Star.
London, England, 1823-03-12 00:00:00

NATIONAL DZIIT REDUCTION BILL.

TheCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for. khe House going into a
Committee on this Bill.

Mr. GRENFELL availed- himself of this oppor-
tunity to makka few observations en the subject of
the Sinking Fund. Although he approved of the
measure now brought forward by the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite, by which that sham Sinking
Fund was put an end to, he did not think it would
be altogether useless to point out some of the errors
which had mai ked the system of managing that part
lof our Finance System for so long a period. The
louse would recollect that the original Sinking Fund
Act was passed in 1786, and that a clause had been
introduced into it by Mr. Fos, that the Commis-
sioners for the Redemption of the National Debt,
should be allowed to apply any money in their hands
to contract for any loan. This, in his opinion, was
a most wise and providential clause. Instead, how-
ever, of Ministers acting in the spirit of this clause,
their mode was directly the reverse. From the year
1793 to 1819, they had been persuaded, and unfor-
tunately they had also persuaded that House, that it
was advantageous to the country to borrow annually
a loan of some millions; and for this loan they gave
'to the Contractors, an article which they all knew
very well by the name of 3 per Cents. With this
money, which they had thus raised from the Con-
tractors by giving them 3 per Cents. they sent the
Commissioners into the market to re-purchase that
identical 3 per Cent. Stock. Now, if this strange
system had been innoxious in its operation, it would
not so much have signified that the Minister had pur-
sued 'a course marked by absurdity. But when it
appeared, which by papers he could thew, that the
effect of it was to create, by the four last loans, a
positive loss to the public, to the extent in perpetual
annuities of 268,0001. it became matter of more
serious consideration. One occasion in the course of
this loan-raising system had occurred which illus-
trated what he advanced. On this occasion the ge-
neral anticipation was, that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer meant to raise a loan of 24 millions. At
the meeting which always preceded the contracting
for the loan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated,
for the first time, that it was his intention to follow
the mode recommended by Mr. Fox, so that instead
of 24 millions he should want only 12 millions. The
effect of this intimation was, that the Funds rose im-
mediately from 65 to 71. The difference thus to the
' public between the one mode and the other was up-
wards of three millions of money. Upon this calcu-
lation it followed, that if Ministers had pursued this
plan from 1793 to 1819, there would have been a
saving of fifty millions to the public. For his own
part he begged to say, that he was friendly to the
system of maintaining a surplus Revenue in a coun-
try, and, above all, to the accumulation of a Surplus
he was a warm friend. He must say he was sur-
prised at the doctrines held by his Hon. Friend, the
Member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo). He de-
clared he had no objection to a Surplus Revenue, but
would not agree to its accumulation in the shape of
a Sinking Fund, least some rapacious Minister in
future times might lay his hands upon it. Now,
he did not see that it was clearly made out that any
Minister was likely to misapply this fund, seeing
that he could not lay his hands upon it without
the sanction of Parliament, and also of the Public
at large, whatever might be his rapacity—(Hear).—
Supposing, however, that the money was so laid
hold of, if it were applied beneficially for the coun-
try, he asked whether this was not of itself a sufficient
argument in favour of the accumulation? In 1814,
he had been one of those'who supported Mr. Vansit-
tart's plan, which was the greatest inroad that had
ever been made on the Sinking Fond. He did so be-
cause he thought the nation overtaxed, and wished
to give them breathing time. The Minister did on
that occasion avail himself of this Fund, and the con-
sequence was, that the people were relieved from
taxation for three years. This, in his opinion, was a
demonstration of the efficacy of the Sinking Fond.
In speaking of the errors of his Honourable Friend's
(Mr. Ricardo) judgment, he did so under the convic-
tion that when there was a difference of opinion be-
tween them, he could not more oblige him than by
stating the grounds of their difference. Of his Ho-
nourable Friend's scheme to pay off the National
Debt, by making the whole capital of the country
contribute towards its liquidation, he wished to say,
that he thought it one of the wildest be had ever read
of. How could he devise a.plan which shottld have
the recommendation of justice, and adjudge in what
proportion every species of property should contri-
bute? The leasehold, the Funds, and freehold pro-
perty, might be easy—but what other property, be
wanted to know ? But that was not the whole of the
difficulty. He wanted to know, after such a plan
should be devised, would it be possible by persuasion
or force to induce every man to come forward and
sacrifice a portion of his property towards paying off
the trifling sum of eight hundred millions? It ap-
peared to him useless to entertain such an expecta-
tion. Neither could be agree with his Honourable
Friend the Member for Aberdeen in-his notion, that
because the Sinking Fund,had not actually extin-
guished a portion of the Debt during a certain num-
ber of years, therefore it had been inoperative. With
regard to the case put by that Honourable Member,
of a man with a debt of 10,0001. and living at the
rate of 5001. per annum, he begged to say, that if
upon each fresh loan of I,OOW. the steward raised
the rents from the estate 601. higher, by the time the
debt arrived at 20,000/. the income of the estate
would be raised to 1,6004 a year, in the same way
as the income of this country had been raised by
taxation. In conclusion, he begged to say he should
give his warm support to this Bill, and to every
measure tending to sustain a real surplus revenue.
Mr. JOHN SMITH was at variance with his
Honourable Friend who had just sat down, upon
some points in his doctrine. For instance, although
the Sinking Fund was borrowed in the way he
had stated, yet in the opinion of the Contractors, it]
tended to sustain public credit, and then the Minister.

was enabled to obtain better terms. • With regard,to
the incident alluded to by his Honoorablei Friossti,,
he (Mr. Smith) always had been of opinion that it
was an act of great decision, Ad highly creditable
tb the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wasl
convinced,- had not the war ended, we should not
have been able .to go on borrowing for two years
longer. We must have had recourse to some other