Star.
London, England, 1826-05-05 00:00:00

sidered with respect to the present state of foreign
countries, and of those parts of our dominions con-
tiguous to foreign powers ; and if that part of the ques-
tion be analysed, no Military or Naval power has
been proposed which is not necessary for the safety. of
our Colonies. Both on this, and the last, and t prea•
ceding years, this question has been discussed • d ,
Isiteitte,
the Government has been supported in it, by per; •-
sons who do not usually agree in their opinions.--
1 Why, then, should our time be taken up with this im- ,
measurable trumpery? To the Hon. Gentleman do I,
therefore, oppose those who are usually opposed to me—
although he usually ascribes to those who oppose his
measures motives of a private nature, and can never
talk of any one's conduct but with some miserable in-
stance of that description of treatment which I shall
pass over with indifference—(Hear, hear). I do not
intend-to trouble the House for three hours and a
half, but do say, that it is impossible fur any one
to call on the House, by forty-seven Resolutions, to
move an address. It is certain that, with any re-
gard to truth, the Haus_ cannot agree to the first
resolution ; and if that be the case, there can be-nothing either of
sense or justice in supporting tke ethers; and, therefore, it irtlet
the duty either of Parliame.it or of the Government to assent to
them. The Hon. Gentleman is not entitled either to charge the
Government with want of humanity, because they do not enter into
his views with respect to the scale upon which the expenditure of .
the country should he regulated. Although, therefore, I have the •
strongest objection to the address proposed, it cannot be said I do
so from indifference, or insensibility to the distress which Mete
some portions of the community.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer seemed to misunderstand the proceedings as
well as the motives of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume);
and the House would agree with him when they re-
ceived an explanation. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer complained that, until eleven o'clock, to-day, he
was ignorant of the nature of the motion ; but if that
were a cause of complaint, he (Mr. Brougham) had a
gteater.one, as, until half-past seven that evening, he
' knew nothing of it, and came to the House supposing
that the Corn Laws, or the Court of Chancery, were the
subjects of debate. He would beg to know, and the
House in candour to recollect,in opposition to this charge
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, on any
former occasion, on a motion on the state of the nation,
there were an instance of eight hours possession in hand
of the printed details ; and whether or not they would
not have heard, at the close of a speech, those calcula-
tions, those minute and complicated details, which his
Honourable Friend had given in writing? Was this un-
fair, was it taking an advantage, or could it be called
a hardship? Oa common occasions they were never
heard before the motion, but here the details were can-
didly printed in order that they might be discussed and
answered—And then, with respect to the form of the
proposed resolution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
argued as if he conceived that his Hon. Friend charged
him with wilful mis-statement of the accounts. But he
did not ; he only shewed that, on the same statement
of an account, two men might reasonably differ in their
conclusions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer charged
his Hon. Friend with taking the accounts on other
authority—Chere Mr. Brougham and Mr. Hume had,
some conversation]—but he understood him to say that
be did not take those accounts from any printed speech,
but from a note which he had made at the time, and
which he went across the table to explain with the Right
Hon. Gentleman. There was another measure (the
Sinking Fund) and the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed
to think that his Hon. Friend charged him with the
faults of the proposer of that measure, and of every suc-
ceeding Minister who upheld it. But it was no such
thing, and he fully agreed with his Hon. Friend, that
that fund was an impolitic one, by its tendency to pro.
duce extravagance in time of war. It was an arithme-
tical blunder, and his Hon. Friend proved, that to keep
up that fund, was, in practice, and in substance, and in
effect, only to be done by loan, that it raised the money
market, and compelled the country to raise money at a
loss, by the bungling, clumsz manner in which it was
carried on. In this, he (Mr. Brougham) not only agreed
with his Hon. Friend, but also with the Chancellor. of
the Exchequer himself, and he rejoiced to find, that
Men who had before approved that measure, now, in
plain and distinct terms, said, that the Sinking Fund
was, at a considerable discount. •There WAS also a new
mode of keeping accounts, and he did not see why the
public balance sheet should not be' kept with as much
distinctness and clearness as any private Man's accounts.
He could not discover why there should be a greater
number of figures than were necessary, nor why it was
pot as easy to keep a balance sheet regular, with respect
to millions as to thousands. If not done from arguntento
a priori, he would expect it from other causes. There
was no occasion of mystification, but everything should
be done plainly and intelligibly. Here he had again
reason to praise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be-
cause he had said, that if his Honourable Friend, or the
Honourable. Member for Abing&a, gave information
on the subject, it should not be thrown away.—Upon
the subject of taxation he agreed with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) agreed
with him in print, but he seemed to c:•ntradict him in
his speech. Also, with respect to the 31st Resolution,
it, was true that, though there was a nominal diminu-
tion of taxation, yet, when there was sixty-nine millions
of taxes, the currency was of greater value. Gold was
then 51. the ounce, while the Mint price was Si. I7s.
10Id. Thus there was a difference of 25 per cent. and
this would make the diminution, instead of being twenty-
seven millions, taking the present income at fifty-two
millions, was only one million aad a half, because the
sixty-nine millions was in a 'depreciated currency) and
the others were at par.. If then that were admitted, as
he thought it should, where still was the difference? If
seven or eight millions of taxes were taken off, and yet
if the revenue increased, it could not be said that there
was no diminution, because if the people chose to pay,
and if, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer sa;cl, a man
had his two bottles of wine instead of one, it was all for
the benefit of trade and of commerce, and to the
advantage of the country. The Honourable Gentleman
then observed on the diminution of consumption in
proportion to the increased number. of the people, and
taking it for granted that, since 1785, the increase
of the population was forty per cent. said, that it
was a melancholy consideration that the consumption
of the latter ten or twelve years, as compared withl7B4,
1785, and 1786, instead of increasing in proportion to
the population, was not perceptible. He took malt as an
article in most common use, aid the avt rage consump-
tion of 1785 was twenty•five millions and three quar-
ters, while that of 1825 was but twenty-five millions
and one quarter, Thus, instead of an increase of .40
per cent. there was one folirth. If that was correct, it
was an unfavourable view of the state of the country.
As Lo spirits, his Hon. Ft lend had not gone so far as he
might, as the average of the first five years, from 1810,
WAS this teen millions; and of the last, only twelve. The