The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-29 00:00:00

the hon. member expressed so much disappointment at
its operation, considerable reductions had been made.
The hon. member talked of increased expenditure and
reduced taxation, but it was quite clear that no steps for
the reduction of the debt could be successful unless you
could get public opinion impressed with the ;policy of
reduction. If you led public opinion in that direction
the public would consent to reduced expenditure and
increased taxes ; but under any other circumstances it
would be impossible to preserve regulations for this spe-
cial object. It appeared to him that the great objection
to the course of the hon. member was that it was one
which could not be put in practice. (Hear.) Neither
could he agree that the act of Geo. IV. had proved a
dead letter. During 18 of the years which had elapsed
since, reductions of the debt bad been made, and in the
other 11 the expenditure exceeded the income, and no
appropriation could be made. In 1829 the surplus in-
vested was 1,200,000/4 in 1830, 2,000,0001.; in 1831,
1,230,000/.; in 1833, 1,700.0001.; in 1834, 1,700,0001.;
in 1835, 500,0001.; in 1836, 500,0001. ; and in 1837.
1,500,000/. Then came years of bad harvest. and would
they at such a time propose to increase the taxes of the
working classes in order to reduce the debt ? (Hear.)
During four years investment was impossible, but the
moment prosperity returned—in 1844--there was a re-
sumption of investments.
Mr. WILSON—That wa, the year of the income tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he did not see how that affected the argument. In 1845
the investment was nearly 1,400,0001. ; in 1846,
1,200,000/. ; in 1847, 6'28,0001. ; in 1849, nothing ;
but in 1850, there was invested 2,321,0001. In
1851 the reduction was 3,000,0001. ; in 1852 it
was upwards of 1,800,0001, and in 1853 it was
1,000,0001. How, then, could it be said that the
act of Geo. IV. had failed ? In the majority of years re-
ductions had been made, and when they had not the
country was suffering under various hardships, there
being three bad harvests and a mercantile collapse in
consequence of what occurred in America. He hoped,
therefore, that the house would adhere to the act of
1829, which he thought he had shown bad completely
fulfilled its intention, and had considerably reduced the
debt whenever there was a surplus revenue. Suppose
that during the five years of the bad harvests and com-
mercial collapse they had secured a surplus by artificial
means, how much would they not have added to the suf-
ferings of the people. That consideration bad very much
influenced the government in their financial policy,
which he was glad to say the house had adopted. They
saw the crisis through which the commerce of the coun-
try had passed, and they thought that that was no time
to talk of reducing the national debt, or of laying on new
taxes to pay engagements of a terminable character, He
thought that such a principle would have been most un-
wi e, and he did not think that any minister would have
carried it. The hon, member blamed him for reducing
the income tax, upon which he passed a warm eulogium.
But he could not lay claim to having reduced taxation.
He found the income tax reduced by act of Parliament;
and had he proposed that it should be continued at the
same rate as it stood last year. that proposition would
have amounted to an increase of taxation. When, there-
fore, the hoe, gentleman said there had been a reckless
reduction of taxation arid a total disregard of the princi-
ples upon which public credit could alone be maintained
he must remember that there had been not a reduction,
as the hoe, gentleman stated, bat a considerable increase
of taxation during the year in two important instances ;
and with regard to the income tax, all that the govern•
went did was to say that, as far as they were concerned
they would adhere to the decisi on which Parliament had
pronounced. When, therefore, the hon. gentleman
asked him • (the Chancellor ef the Exchequer) whether
he was prepared to repudiate the engagements made by
Parliament in reference to the sinking fund
and the repayment of the Exchequer bonds, he
might in reply ask the hon. gentleman whether he was
prepared to depart from the equally solemn engagement
entered into by Parliament' in 1853 in reference to the
income-tax? (Hear.) He would nut enter into the ques•
tion of whether it was an engagement or a compact, or
merely an understanding in the way of a barren arrange-
meet to reduce the income tax if circumstances should
allow it, but being an arrangement based upon an act of
Parliament it was in- all respects as binding as the en-
gagement in respect to the artificial sinking fond. The
case was a simple one; the issue was whether they should
stand by the sicking fund of 1829 or the Making fund
adopted two years ago. They could not have both. They
could not have the sinking fund which had worked so
well and at the same time the sluicing fund they adopted
when the loan fur the Russian war was raised. There
was no ground upon which they could abandon the sink-
ing fund of 1829, which was based upon seund principles
of finance, but one, and that was that it had failed in its ,
objet-. I_le maintained, on the contrary, that it bad suc-
ceeded in its object. When the country was prosperous
there had always keen a considerable surplus applied to
the reduction of the national debt ; when it was less
prosperous a smaller surplus was applicable, and was de-
voted to that purpose, and when the country was in di--
tress, and its resources were impaired, then this act, a
faithful mirror of the national fortunes, remained in ope-
ration, and there being no surplus, the public difficulty
was not addei to by any obligation to pay off the debt.
(Hear.) He trusted the house would support the act of
1829. But even if ,the hoe, gentleman's plan did not
clash with the act of 1829, he was of opinion that it would
not be expedient now to lay down rules and regulations
for a sinking fund, which, according to the hon. gentle-
man's own view, could not come into operation for four
years from the present tune. If, therefore, there were no
sinking fund act in existence, he should object to the hon
member's proposition, but believing as lie did that the act
of 1820 was a wise measure, and that it operated with
advantage to the country, he felt it the more incumt.,eut
upon him to oppose it.
Mr. WILLI:01S said the question was not whether
the sinking sums of 1329 should be retaieo.l, but whether
the act borrowing 29,000,0001. for the purposes of the
Russian war should be kept inviolate. There was a con-
dition in that act that thin debt should be paid off at the
rate of a million and a half a year, and it would be a dis-
grace to the country to throw the liquidation of that
obligation upon posterity. Toe Chancellor of the Exche-
quer in his speech at Slough—(oh, oh)—bad taken credit
for reducing taxation, but the fact was that the present
Goverument had p istpoaed the payment of two millions
of Exchequer bills for four years, and now it seemed that
fresh burdens were to be thrown upon the people.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied that by voting for this
bill the house would be guilty of an act of repudiation.
(Hear.) When the 29,000,0001. was borrowed, Sir G.
C. Lewis, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, dis-
tinctly said that the public creditor was not to be ratis-
fled by the yearly payment of a million and a half.
Olaf, the bousa was under obligation
to the honourable institute ter oliegi;:,g for :ard this
resolution, he nevertheless could not vote for it, as
ha felt sceptical as to the soundness of the principles
he had put forward, The hon. raetnber said that the
budget ot the minister exhibited a deficit, not a surplus;
but if that were se, why had not his hoc. friend
made a proposal which should equalise income and
expenditure ? (Hear, hear.) Oa the contrary, his hoc.
friend accepted the budget of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and in no manner attempted to disturb it.
(Hear.) His hon. friend had made ne proposal for the
repayment of money, but simply called upon thu house
to throw present obligations upon a future Parliament.
(Hear, bear.) As a resolution prospective in its cha-
racter, he could not support it. Although he agreed iu
much that had fallen from his hon. friend, it appeared to
him (Mr. Gladstone) that lie had lost siAt' of the true
?icit of discussion, namely, the state of the expenditure
ot the country, and the disposition of the Government
in the direction of profusion or economy. If profusion
prevailed, it was idle to speak of sinking wade. ('dear.)
His hors. friend bad been enabled to show that the sink-
ing fund bad succeeded because the couutry had been
guided by economical principles. (Hear.) He hoped
hu had misuoderstuod the Chancellor of the Exebeques
as to the oblieations of a Government to reduce the pub-
ic debt. It -was a clear dot; of Parliament in time of
peace to make such arrangements from year to year f;r
securing the application of mousy for the reduction of
the debt. The real weight and pressure of the national
debt wore felt in the permanent depreseion of the masses
—(bear, heat)—and Le trusted the house would adhere
to the prinuiple of the Act of 1829. (Hear, hear.)
13. r G. C. LEWIS wile not prepared to vote for the
resolution on the ground that a contract had been en-
tered into with the public creditor, far he certainly had
!tot understood that the subscribers to the loan fur the
Russian war were to Le plac'.cl in a better position
than other public creditors, but he was willing to
argue tiro question on the issue which had been
fait ly raised by this' -Chancellor of the gxchequer,
namely, whether reliance should be placed upon a
natural or an artificial einking fund ? He did not
think the right hon, gentleman bad given a correct de-
finition of the artificial sinking fund, an adherence to
which he did not think woula be wise. In dealing with
minor bodies in the State, Parliament, through the in-
st!-utnet.tality of the Exchequer Loan Bill C,mmissioners
stipulated that loans should be paid in certain payruects
in certain years ; but he still deprecated the practice of
these artificial sinking feriae. (Hear' hear.)
Mr. CARD WELL, although the resolution had led
to a very interesting discussion —(a laugh) —did not think
the house would act wisely in adopting it. If the reeolu-
titin were acted upon, the house would enter into a new
prospective engagement to liquidate debt. It was very
easy to pass such rescoutteri,, but now would posterity
regard them? (Hear.) Parliament could very well bind
corporations and other bodies as to the mode of repay-
ing their debts, because those b ;dies could not repeal
ants of Parliament; whereas the House of Commons of
one day could abrogate the decision of another. The
true principles upon which the hou a should act--mag-
num vectigal pireimoniam—was retrenchment of expen-
diture, and a more jealous and vigilant oainomy than
bad of late years been observable, (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought the hon. member
for Devonport had done good service in raising the pre-
sent discussion. It was of great importance that the
funded debt of the country should not be indefinitely
postponed, and he concurred wi h the hon. member fiat

Oxford that the true method of reducing that debt wc,s

a z:aloua and vigilant economy.
f..t.rd J. RUSSELL thought there were two rittes-
tiona raised by the hon. member fir D3vonport, one an
abstract question as to how wo shuuld treat our debt ;

and the secona, the financial condit,ion of the presetit
year. He retuewbered the old sinking fond, and he could
not agree with the hon. gentleman in the a.mclasi.in at

which he had arrived. Under that bpitem, the Chancel
lorof the Exchequer, whenever be waste f a loan of 14

or 15 millions, went into the market and got 20 mil ions,
so that all the apparent gain was but temporary and L.)
the disadvantage of the c6m.try. The old sinking fund
be considered a very bad system, and the act of 1829,
providing that only the surplus of the revenue should
be applied to the reduction of the debt, ism a good
°Lie, and be was sorry to find that they were
going bmit to that sys►em. At the same time he could
not see th.t the Chancellor had made any provision fo:
a stirplus of that kiwi, and he thought it Was uuwiso

to part with a million this year and two millions next
year income tax, when it was so much needed, and when
it might at all events have been applied to the reduction
of the debt. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had stated that he had made a reduction of
800,0001. in the estimates of the late Government,
400,0001. being on the civil estimates, but the revenue
would not be at all benefited by that reduction. He
thought the whole question required revision, and that
it•might be satisfactorily referred to a select committee,
especially as the estimates were so large and the burden
of Vocation on the people so heavy.
Mr. W. EWART recommended a general revision of
taxation on articles of consumption, and expressed his
regret that he could not give his support to the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Davenport. He thought
that we should pay off our sinking fund or not pay it
cff according to our convenience. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was negatived without a division,
and the house went into committee on the bill.
The clauses were agreed to, and the bill was reported
to the house.
SUPPLY—MILITARY ORGANISATION.
On the order for going into committee of supply,
Captain VIVIAN called the attention of the house
to the resolution relating to military organisation, which
was adopted by the house on Tuesday, the let of June,
and in reference to which the Chancellor of the Ex•
chequer said it was not the intention of Government to
take any steps either in or out of the house. That reso-
lution he introduced to the house, and the house did him
the honour to agree to it. It had been said that it was
the object of the resolution to do away with the office of
Commander-in-Chief, and that the army woull be op-
posed to that step. He (Capt. Vivian) had spoken to a
large number of members of the military profession, and
most of them were in favour of some such change ad he
had proposed, and all were unanimous in denunciation
of the present system, for they had not forgotten the
misfortunes of the Crimea, or that while the army
was starving before Sebastopol there were heaps of
food in the harbour of Balaklava. The medical oreani-
cation of the army was also most defective. He should
be doing wrong were he not to say that the present
commander-in-chief had done everything that he could
to reverse the sad state of things that had so long pre-
vailed, but he believed that the position of the comman-
der-in-chief was a very unpleasant one to him as well as
to the public. (Hear.) He had no responsibility, and
his office was in all respects an anomalous one. He con-
sidered that the Minister of War should have the power
of selling commissions for the public good. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert)
sold 100 commissions for 450,0001, and that proceeding
ho had certainly heard vs ry severely criticised. In Aus-
tria, Sardinia, and Prussia. the principle of bis es:isola-
tion was adopted, and he did not see why it should not
be carried out in this country. The principle had been
affirmed by the house, but the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer a day cr two afterwards dispelled a pleasing dream
in which he had indulged by the s'atement that the Go-
vernment wou'd take no notice of it in consequence of
theemallness of the number of members who voted ; but
he would ask whether this was not a dangerous course,
and whether it was advisable that it should be left to a
Minister to say what was the majority on which action
should be taken ? (Hear.) If the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had stated that the house was taken by cur
prise and had moved that the resolution should be read
at the table and rescinded, that would undoubtedly have
been a fair course, but the course taken was extremely
discourteous to the house on the part of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and he thought he had a right to com-
plain. He believed that this subject had taken so strong
a hold of the public mind that before long the right bon.
gentleman would be compelled on the part of his Govern-
ment to reverse the decision at which he hail arrived.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. and gallant gentleman bad introduced the subject
with so much faireess and so much temper that he did
not wish to lose a moment in replying to his observations,
and assuring him that he la-toured under an entire
misconception as to the coulee which he pursued, and
the feelings that influenced him when the hon. and
gallant gentleman brought forward this question on a
former occasion. He did not reply to the speech of
the hon. and gallant gentleman on the former occasion
for this reason alone, that that speech was most com-
pletely and ably replied to by a noble loyd on the other
side of the Louse ; and he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) felt a reluc'ance, which all persons felt, to
repeat the same arguments. He thought the motion of
the hon. and gallant gentleman had been carried unex-
pectedly, and notwithstanding the ingenious gloss of
the hon. and gallant gentleman, he believed it was
carried much to the surprise of the whole house. (Hear.)
He had said tbat the resolution of the hon. and gallant
gentleman was carried by a bare majority, but he woull
admit to him that some of the most important decisions
of that house had been carried by small majoritie..
The hon. and gallant gentleman alluded to the small
majority which sustained the government of L rsi Mel-
bourne, and he had no doubt the remembrances of the
noble lord, the member fur the City of London, would
supply them with many others. (Hear, hear.) The
Act of Settlement had been carried by one of the
smallest rusjorities on record. The decision of a
maj nity, however small, in matters of legislation was
absolute, but that was not the case when members of
the house proceeded by way of legislation. (Hear.) A
resolution of the house was neither irrevocable or bind-
ing, and the instances were numerous in which no
further notice had been taken of them. The house a
few years ago had expressed an opinion that the votes
for members sent to that house should be taken by bal-
lot ; the endowment to Mayuooth had been denounced
by a mej stay of the house, and his noble friend (Lord
Naas) carried his motion with respect to the diAillers of
Ireland against the government, but in neither of these
three instances did the minister act on the opinion of
the house thus significantly expressed. It might be said
that these were motions for leave to introduce bills
(hear) —but no one would pretend to;say that if they had
been simpie reso:u ions that the government would have
acted on them. (Hear.) But there were more recent
iostar c3s in which the government did not carry out the
opinion of the house as expressed in a resolution. In
1855 the committee on the salaries to public officers re-
ported to the house in favour of a reduction of the
salaries to the diplomatic servants of the crown. No
notice was taken of the recommendations of that com-
mittee, and an honourable member brought forward a
resolution calling on the house to say that it was their
opinion Viet tto' recommendations of that committee
with regard to diplomatic servanteshould be immediately
acted on. It was opposed by the noble lord (Palmer-
ston), and although the noble lord was defeated by a
majarity of 50 or 60, he took no notice whatever of the
resolution. ("Hear, hear," and a laugh) The hoc. and
cr‘ii.nt gentlereein said the conduct of her Majesiy'e
f end irnoreeerlented,
satisfactory it !night be, but uepreceueliteU
was not, for they had the precedent of the government
of the noble lord, of which the hon, sad gallant gentle-
man was au ardent supporter. (Hear.) The committee
specially reported that the missions to some of the
smaller courts of Germany should be terminated, but a
vacancy having taken place in the mission to one of
those smaller courts to which the decision of the corn-
mittee referred, and to which the housie by their resolu-
tion gave their moat decided sauction, the uobls lord
just took this notice of that decision and resolution, that
he immediately filled up the vacancy. ("Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) Why did not the hon, and gallant mem-
ber notice the unsatiefactory and unprecedented conduct
of the noble lord on that occasion. The noble lord
charged bite with giving u cavalier answer to a question
which had been put to him ; but the noble lord, not by
words but by acts, gave a most cava'ier reply
to the recommendation of the committee and the resolu-
tion of the house. (Hear, hear.) He did net take the
same uncharitable view cf the conduct of the noble lord
on that occasion which the hon. and gallant gentleman
seemed to take of hie conduct, for he presumed the
noble lord acted from a sense of euhlic duty and ;rem a
due appreciation of the value of this mi eien to a Ger-
man court. (Rear, hear) That was in 1855. What hap-
pened in 1853 ? Tee cavil service was certainly not
inferior in importance to the military or the diplomatic
service. The principles on which that service should be
established, the means by which the greatest amount of
ability might be infused into it, the manner in whisk it
should be renovated—these were questions which had of
late years deeply interested the public mind, and which
nad been treated by some of the moat eloquent writers
and the most experienced public men of the age. Well,
there was a noble lord who thought that the competitive
system ought to be adopted by the government, and that
..e.hey had neglected their duty in the matter esod that
nelio lord proposed a resolution on the subject, which
e as carried by a Minister tholleb opposed by a Minister.
But what happened ? The Minister never took any
notice of the resolution—(hear, hear)—and he believed

fiat Minister was either the same distingtfs'aed indi-
vidual to whom be had refe,rrPd (Lord Palmerston) or
the noble lord the member for Londor. Many parsons
might have thought that cour-e unsatisfactory ; no
person said it wai unprec'dented—(hear, hear)—hen,
therefore, he (tbe Chancellor of the Exchugu_r) found
a resolution relating to the nui:itary service carrel

in a not very full house by a bare majority, a maj ,ri•y
much smaller than that which carried the resolution
which related to the diplomatic scrvicd and that

which related to the civil service, surtly it WAR the

duty of the government to consider what had been the
practice under such circumstance'. He might have
fenced with the question, he might hava given his hon.

and gallant friend an evasive answer; but the govern

tnenthaving considered the natter and formed a decided

opinion with regard to it, he thought it was but duo

to the house that he should clear 4 and frankly express
their opinion, in order that the hon. and gallant gen-
tleman might not lose his chance of testing the opinion
of the h,uee. Ho did not understand his 11.)n. and

gallant friend to complain of his answer to the bun.
baronet the member for Radnorshire (Sir J, Walsh).
But there vas another hon. gentleman who be thcught
male en inquiry moat unnecessarily after what had oc-
curred, and his reply to whom had been styied by the
noble lord time member for Tiv,:e-ton a oaval:er one.
No ..e ho could not suppose that any hon. gentleman
nelf.;ined that he interned to act with discourtesy towards
any hon. member. (Rear, hoar.) His highe.mt hope
and wish bad ever been to secure, if ponAble, the respect
aad good will of all the members of that house—(hear)—
and ho was sure bon. gentlemen must feel that, en-
trusted as ha was with the conduct of the businese,
and dependent as he was on the gentlemanlike feelings of
the remembers generally, wheytever might be their opinions
ha must from interest, as well as from disposition, be
the last person to be guilty of dinourtesy towards any
hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The only meaning he
conld affix to the inquiry of the hon, and gallant mem-
ber for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) was that what he
wished to learn was whether the Government meant to
take any steps other than those which were taken in
that house ? In his reply be said that neither in that
hou-e nor anywhere else did Government intend to take
any steps in the matter, and be was at A loss to under-
stand wby that answer sbould have been considered dia.