The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-25 00:00:00

and he eutiiely objected to applying borrowed money
to the support of the Sinking Fund. The statement of
the Right Hon. Secretary a few nights ago, had shown
that at most there was only a surplus of 50,0001, applicable
to the redemption of the debt. He believed that there was
no surplus at all, but a deficiency rather, to three times the
amount of 50,0001. ; but at all events he thought it would
be better to wait and see whether the Finance Committee
did not pronounce the whole Sinking Fund a delusion.
He was rather disposed to move, as an amendment, that
the money in question should not be carried to the account
of the Consolidated Fund, but used to take up part of our
unfunded debt.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the suspension of the appropriation of this money would
not alter the arrangement relative to the Sinking Fund ;
but it would deprive the Government of supplies wanted
for the purposes of immediate necessity.
Mr. HERRIES said, that the 2,000,0001. in question
were not intended peculiarly for the redemption of public
debt ; the money was wanted for the common services of
the year. The Hon. Alember was mistaken, when he said
that the statement of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary
for the Home Department, a few nights since, showed an
actual surplus applicable to the uses of the sinking fund of
only 50,000/. The Hon. Gentleman had looked only at
one side of the account—the amount of income : he forgot
that in the estimate; of expenditure there bad been a re-
duction of 1,200,0001. The surplus depended upon the
comparison of these totals together. For the 2,000,0001.
again, which were the subject of the present vote, they
must be taken into the public account, and must be placed
to the credit side of it. lie therefore still contended that
we had a surplus of 3,000,0001. at our command.
Mr. HUME said that the 2,000,0001., to whatever
purpose they might be applied, were so mush money bor.
rowed, and the actual expenditure of the last year had
exceeded the income.
• Mr. HERRIES explained.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY protested against the continu-
ance of the.sinking fund.
The vote•was then carried without a division.
LIFE ANNUITIES' REPEAL BILL.

those many risks to which they would be exposed by pur-
chasing from private individuals.. It was unneoessati ,
him to point out the description of persons to whom sue"
annuities were extremely desirable, or to describe -theme),
practices with respect to grants of annuities in Loneby which property, often the saving of a long life of ta'
dustry, was sacrificed, and many families thus brought to
ruin. Considerations founded on a knowledge of the
existence of such practices induced the* Government al,
that day to adopt the plan of granting annuities for life or
for a term of years. Mr. Perceval, then Chancellor 01
the Exchequer, thought the plan extremely desirable ;• 1131
some of the most intelligent men of that day were direct!'
to make out tables, on which the value of the annuities
was to be calculated. It was considered, that in acountry
where the public stock or debt might be considered as a sort
of interminable annuity, it would be extrernelyuseful, under
the circumstances he had mentioned, that a part of it should
be appropriated as terminable annuities, terminable with
lives, or at a given number of years. There was this differ-
ence between annuities so granted and those purchased
from annuity offices, that while in the latter a profit WO
expected to be derived by those who granted the annuity,
the Government sought no profit from the grant, and
made it solely from the consideration of its advantage'?
that class of the community to which be bad alluded.
The calculations were made from the best data thsit Could
be then furnished, but it was found that some, peybar
tbe,majority, of the lives on which the annuities had bin
so granted, were longer than the ordinary average of WO
and some loss was derived to the public in consequence ;
but lie owned he was astonished at the misrepresentation
which had gone abroad on this subject, and that it should
be gravely stated that the public had sustained a loss of
400,000/. on annuities, the whole amount of which did
not exceed 610,0001. ; thus making the loss atnount to
two-thirds of the whole. Some extraordinary delusion
must have existed on this subject, which could have gives
rise to such statements. Ile concurred with the Hon.
Member tbr Wareham, that it would be better to swepd
the operation of the act for a time, but he thought it
would be highly prejudicial to a large class of the comma'
nity if the plan were given up altogether

. .
. e
The Order of the Day being moved for the further con- Mr. A. BARING admitted that the,. _principle of the
sideration of the Report on the Life Annuities' Repeal Bill, Annuity Act was one very beneficial to the public, if the
Mr. CALCRAFT wished to know whether there was calculations on which they were sold were properly made.
any objection to producing the letter of Mr. Finlayson. He One word as to Mr. Finlayson's statement. Mr. Finlaysoo
thought that it would be advantageous if it were laid before said that the public were losing about 8,000/. a meek by
the House. the annuities granted under this Act. That gentleman, he
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER personally' apprehended, must have taken a week in which a large
had no objection to the production of the letter; but sum was taken out. It was not extraordinary that there
thought there were reasons why it would be better not to should be a loss of 8,0001., or the value of one year l
lay it before the House at present. purchase on the amount taken out. In one part of the
Mr. CALCRAFT wished, in that case, that the law had calculations it appeared to hint as if Mr. Finlayson had
only been suspended until time was taken for consideration, not taken into consideration the interest of the money paid
instead of repealed. by the purchaser of the annuity, and what it would amount
Mr. HERRIES concurred in the suggestion for sue- to in a given time. If he had, the advantage to the par"
pending the Act, but whether suspended or repealed, it chaser or the loss to the public would not be so great as
would amount to the same thing ; for the repeal would be was stated. However, that the public had sustained a lova
on the understanding that it was to continue only till new on the transfers under the Annuity Act, there could bents
tables could be prepared. He would now beg to add a doubt.
few words in justification of some Hon. individuals n-he Mr. HUAIE said that Mr. Finlayson's calculations had
had been subjected to very seriuns misrepresentation with been made on the fairest grounds. He therefore had not
reference to this Act. It appeared front a letter, alluded merited the charge made against him by the Right Hon•
to in that House, and very extensively commented upon Gentleman (Mr. Herries.)
elsewhere, that a loss had been sustained by the public, Mr. IJERRIES (across the table) denied that he bad-
amounting to about 8,0001. a-week, on the annuities sold made any charge whatever against Mr. Fiulayson. -
under this Act ; and that loss bad been attributed to want Mr. HUME said that he (Mr. Finlayson) had not de-
of due attention to the interests of the public, in not j served any. He hail been directed to make a calealafeon
having some such measure as the present proposed some of 15,000 lives, their ages, and average duration. He had
years ago, when the matter was brought under the con- I done so. His work was a work of figures, and he did not
sideration of the Treasury. A Noble Lord (Bexley) deserve blame fur exaggeration, for he expressed no opinion
had been the first person blamed for this omission. Now one way or the other. As to the letter sent to the Taeao
he would begin by discharging that Nobk Lord from sury, he could state that great remissness must have exist-
blame altogether. The letter was received by him (Mr. ed somewhere on this subject, fur it was a fact that in the
Berries) on the 30th of April, 1827, five years after that same year (1819) in which Mr. Finlayson's first.letter was
Noble Lord had quitted the office of Chancellor of the tee_ I written, a similar representation had been transmitted to
chequer. As to Lord Goderich, who was Chancellor of Government from the same quarter, and he (Mr. Hume)
the Exchequer at the time the letter was received, he was had no doubt that on inquiry it would be found that blame
equally free from blame ; and he (Mr. !ferries) was glad would be to be attached in some quarter for negligence co
the production of the letter had been moved for, as it this point.
would be seen by it that the respectable individual by Mr. P. THOMSON ruse only to correct an error into
whom it was written (whom he admitted to be an ee- which it appeared to him that the Right lion. Gentleman
tremely clever man, and an excellent authority on that (the Secretary for the Colonies) bad fallen, in a statement
subject) had announced that he would prove his statement i he made to disprove the accuracy of Mr. Finlayson's cacti'
by tables which lie was then preparing, but which were lotion. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that it was tor
not at that time ready. So that the proof of his statement possible that the calculation could be correct, because a logs
was to come after, and, in fast, they were not yet before of 8,0001. per week was declared to have taken place, or'
the Treasury. But those to whom the letter was addressed upwards of 400,0001. per annum,—being two-thirds 81
were aware of the nature of the loss, and that it did not the whole annuities. Now the Right Hon. Gentleman had
depend on the continuance of the act, but arose from an- made a mistake between capital and interest. Mr. Finlay..
nuities already granted (and which could not be taken son stated the loss to the public to be 8,000/. per week, or
away), being on lives which turned out to be longer than 400,0001. per annum, capital, not interest ; and that might
the usual average. Any alteration in, or even the repeal of, very well be.,
the act could make no difference to the public with respect The report was.tben agreed to, and the Bill ordered to
to those annuities, and for this reasom—that when be read a third time to-morrow. ee
he observed, with illinisters, that it should then be brought ee.
the funds rose above 80, the purchaser of the an-
STAMP DUTIES BILL'
unity could not. get any advantage front the diffe- On the motion of Mr. HERRIES, this Bill was coin-
hence above that price. The price was above 80 at the mitted. . The amendments were agreed to without discus.
time the letter was written, so that the - Treasury could 91011, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.
wait without any danger of loss to the public, until the POLL LN CITIES AND BOROUGHS BILL.
, e
tables were ready, and there was even a compensating Colonel DAVIES postponed the further consideration of
pewee in the high price against any loss that might have .the report of this Bill till Monday, with the understanding,
been. sustained before. He hoped, therefore, he had said
enough to show that Lords Bexley, amid Godericii, and , on early.
Mr. Canning were quite blameless as to the delay, for 1 EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
nothing could be done until the tables were ready. Enough j Mr. TENNYSON would postpone the further conaide-
he trusted, had been said in their vindication from the i ration of' this Bill till Monday next.
blame which had been most unjustly thrown upon them, ' Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN thought the best thing the
particularly on the first-named Noble Lord, on a subject lion. Member could do would be to give it up altogether.
on which so many misrepresentations had gone to the (Hear, hear.) The motion of the Right Hen. Gentleman
and he was told to Ministers towards putting down abuses of this kind. (It
public. A verbal communication had been made to Mr. (Mr. Peel) proved how little was to be expected from
Iles. In mentioning was here intimated to the Hon. Member that the motion of
he etar
roost willingly admitted instruction to the Committee was not by Mr. Peel, but by
tnl:liiaenklnea
lyt‘nrirsohittnaoto
of that
haste he
ths subject
egbcjeeoneuttll
gentleman,
afwalniiti,hs
his great cleverness. His- theory was exceedingly ingea I the Member for Hertford, Mr. N. Calvert.) He was told
nious and philosophical, but he (alio Hurries) was afraid it it was not the Right Hon. Gentleman's motion; but
was so intricate, that it would be difficult to prove it to though moved by the Hon. Member for Hertfoid, be looked
demonstration. He would state his reason. A commit. upon it to be to all intents his (Mr. Peel's), otherwise it
tee was last year appointed On the subject of Friendly So- j would have bad a different termination from that which the
cieties, and they examined evidence as to the probable du- I House had seen.
ration of lives. On this subject they examined ten or l Mr. N. CALVERT would take to himself the whole
twelve most respectable individuals, all very clever at cal- r merit or blame of the proposition which he submitted to the
culations of that sort. Amongst those there was a great i House on a former night..—(hlear.) e
diversity of opinion, and the result was, the Committee I Mr. PEEL said, thatahe proposition for which he had
could not make up their minds as to which was right.— I voted was moved and seconded by two Members on the
In conclusion, he hoped the House would adopt the sug- opposite side of the House. The Hon. Mover, the Meru-
gestion of the Hen. Member, and allow the Act to be sus- tan'for Hertfordshire (Mr. N. Calvert), did not know
pended, and not repealed. . what course he meant to pursue respecting it. He in-
pOeull tI iti.nlg it•—(Hear. )
did not offer himself frequently to the
?.
Lord ALTIIOI3I3 next addressed the House, but his formed him (Mr. Peel) that be meant to move the instruc-
first observations were very imperfectly heard in the gale tiou to the Committee; but he (Mr. Peel) expressed nocl el
clear
that .h. N a
e understood
considerable loss the Noble
had L o :ride ctrou esd to
ay., that
the i
publict
from the annuities granted under the Act.. Blame might notice of the Hooee—(a laugh)—but on the present occho
not be attributable to the Government for what took place sion he rose to express a hope that the Hon. Member who
before they received the communication alluded to; but lie had brought fot•tvard the Bill would not abandon it in eon-
- was opisniironz spec
understood that annuities were „ranted on the ~,m, (load• sequence of what the Worthy Alderman had said. •
vantageous terms to the public granted
that. if that were so, I The Order of the Day was then postponed to Monday
blame was certainly to rest somewhere. The communica- next.
tion of Mr. Finlayson was a sort of debtor and creditor mac- PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
count. He showed the amount paid by the purchaser, the i The Order of the Day for the further consideration of
amount of stock cancelled, and the amount which that the report of the above Bill having been read,
stock would hive produced from that time; and comparing Loud J. RUSSELL moved that the Bill be recommitted.
it with the value received 'by the purchaser in his annuity, Mr. MANNING addressed a few sentences to the Houses
he showed that in one year there was a loss of 10,7001., l which were totally inaudible in the gallery.
and as a great proportion of the annuitants were living the Mr. D. GILBERT said, that it had been remarked on a
loss still continued. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Her- formet evening, that the county of Nottingham would not
ries) had said that nothing. could be done by Government suffee from the transfer of the.franchiseaf East liatfeird to a
in consequence of the communication made to them on this town in another county, because that borough was not,
-subject ; but it should be recollected that all the ineu- and had not usually been, represented by individuals con-
ranee offices had altered their calculations of insurance nected with the county. The same argument would apply
about that time; but it was somewhat singular that with respect to most of the boroughs in Cornwall, for,
Government should not have made a similar alteration, with the exception of the two county representative', and
having the information before them as to the loss which he believed one Member for a borough, none of the per-
the country was sustaining by the rate at which the ennui- sons returned from the county were Cornishmen. It
ties were granted. The Right Hon. Gentleman informed happened somehow or other, that nearly all the gentlemen
them that Government could not have proceeded without who were considered worthy the honour of representing
the promised tables, but surely they might have ceased to the Cornish boroughs came from Scotland and Ireland, and
grant any other annuities until those tables were ready. other distant parts of the empire. Under these circurn-
Ile agreed in what had been said about suspending the Act stances, the county, though it returned a very large num-
for the present, for no man could now doubt that the her of representatives, was not properly represented. It
transfer was a lose to the public ; but his great surprise was his opinion, thereforh, that it would be highly Ripe.-
was, that this step had not been taken before. The Right client to throw the franchise into the hundred on the pre_
Hon. Gentleman had said, that the letter of Mr. Finlayson sent occasioo.
RKE rose amidst was received only on the 30th of April, 1827, but that Sir J:
Y(9 the Right laughter. After the able
letter alluded to a former letter, written in 1819, of which manner
in which
he Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) bad
nothing was said, and which was not before the House. In treated the question,otheHel almost despaired of offering himself
answer to that letter it was said that Lord Bexley had told to the notice I
leoeuse—(laughter) l'i3te.---) (Laughter.) He seldom rose
the writer to make his calculations and tables, but if a hoes
in
thatt le situation ger .--and though he stood in a
was then pointed out, why had not some steps been taken bumble •dcompared
.with some of the great guns, be
could not uvoi recommending the Polk of
with a view to amend the Act?bestowing the
elective franchise on some of the great towns.
Mr. HERRIES explained. s. He Med
• I that the Right Hon. Secretary would bringowll tru a
Lord HOWICK agreed that the letter should be lau Government to t• the support of
bethe ques ion, and b ••
before the House. As to the course which should notvAct •be happy to follow in the wake e (Sir J.. Yorke) would
taken, he agreed that it would be best to sus end the
afraid to look moderate reform •of a Minister who weir not
for the present. in the face (H h )ea to Mr. PALLMER said, that h • *---
ear'
ell%
Mr. HUSKISSON amid, the Noble Lord seern
contracts already who last year voted with a Rightaving been one of those
think that the public would gain on the
ef
o No, Canning), whose voice,
made by the suspension of time Act.
--(Critic:pension of hear again, that the elective unhappilyfranei. the House would never
no.")--The only beneficial effect from th
••e sal annuities be thrown into the adjoinin h Ise of this borough should
the Act would be, that no addineur:
made, but any consistency now (whatever other
he could not with
should be granted until new tables
be
continued. He give a contrary vote.—(Hear other Members might.do)
all the contracts already made must
this measure man concluded with thear.) The Hon. Gentle-
-09, when moving, that it be
was Secretary to the Treasury in.dl
81819, the period when the Committee to extend the forfeited an instruction to
was introduced.--(A Member said
written.)—No ; 1809, deed in which Penryn .o, •
as situated.
franchise to the,hun-
the letter of Mr. Finlayson was
this Act was passed. At that ascended the amendment
he meant, the year when
that individuals wishing to G. BANKES approved th •
time complaints were made,
families hadcertain franchise to the hundreds, with e plan 'of-extend the
numelves orno , not the view of •
make a provision for the . . „
could be secured, without the agricultural interest, , promoting
but because be • •
fund on which such annuities
coneidered it the