time they had become adjusted.
They were at first unequal, but they were not so now.
He should be told that if they were adjusted by time the
income-tax would become so adjusted. He was quite
ready to admit that. The ex-Member for Kendal (Mr.
Warburton) used to say that tho property-tax would be
an equal tax if it had been permanent; but if it were
temporary, it would be unequal; but he should have
added that time must be allowed for its self-adjustment;
though he (Mr. Wilson) did not mean to say that fifty
years would be sufficient in this case. But now with re-
gard to property; how could that be effected ? Take,
for:instance, a terminable annuity. No person could
complain if he purchased that, knowing that it was sub-
ject to the payment of a tax; but if, immediately after he
had bought it in no such expectation, the tax came in,
then he would have a right to complain.—(Hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had
adduced an argument the other evening, which, by a
curious coincidence,he (Mr. Wilson) had put upon his
notes in order to urge it in maintenance of an opposite
view. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that it was
simply a question of income, and that inasmuch as the
income tax was a substitute for Customs duties, and that
inasmuch as there was no scale in Customs duties, those
duties being charged without reference to the income of
the consumer, that consequently a tax upon income
ought to be levied. Now it was somewhat singular that
he was about to use the same argument, but in a directly
opposite manner, for he found that in Customs duties
the receiver of income had the choice as to the quan-
tity he would consume, whereas nobody could contend
that Customs duties were paid on savings of income or
on premiums on life policies. This was one of the
grounds which he considered served to exhibit the in-
equality of the tax. The principle of exempting savings
had been recognised by Mr. Pitt in 1798, for he
exempted persons with large families and deducted the
amount paid for life policies of insurance, on the
ground that they were savings of capital, arid not expen-
ditures on account of income.—(Hear, hear.) He had
not heard a single argument adduced calculated to alter
his opinion, as to the inequality of the tax, or as to the
possibility of rendering it more equal. He admitted that
it would be a task of great difficulty to devise a scheme
for the equalisation of the tax; bus; unquestionably the
attempt ought to be made, in order that there might be
something like an approximation to equality.—(Hear,
hear.) The opinion that some more equitable adjust-
naent might be made had taken possession of the mind of
the country, and there was a strong feeling abroad that
the finances of the country ought not to be hazarded al-
together by refusing to make an attempt at such adjust-
ment. Having stated the various objections that existed
to the income-tax, he had now a few observations to
offer on the state of the national finances and on the
prospects of the coming year.—(Hear, hear.) The

Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the
-ie., en: ; • •
ing the inee me - tax. rili),11:1' Z 1.3
whit the country he might be pesmitted to doubt i7s
policy and its wisdom, and to express his apprehen
sion that, before the expiration of two years, the
country would have to regret its determinatiote As,
however, the proposition had been withdrawn, the ques
tint! for consideration now was, what arrangeeient was
to be made about the 3.300,000/. ?---(Hear, hear.) This
was a grave question for consideration. There was a
deficiency of 1,300,000/., which the tthancellor of the
Exchequer proposed to pay by charging them on the ba
lance in the Exchequer. In the nfonth of January last
the Right lion. Gentleman stated that the balance in tile
Exchequer was 8,000,000/ ; but it should be remembered
that the statement was made on the sth of Januery, and
that, in seven days after-yards. 7,200,000/. wits to be
drawn out of the Exchequer. The sum of 8,000,0001.
was only the provision available for the forthcoming
divideeds, and due for the other expenses of the quarter,
and, therefore, the real balance in the Exchequer, after
payment of those liabilities was 882,000/., whilst only
1,000,000/. was applicahle for the purpose; of Ireland.
Thus it would appear that in January, instead of
having a balance, there was, in point of fact, a de-
ficiency of 200,0001.—(Hear, hear)—and if the ac-
counts were to be carried on to April, there would
be a still greater di-ticiency. It was only getting
rid of 1,300,000/. What, then, was to be done ?
There were but two courses open for adoption—either
to fall back on the balance or to propose new taxes. Ile
could not see that they were in a better position when
they had a deficiency of 2,000,0001. which roust be made
up by some tax or other, unless, indeed, they were to
consent to add still more to the funded debt. It was,
he considered, exceedingly dangerous to enter upon the
consideration of a budget without knowing from what
source the deficiency was to be made up.—(Hcar,
hear.) With regard to the question before the House,
they were called upon to consider, now that the two per
cent. had been given up, whether the three per cent.
should be granted for one year or for three years.
Ile Noble Lord opposite (Lord George Bentinek)
had stated his intention to resist the imposition for
more than one year, but his policy was to increase
indirect taxation, and thereby make up the deficiency
in the national revenue. In the adoption of that policy,
involving as it would the abandonment of the great
and newly' tried principle of commercial legislation,
he could not agree. If that principle were not to
be carried out the policy of the Noble Lord and the
Gentlemen at the other side of the House who agreed
in his views would be perfectly intelligible, but if
the great principle which the House had so lately sanc-
tioned were to be carried out, then it was impossible to
understand the policy of lion. Gentlemen, who, approv-
ing of that principle, were prepared to vote against a
continuance of the Menu:le:tax for more than one yesr.
—(Hear, hear.) How was it possible that Government
could apply themselves to remedy commercial or fiscal
difficulties if they' had a 'deficiency of 2,000,000/.?—
(Hear, hear.) They must remember that on the Ist of
February, 1849, the present duties levied on foreign
corn would cease. Would the House consent to renew
these duties. He did not think it would; but be did
think that, if the present proposition were adopted,
much would be done to endanger the fulfilment of the
anticipations of those who expected the best results
from the introduction of the new principle of commer-
cial policy. It was on these grounds he would vote
tor a continuation of the tax for three years, and
when in Committee he would gladly listen to any
proposition to remove the inequalities which existed.—
(Hear, hear.) But if those inequalities could not be
removed, he would not, on that account, endanger the
passing. of the. Bill, much as he objected to the inequali-
ties. There appeared to be a great desire on the part of
the country to-obtain reductions of duty on many anti.
ides of general consumption. A great movement had
been got up in several commercial towns for reductions
in the duties levied on tea, tobacco, and other articles of
Excise; but how could the country expect that the Go•
vernrnent could consistently listen to such representa-
tions? They might receive deputations, and hold out
hopes that, in the course of the next year, they could do
something towards reduction; but if the entire basis of
Their anancial measures were made uncertain, it a ould
be impossible to look forward with any degree of hope to
the reduction of those taxes.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore
it was, he thought, that the large constituencies of
Liverpool, Manchester, and London, who had been
loudest in demanding reforms—and certainly they were
fully justified in being loudest, as they had a larger
interest at stake, and were most affected—were incon-
sisteet in their demands when they called upon Govern-
ment to do that which would obstruct the carrying out
of their own views for the repeal of the taxes against
the infliction of which they complained.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the prospects of the coming year, he
confessed that he looked with anxiety to the condition
of the commercial interests. He had looked around
him upon all sides, and he could not see the slightest
indication of anything like a permanent revival of
trade.—(Hear, hear.) He looked at the United States
of America, and a crisis appeared to have set in there
which held forth little promise that our export trade
would exceed that of former years. lie next turned to
the continent of Europe, and when he looked at the
unsettled state of political and commercial credit, and
the numerous fails res
.of banking establishments, he
could not indulge the hope of revival. He then turned
his attention to our own territories in the East and to
the depressed Mato of our colonial possessions—but
there ho could not see any indications of revival.—
(Hear, hear.) If there was no prospect of revival in
our foreign and colonial trade, there could not be any
revival at home, for our native industry was so depen-
dent on our export trade that if it failed there would be
much ground for increased evils at home. Upon this
account they would not be justified in starting with a
deficiency. It might be said out of doors, and by Hon.
Members in the House, " if such is your opinion with
regard to the commerce of the country, is this the time
for imposing a new tax 2" That was all very well, but
how were they to escape. the dilemma ?—(Hear, hear.)
Would they support the credit of the country at all
hazards; or woulti they not ? If' they were prepared to
support the credit of the country at all, it was idle to
say that, because the country was in a bad state, it
could not meet the necessary expenditure. A portion
of the income-tax was laid upon real property, but
with regard to incomes derivable from trade
and commerce, if trade - turned out to be had the
incomes, of course, became smaller, and the tax to be
paid proportionately less. It should also be borne in
mind that a large portion of the tax was derived from
land, and that land had increased in value by the exist-
ence of those very evils which had depressed all other
descriptions of property. The produce of land had risen
in value, notwithstanding the immense amount of foreign
importations, and the prices of grain , had been main-
tained higher during .the late years than for many pre-
vious ones He believed that there was no class in the
country whose interest it was not to make the income of
the country equal to its expenditure. Consider how
closely allied public and private credit was. Let them
remember that if the breath of discredit was cast upon
the public faith, it would render that which represented
the funded debt tumegotiable, and would thereby occa-
sion large demands to be made upon the money on
which the public trade was supported. The consequence
of such discredit would be to occasion a panic far worse
than that of 1847, and to lead to results more dangerous
to the prosperity of the country than the addition of
two per cent. to the income-tax. Holding those opinions,
he would vote that the tax be retained for three years,
and in doing so he considered he was pursuing that
course which would be most beneficial to all classes of
the country, and, above all, to those engaged in the com-
merce and in the industry of the country .—(lltiar.)
Mr. J. B. SMITH was in favour of a proterty-tax,
but would nevertheless support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose. lie objected to the inequality
and injustice of the income. tax. It was complained of
in every community. A manufacturer who had lost
money during the year made no return; the Com-
missioners assessed him 6,000/.; he appealed, and it
was reduced to 3,000/ ; he told the Commissioners he
had suffered a positive loss, but their answer was—
" Will you have it 3,000/. or 6,000/.2" He had no
remedy, and was compelled to pay on an assessment of
3,000/. Was this justice?—(hear, hear.) And be it
remembered, there was no appeal from the decision of
the Commissioners. In 1835 the army, navy, ordnance,
and miscellaneous expenditure was 14} millions ; this
year these estimates amounted to 23 millions. This
required looking into. (Hear, hear.) As a young
Member of the House he had been appalled by the dis-
parity between the estimate for the new Houses and the
actual expenditure. The responsibility was shifted
from one Minister to another, and no one knew where
it rested. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had at
length acknowledged that some controlling body was
necessary. Could it be wondered, after this, that the
national resources were lavished? So far from agreeing
with the Hon. Member for Westbury, that the income
ought to be brought up to the expenditure, her would
pursue an opposite course; and by that means h9-had no
doubt nine or ten millions might be saved; and this would
allow of the remission of tuxes on tea, tobacco, and
many other articles. Looking at the state of Europe,
he saw no prospect of an improvement in our resources ;
lie feared the Chancellor of the Exchequer had over-
estimated the probable revenue. He would vote for the
motion of the lion. Member for Montrose, in the hope
that before another year means would be discovered to
reduce our expenditure. It was high time that our im-
mense war establishment was curtailed. It was also an
important question whether we should continue to retain
some of our more expensive colonies. In Canada, for
Instance, three parties were contesting as to the form of
government. The colony was well able to govern itself,
why then not take a piternal leave of it?—(Hear, hear.)
The competition which now met us on the continent was
au important consideration ; everywhere railroads and
manufactures were extending, and the advantages which
England had hitherto possessed over all other nation,
were fast disappearing. In the United States the
growth of cotton was only 430,000 bags in 1820 ; in
1847 their consumption was 437,000, being as much
as Great Britain consumed in the former year. The
extraordinary resources of the United States, including
an abundance of coal, its rapid increase of capital and
population, were matters which oueht to be well
weighed. In 1820, Pennsylvania only produced 365,00.0
tons ; in 1841 the production was 816,000 tons ; in
1847 it had increased to 3,000,000 tons, stimulated as it
had been by the opening of the railway to Philadelphia.
This was the most extraordinary increase ever known.
All these were reasons why we should husband our re-
sources, whereby we might be in a better condition to
grapple with future difficulties.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH did not think it necessary,
after the speech of the lion. Member for Westbury, to
defend the free-trade policy. So tar from this polioy
being the cause of our embarrassments, it was clearly
traceable to the increased. expenditure, which had aug-
mented with fearful rapidity since 1835. It was they
lower than it had been since 1820. Notwithstanding
ten millions of taxes bad been repealed since 1833, the '

revenue hid inerees(d front forte-six *pi
' - iteei .. , ; e,ce. reeee:eeiy, toe eietaeleZl,
ieet ineraae.d frem 44 4-130,0eei. in 1833 to 54.300,0(.!
in 1847.—(Hear, hear.) This increase was double t!
amount of the income. tax, two millions more than IP_
hole ponr.rate, and sir times the amount of the wind.oa:
, duty.—(Bear, hear.) From 1835 to 1347 there badbrf,
eit increase of 10,400,0001. in the ermy, nave, ordnan;
and miseellare;oui expenditure ; and of this inure:
7,000 0001. was spent on the three first departmentl_,
. (their, hear.) Last year the expenditure on these tin
,erviees was 18,500,0001., being four millions more we""
in any other year since the peace, however great .5
&Leger in which the country had been placed. penes,
execeded by three millions the expenditure during tu
three eventinl years in which the Duke of Wellingto
vo
as Mini ter, during which time there occurred .0d
French and Belgian revolutions. From that period
there had been a decrease until 1835, when the ea
diture for the three services did nut exceed 11,700,
Last year the expenditure for the same three sseyid.
was 18,500,0001.; and a further increase was threatee.fi
—(llear, hear.) There had been a steady i.ncliese
. since 1835, at the rate of 583,000/. a year; this
' the increase, including the 130,0(0/. for the aloe
would be 750,000/.—(Hear, hear.) In seven years 4
ead been en excess of expenditure over income rag."
from 300,000/. to 3,000,0001. had it not been for 0
increase in the war expenditure, there might have IL
an excess of income over expenditure of from 400,7„,0
to 4,000,0001.; and in the present year, that
would have been so great as to allow of the remissiell,.
the tea duties, or some other impost pressing on w,
industrial classes.—(Hear, hear.) Why should our ex
penditure so largely exceed what it bad been in hind
of difficulty and danger, when we were interfering 4
,'
Syria, in Turkey, and elsewhere? Why should it "h 1
greater than it was in the last year in which the bold
Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had
office? What had we to fear? Were we afraid of ti:
Pope, or had we been afraid of Louis Philippe?,
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) In the last two year
there had been a defalcation of nearly 6,000,000,7
adding to the surplus of 3,500,0001., which existed is
January, 1846, to the deficiency which bad eccurred .i
the past year. It was said that this was attributable 7
the commercial embarrassments of the country ; . .
this he denied ; for how could that cause convert
positive surplus into a deficiency?—(Hear.) The true
cause was to be found in the increase of our wench.
ture on the three services. Why should that expend
ture exceed the average of the five years in which 1.11
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth he'
held office, when it was 14,700,000/.? Now, it West
17,968,0001., exclusive of the 150,0001. proposed for te'
militia ; showing an increase of 3,268,000/. ; and fur
what?—(Bear.) Let, this expenditure be reduFed
the same amount as it was in 1846 j and instead of *
deficiency at the present moment, there would be as
positive surplus.—(Hear, hear.) It was alleged tbule
the increase in our naval armaments had been rendere"
necessary by a similar increase on the part of Brander
He admitted there had been such increase ; but the(
country which was the first to pause in such a race (1%
extravagance would be the wisest.—(Hear, hearl
fought not this country to be the first to cry halt
There were two reasons why we should do so : tb
far greater strength of oar navy beyond that of
France, and our commercial supremacy.—(Hear, beer.)
So long as this country retained her commercial sePre
macy, France would in vain seek to deprive her of het
maritime superiority. All history showed the truth,v(
this principle—it had been the case with Holland, with
;
Venice, and other nations. Instead of augmenting be:
navy, it would be a much wiser course fur France
.i"
encenrage her commercial marine by doing away Wlteti
absurd restrictions. Our commerce with France he,
greatly augmented of late years, and she was now one os
our beet customers. From 1830 to 1845 the trade be'
tweet) the two countries had increased sixfold—in 1850
our exports to France amounted only to 450,0001. ; ,
1815 they had increased to 2,791,0001. France bong,"
more from this country than she did from any other'
and she sold more to it than to any other.—(Hear, WY.)
Hence it was the pecuniary interest and the best pehei
of the two countries to preserve peace, and to be friend.
' and allies.—(Cheers.) Every Englishman must re-
joice at the downfal of tyranny in France, and eitle'
, hope that the efforts of the French people for securing
their liberty might be attended with success.—(Hear'
hear.) He would nowiinquire what reduction oeuld he
made in the three services, without detriment to tho
public interest. Three reasons had been assigned by
the Right Hon. the Secretary at War for the enortutate
increase in the navy; the former mismanagement of the
dockyards, the introduction of steam-vessels into th°
navy, and the cost of the packet service. The increase
had been—for new works, 600,0001.; naval stoles
1,100,000/; packet eervice, 600,000/4 in all, 2,300,000 L
But the increase in the naval estimates amounted tO
3,500,0001., so that 1,200,0001. was unaccounted for.
This would be found attributable to the vast increase is
the force of the navy. In 1835 there had been voted
26,500 men; in 1847, 43,000 men, being an increase °l,
16,500, at an increased cost in wages and victuals alone
. of 800,0001. For what purpose had this increase bet*
made? The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tad'
worth had said it was necessary fur the protection 01
our commerce scattered over the face of the globe. But
for that it did not require that 16 men of war, carryleir
750 guns, and manned by 8,000 hands, should be ea-
, tinned in the Tagus, as was the ease in September last.
Nor did we require for this purpose fleets on the
coasts of Spain, of Africa, and of South America.
. All that was required was a few frigates or sloops of was
wandering about the ocean. In this respect vet
might take an example from the United States of
America, whose commerce most nearly equalled our
own; for wherever an English merchant was found to
be buying or selling in any quarter of the globe, there
, was an American trader to be found.—(Hear, her.) lii
1841 the United States, in addition to the small squadron
which they were obliged to keep off the coast of Africa
by treaty with us, had only one frigate and one sloop it!
Mexico; two frigates and two sloops on the Brazil
station; a frigate, a sloop, and a brig in China; and the
same on the New Zealand station; one wandering round
the world; and one, the only one in commission, carry*
ing their Minister to China. The cost of the whole of
the United States' navy in 1845 was 1,200,0001. just
one-sixth of ours, and they paid their seamen much
better than wo did.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore
absurd to say that we required this enormous expen-
diture to protect our commerce. Our army
was said
to be necessary to protect our colonies. Last year
the number of effective forces in the colonies wa535,792 men; in 1835 it had been 31,350; an increase
of only 4,442. But with the colonies properly go-
verned, and with the Colonial-office reformed, We
might do with a much smaller number—say, one-
half the amount, to garrison such places as Malt*
Gibraltar, and Quebec. But the increase in the colonies
did riot account for the great increase of expenditure.
from 6,150,000/. in 1835 to 7,168,0001, in the present
year. But look at home—the effective force in the
United Kingdom, in 1845, was 34,489 men; on the 151
of January last, it was 64,204, being an increase of
30,000, or more than 95 per cent. This number was
20,000 more than we had in the worst times of Sidmouth
aid Castlereagh.—(llcar, hear.) Since that time the
increased facilities for transmitting troops by railway
had greatly increased the efficiency of any existing
force. We had also a well-organized police in all our
largo towns. Far better would it be to expend this suns
in educating the people, removing the sources of crime,
and increasing the comforts of the poor.—(Cheers.)
The cost of these 30,000 men, including officers, could
not be less than 3,200,000/. a year, and thus a reduction
of three millions in the expenditure might be effected
by reducing the army to the same scale as it was on
during the Ministry of the Right Honourable Baronet
the Member fur Tamworth.—(Hear, hear.) This
would not be an extravagant reduction, for the
service would be quite as efficient as it was then, or
more so; and it would at once give a surplus of income
over expenditure. Under the plea of maintaining the
power and protectieg the commerce of the country, it
had been the policy of both Wbig and Tory Govern-
ments to interfere in every conflict, to meddle with the
internal affairs of every nation, and seize every opportx-
nity of extending our vast colonial empire. Look at the
history of this country for the last ten or fifteen years.
We had commenced by sending our buccaneers to Por-
tugal; then we sent legion, to Spain, to maintain the
rights of the virtuous Christina, while others fought
with equal zeal in the cause of Doti Carlos.—(Hear.)
Then wo interfered in Syria. Meanwhile we contrived.
by mismanagement, to stir up rebellion amongst the
peaceable inhabitants of Canada; then we drove forth
into exile 3,000 boers at the Cape of Goud Hope, and
it was now found that we had lavisheden million .on the
Kafir war.—(Hear.) In the menu time we had ex-
tended our empire by laying claim to the whole of Aus-
tralia, a territory nearly as large as Europe itself; then
we had declared ourselves the sovereigns of the two is •
-
lands of New Zealand, and sent them a foolish governor
and an incendiary bishop.—(Hear, hear.) Then we
had. rushed into central Asia, invadtd the hunting.-
L.:rounds of the Ameers of Siude, induced the
Sellchs to cross their frontier, and then de-
stroyed their army.—(Hear, hear, and " No.")
Then we had ravaged the coasts of China, and levied con-
tributions from them because they refused to receive
our poisonous opium.—(Hear.) Labuan and Hong-
Kong were our latest acquisitions ; we had an itching
for Borneo ; and, if the advice of the Noble Lord the
member for Lynn were followed, we should be running
a tilt with Spain with the island of Cuba.—(Cheers and
laughter.) These were at once the causes and the con-
sequences of our vast war expenditure ; for the two
stood to each other in the relation of cause and effect
alternately. The establishments begot the exploits, and'
they required the establishments. The Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had said that these exploits were
popular with the service. That was easy to believe ;
hut were they popular with the people of England ?--
(Hear.) If so there was no remedy; we must pay for
them, and pay dearly. Thu objection that the income-
tax was a war tax was perfectly valid ; it had been,
and still would be a war tax ; every farthing of it had
been expanded in these petty wars.—(Hear, hear.) The
increase in the expenditure of the three services since
1835 had been upwards of seven millions—more than
the whole of the income-tax—and hence the deficit.—
(Hear, hear.) Our commercial embarrassments had
been clearly brought about by our vast and unneces-
sary expenditure on the navy, army, and ordnance.
It these were reduced, in a short period we should
have a surplus of income. If the country would not
consent to that reduction, the only alternative was in-
creased taxation. This year there was a deficit. To go
on year atter year with a deficit was contrary to every
sound principle of finance, which prescribed that in a
country like this, not only should the income be fully
equal to the ordinary annual expenditure, but should
exceed it by some two or three millions a year, so as to
meet unforeseen emergencies. The enly alternative for
the consideration of Parliament and the country was a
reduction of expenditure or an increase of taxation. In
supporting the former he should not be inconsistent in
voting for the motion of the Hon. Member fQr Montrose,