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

" Sinking F Ind" With reference to the reduction.
have compared what I did actually state on the taxa-
sions alluded to with that 'Which-the Hon. Gentleman
ascribes to me, and I find that his chirge is unfounded.
What I then stated *was—" It hid been said, that no
reduction of our debt had taken place, and that none
can be hoped tor. I trust it will be satisfactory to the
House to find that such is not the fact—for in the year
1816, the whole debt funded and unfunded, was much
higher than at present ; and that in the last seven years
there has been a diminution of the debt, which, al-
though compared with the whole amount, was no great
sum, yet, as a diminution, it was important, and never
could have been effected but by a surplus"—(Nenr).—
To sustain this statement, I may here be peimitted to
repeat what.was the actual state of the public debt at
the two former periods ot 1816 and 1823. On the sth
January, in the former year, the funded debt was
816,311,4461.—the unfunded debt, including Exche-
quer Bills, and a charge for Ireland, was 48,511,0001.
—On the sth of January, 1823, the funded debt was
796,530,000/—the unfunded debt 43,526,0001. If,
therefore, the amounts be compared, it will be found,
that in the funded debt, within seven years, a diminu-
tion had taken pl4ce to the amount of 19,701,7961. and
of 4,984,0001. in'the'unfunded debt, making a total of
24,68.5,7961.; but it was utterly impossible for me to
have ascribed to the operation of the Sinking Fund that
reduction. I never used the words " Sinking Fund,"
because I know very well, that other things, in addition
to the Sinking Fund, had operated to produce that re-
duction. If, therefore, I am to be condemned by the Hon.
Gentleman'sßesolution,of making false statements to the
House, it must be on good, sufficient, and authentic
grounds. The Hon. Gentleman call, upon the House,
in the first Resolution, to declare me guilty of having
made false statements, as appears by the facts con-
tained in the following Resolutions." So that he calls
upon the House to condemn by its first vote, and then
to prove the charge contained in it by agreeing to those
subsequent ! Such is the justice, and such the clemency
of the Hon. Member for Montrose. But the Hon.
Gentleman does not Stop here; he is so enamoured ot
this singular mode of arriving at a conclusion, that he
proceeds with it in his thirty•first Resolution, which
runs thus:
" That the repeated assertions made in this House, that there has
been a diminution of taxation, to the extent of 57 millions, since the
termination of the war, are elusive and fallacious, whether applied
to the amount of money actually collected from the people, or the
value of the currency, in which the taxes were collected, as will
appear by the facts stated in the following Resolutions."
So that here also, the Hon. Gentleman imputes that sty state-
menu were " delusive and fallacious" " u will appear by the
facts stated In the following Resolutions."—(Loud laughter.)--
I am, therefore, to be condemned by false reasonine, and by false
inferences, and on what grounds? On those which are not yet
under consideration—(Cheers and laughter.}—lt is utterly impos-
sible that the House can agree to such a proposition ; it is equally
impossible for me to follow the Hon. Gentleman through that dis-
cursive course in which he has danced backward and forward, and
which led me to think that " chaos had come again." (Laughter.)
Let us see what he says in the second resolution.
" That it appears, by the annual Finance Accounts, the Public
Debt of the United Kingdom, funded and unfunded, on the sth of
January, 1817 (after the Union of the English and Irish Exche-
quers) was 846,785,0781. and that on the sth of January, 1856, the
amount of funded and unfunded debt of the United Kingdom was
819,457,2981. 'hewing a decrease in the nominal amount of capital
of 27,327,7801."
The statement which this second resolution is intended
to disprove is that which I made with reference to
the amount of the public debt, on the sth of January,
1816 ; the year in which the public debt had reached
its maximum, 816 millions. and that it was reduced
to 796,530,0001. The Hon. Gentleman asserts, that
that statement is incorrect, and he proves it by re-
ferring to a period in which the whee of the accounts
of the year 1816 were included. In order to convict
me of mis-statement, he ought to have taken the same
period with me ; now he took the year ending sth Jan.
1817 ; my statement referred to that ending sth Jan.
1816, which was a true one—and if the Hon. Gentle-
man refers to that statement, he will find the proof
of it. Even if the Honourable Gentleman were to
look back to-his own Resolution of 1822, and which
was mot carried, it would prove to him that he has no
right to charge me with the mis-statement in question,
for he will find it embodied in his own ; and, therefore,
1 will say, these charges must fall to the ground, hav-
ing, I trust, to the satisfaction of the House, proved that
they are unfounded. (Cheers). I fear it would be wasting
the time of the House, were I to follow the Honlurablo
Gentleman, which I do not intend; for, after speaking
for two hours (Four, and a laugh) on the Sinking Fund,
he very coolly says, he does not mean to call the atten-
tion of the House to that subject, but would take some
other opportunity. I call upon the House not to attend
to the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, and shall
therefore take leave of the Hon. Gentleman, until that
fit period shall arrive to which he looks forward, and
when, I trust, I shall fully justify my conduct. Here
I maybe permitted to observe that it is not imperative
on me to vindicate all my predecessors in office. The
Hon. Gentleman in making war upon the Sinking Fund,
attacked Mr. Pitt, than which nothing could be more
unjust ; but even if well founded, how could it apply to
me ? The first thing I did witb respect to the Sinking
Fund, was to endeavour to put it on a better footing
than it had been. I shall not therefore, 1 think, be

treating the subject improperly, if I decline going into
the defence of the principle of the Sinking Fund, and
of Mr. Pitt, or the policy on which it was conducted
during the war. I know that with respect to the Sink-
ing Fund there are a great variety of opinions with re-
ference to that period, but I have never operated with it
at all. If, indeed, I had come down to this House in
order to raise a loan, and in doing which I might rely
upon the Sinking Fund, the proposition of the Hon.
Gentleman might be justified, for be would not be
blameable in taking up the subject, but certainly be
was not warranted on the present occasion. • Having
disposed of the Sinking Fund, the Hon. Gentleman next
comes to that which he calls the 44 mystification" of the
public Funds. Now, if anything could be conceived
more ridiculous than another, for a Government to do
with respect to its systeln of Finance, it surely would be
to mystify it—nothing could be more absurd, for every
man of common understanding must perceive that
to simplify its system was the very best thing
that any Government could do. But how could the
Hon. Gentleman, or indeed any person, understand
anything of the system of the public funds, or of
the numerous and varied operations, by merely taking
up and reading a single return respecting it ? As
well might they pretend to a knowledge of a great
mercantile concern and of all its trAnsactinns, by merely
glancing neer a balance sheet. But while I deprecate
this proceeding, I beg leave to say, if any mode in the
improvement of our system be suggested to me, no
matter by whom—any mode by which our financial
uperations can be simplified; even, though it would
expose r'e more to attack, I should not rct it, even
were it to come from the Honourable Member him-