The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP nn PUBLIC JourtNALS.

We have been accused inn certain quarter not re-
markable for either knowledge,or sagacity, of having I
stated inaccuracies with respect to the public debt,—
a curious objection, when it is consiclered that the
whole of our statement is founded on a return made
to Parliament by the Government themselves. Nov,
there are, certainly, men who believe that the quar-
terly returns of the revenue, and every other return
respecting the finance of the country, are a tissue of
errors : our judicious opponent seems to think that
these men are right, and that the circumstance of a
return being made by the .Government is suffi-
cient to make it erroneous. What is his objec-
tion ? He says, a large item is introduced as
representing a fictitious capital, which is refer-
red to the Long Annuities." evidently for-
gets the question, and the objet of the inquiry, which
was to draw a comparison between the public debt in
1819 and 1826 ; and a sum for this item appearing
in both years, the one, to a certain degree, balances
the other, except that the sum in 1819, is larger than
in 1826; and therefore our opponent ,objects to an
item which is really in his favour. But in both cases
this is a very proper one ; for a long annuity, or
any annuity for a term of years, is not a fictitious but
a real capital ; and why? Because, in the same manner
that a real capital is required in order to redeem a per-
petual annuity, so is a real capital required in order to
redeem an annuity for a term of years, and the price
at which it can be redeeited, or at which it is saleable
in the market, is the value of the annuity ; and it is
this value which is inserted in both years, 1810 and
1826. But it is further complained, that we in-
troduce the annuity of 2,800,0001.: we introduced
nothing but what we found in a return made to Par-
liament of, the public debt of the country : and if
this 2,800,0001. is not part of the debt, why
does the Government introduce it ? But why ,is
it not part of the debt ? Because, it is argued,
it is only a charge on the consolidated fund. A
whimsical reason truly l But the 3 per cent. Con-
sols and reduced, the 31 and 4 per
cents.,
are only a
charge on the consolidated fund; and, therefore, if this
charge of 2,800,0001. per annum on the consolidated
hind is not a debt, then by the same rule we have no
debt at all, because every other portion of our debt is
charged in the same manner. Well, then, this
2,800,000/. is not a debt, but merely an annual charge
()eche consolidated fund ; but did any such charge
appear in the consolidated fund in the year 1819 ?
Certainly not ; and why ? Because the, naval and

military half-pay and pensions were then defrayed of
of the ordinary revenue of the country; but this revenue
being so reduced as to be no longer able to meet the
charge for the naval and military pensions, this charge
must now be defrayed by means of borrowing ;
and as it is impossible to borrow without get-
ting .
i
debt is greater now than in 1819. And this ends the
question ; Ibr it is no part of the question, whether the
total sum raised by taxes on the people, to defray the
charges on the consolidated fund, and the ways and
means of the year, be greater or less than in 1819, but
the whole, question is this—whether the debt is greater
or less ; and as we have shown that it is greater, the
result of the whole argument will be this—that Four
income nut being equal to our extravagant expen-
diture, it was determined that the deficiency should
he made good, not by a reduction of .expendi•
ture, but by creating nit annuity on our estate—
Thus much in the way of argument, and now to,
matter of fact and then it must be confessed, that as
far as respects this annuity the Minister is just now
upon velvet ; he receives about 1,000,000/. per annum
from the Bank, against which he pays them 585,0001.,
and this leaves him a clear balance of upwards of
1,400,0001. But time, the destroyer of all human
neatness, runs him to a period. ' After July, 1828, the
ank pay him no more money, and then how will he
stand ? Why, that having. to pay the Bank 585,0001.
per annum, while he receives nothing, lie will also have
to provide for the whole of the naval and military
pensions, and this in the best way that he can. But
he certainly will have this satisfaction, that the charge
n his consolidated fund will be less than at present; but
in return, the charge for the ways and means of the
year will lie increased in an infinitely greater propor-
tion ; unless, indeed, he should go on with the annuity
scheme, and then there will he no alteration, and the
matter will stand just as it does at present. And there-
fore, turn the thing' as we will, it always resolves itself
into this—that here is. a large sum to be paid annually
for naval and military half-pay and pensions, and that
nil other things remaming the same, this annual pay-
ment is precisely equivalent to than annuity of
'20390,000/. which was created by an Act of the 3d
of (,co. IV. c. 51.; and this is the annuity in question,
and which regularly appears as a charge on theson-
solidated fund.—Times.
The report still creeps out at intervals, tits pro-
jected seizure of property by Ministers to supply the
deficiency of revenue.--that is, in truth, to supply that
extravagance by which the es.pences of Government
have been allowed to exceed its income. For there
is no doubt but that, if there were a virtuous and in-
dependent Parliament, Government would be made
to live within its means, without a thought of impos-
ing fresh burdens on the people. It is, indeed, a cu-
rious and striking fact, and shows very accurately the
opinion which people entertain of Ministers, that,
Whatever may be, the necessities of the State, neither
public rumour nor secret whisper ever attribute to
those' by whom its affairs arc managed, the honest de-
migo of relieving them by economy or retrenchment,
but always by an aggravation of the public burdens.
The report now in circulation is, that it is among the
financial setunnes of Ministers to propose an imposi-
tion of Si. per cent: on all real and funded property—
that is, to take away for this year one twentieth part
of every man's property 1 And, to make the project
less objectionable, it is pretended that the itkisessed
taxes shall be repealed. We are then told of the se-
curity which every
species of .property enjoys in this
country (security indeed!) and that this security ought
a merit in an este-.
as if it were really
to be paid for :
Wished Government to abstain froin seizing the pro,.
petty of its subjects at will ; as if the individual owed
tilellSgtsa,teo,r trlethatplitehecoauclqduliasymboynstloief
great gratitude to
fruits of his own earm
Isis forefathers, without time dread ot invasion. Why,
of some kind or other,
if there were not security
would revert to a
so-
ciety would be dissolved,. and man
the funds is t
barbarous state. A portion of
bin
seized but how are the land
the
to her en-
dered capable of preserving the res.idue of their pro.;
re
way, by the immediate payment of a sum of money
equal in value to a twentieth part of the whole ? A
they to sell a twentieth part_ of their land ? Or, if the
tax were.to but 2 per cent., are they to sell
-tif they are to be believed,
pal ? For, they have a fortieth
money. And who are to be the purchasers e Their
tenants ? But the tenants exclaim' that they arc
equally poor and distressed. Besides, when can this