« ПредишнаНапред »
law respected in Ireland, to make it effective. But he knew that government never could have the same authority, or enforce its authority with the same effect, whilst this exclusive system was continued. He did not wish to trespass longer upon the attention of the house; he could not help expressing his regret, that the right honourable gentleman (Mr. M. Fitzgerald) had introduced any thing of political feeling, which, till then, had been carried on with so total an abstinence from political feeling. He could assure him that the Dublin address was not received in the same light as he had viewed it. In conclusion he observed, that if the house should consent to go into a committee, he would do every thing in his power to forward the measure, because it was his conviction that until this was carried, a great defect would remain in the security and harmony of the empire.
Mr. R. Martin supported the motion.
The calls of “question" became very general.
The house then divided, when
Suffolk, recommending the agricultural distresses of the county to the consideration of parliament.
The duke of Devonshire presented a petition from some places in Nottinghamshire, complaining of the increasing distresses of the country. .
The marquis of Landsdown called the attention of the house to the transactions which had been carried on, and were, he was afraid, still carrying on, by the allied powers against Naples; and he submitted a motion on the subject, which, after expressing thanks to his majesty for having declined to become a party to the recent transactions, solicited of his majesty to exert all his influence with the allied powers, to prevent, or repair the consequences of measures, which may eventually disturb the general tranquillity of the country. This motion was opposed by earl Bathurst and ultimately negatived by a majority of forty-seven.
House of Commons, March 5.Further petitions were presented on the subject of agricultural distress. A motion was made by Dr. Lushington, praying his majesty to remove Thomas Ellis, esq. from his office as one of the masters in chancery, in Ireland, founded upon the consideration, that as a member of the imperial parliament, he could not adequately discharge the duties of his office, and at the same time his duties as a member of the house. Upon a division, the numbers Were :
March 6.—Mr. Davenport presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county palatine of Chester, setting forth the present agricultural distresses of that county.
Similar petitions were presented from holders and occupiers of land at and in the vicinity of Wallingford and other places adjacent; from Twyford, Grove, Uffingham, Abingdon, Wantage, Lamborn, Hampstead-Norris, Hurley, Faringdon, and Thatcham, . in the county of Berks, by Charles Dundas, esq.
Also from the owners and occupiers of 17,638 acres of land in the county of Sussex, by Mr. Curteis; from the occupiers and owners of 12,000 acres of land in Middlesex, by Mr. Byng (these petitioners set forth that during the last sessions 280 petitions of a similar nature had been presented to parliament, signed by upwards of 100,000 persons, occupying some millions of acres); from the owners of lands in and near the town of Lewes, in Sussex, by sir George Shiffner; from the county of Suffolk, and from owners and occupiers of 41,000 acres in the said county, by Mr. Calthorpe; and from the county of Essex, and also from Chelmsford and Rumford in the same county, by Mr. Western, (the latter of these two petitions, being subscribed by about 1,000 persons, occupying 200,000 acres of land); from Hereford, by Mr. Lockhart; from Kent, by Mr. Honywood; from the owners and occupiers, severally, of 72,000, 76,000, 13,000, 60,000, 16,000, 14,000, 56,000, 29,000 acres in Suffolk, by Mr. Gooch; and from the north of Devon, by the same honourable gentleman.
Mr. Coke presented a petition from various owners and occupiers of lands in the county of
Norfolk. Mr. Maberly rose for the purpose of calling the attention of parliament to the comparative state of our revenue and expenditure. The object which he had in view was to lay before the house such an exposition of the present financial embarrassments, and of those permanent demands for which the country must provide, as to induce them to agree with him in voting for a repeal of the tax on houses. His first view of the revenue and expenditure of the nation would be drawn from a reference to the amount of its public funded and unfunded debt, or to the state of national credit, and the amount of the public burdens. These he regarded as of a fixed nature, and which were not to be made a subject of diminution. As the debt had been contracted by open competition, they were bound to preserve the national faith inviolate, and to discharge their bond whatever might be the hardship. Utter bankruptcy and distress could alone justify them in departing from it. But if they j do so, their only resource, the only means of avoiding a disreputable and destructive bankruptcy, lay in economy. He fully believed that the agriculturists were now paying taxes out of their capital, but so it was in a greater or less degree with the other classes. It would be important to advert to the actual state of our finances, not only now, but at some former period. It would appear that in the year 1792 the expense of the war, which preceded that period, differed so much from that entailed
entailed upon us by the late war, that Mr. Pitt then thought himself justified in fixing our establishments on a scale that had no reference to a war expenditure. He then began actually to relieve the country from a part of the debt contracted during the war. He (Mr. Maberly) would now state the revenue and expenditure of 1792. He would in the first place, however, submit to the house a statement of the ways and means, as compared with the supplies for the year 1820, chiefly for the purpose of showing how easy it was to furnish such an account as should at once convey a clear view of the whole subject. The supplies were estimated at
Army 469,422,000 Navy . . 6,586,700 Ordnance . . 1,204,600 Miscellaneous Services 2,100,000 - £19,313,300
Sinking Fund on Exchequer Bills 410,000
Intereston Exchequer Bills . 1,000,000 £20,723,300
The presentation of accounts drawn up in this form would give much facility to every honourable member in getting at the entire charge on each year respectively. To refer to such a document was all that would be necessary, instead of the voluminous details contained in the finance report. Let them now look at the income and charge, and then at the ways and means of the same year. The income from the 5th of January, in the year 1820, to the 5th of January, 1821, was 46,120,5781. ls. 10}d. The charge was,
Annual Malt Duty 63,000,000 Excise Duties 2,500,000 Lottery - - - 240,000 Old Stores . . . 260,000
Deficiency of ways
and Means to meet Supplies voted £14,723,300 Here, then, was a net revenue of 6,000,000 to meet an expenditure of 20,000,000. Now, it was to be observed here, that the nominal amount of the sinking fund was 16,864,7631, which, together with that of Ireland, 646,000l., made up a total of 17,510,7631. Deduct from this the deficiency of revenue, and the only real sinking fund would be seen to amount to 2,558,125l. for the year 1820. Now, although the chancellor of the exchequer should dispute the correctness of some of these accounts, the document itself would still show with what ease and simplicity such a statement might be made out. He should now proceed with his second statement which related immediately to the civil and military government of the country. Its amount was 19,313,300l. Without including any of the funded or unfunded debt, here was a fixed, permanent, and necessary charge, by reducing which they had at present the slightest prospect of lessening the public distress. In the account laid on the table of the reductions made in the department of the ordnance, credit was taken for for 125,000l. for the sale of old stores, and annexed to the reductions. This ought not to be done, because the old stores were, in fact, public property, and the sale could not render them more so. There were some other points with respect to which he could not affirm the accuracy of the account; and he thought the Irish life annuities and the Russian loan should have been excepted as incidental and uncertain charges. The charge for the civil government of Ireland was estimated upon the authority of the last accounts which were received, and amounted to 576,215l. 13s. 4d. The quarantine and packet establishment amounted to 114,4631. 17s. 73d.; but it was not clear whether this was paid out of the gross or net revenue, whether it remained in the treasury or went out again. The honourable member then went through the other reduced heads of the expense of our civil and military government, showing, as he went along, the most advantageous manner in which they might be severally abstracted. He came then to refer to the establishment of 1792. In that year Mr. Pitt made an estimate of income and expenditure, including permanent and annual duties upon an average of four years preceding. The income he estimated at 16,212,000l., and took the supplies in this form:Supplies . £4,128,000 Interest and management of funded debt 9,325,866 Civil list and charges on consolidated fund 1,065,134 Reduction of debt . . 1,200,000 15,719,000 leaving a balance. of 438,000l.
for the further reduction of the debt. He might here observe, that in estimating the amount of outstanding debt, it always appeared much less than it actually was. When he found it called 31,000,000l. at present, he should say that he considered it rather as 46,000,000l. It might be the one on the 4th of January, and the other on the 5th, when the dividends were paid. This was therefore an omission, as it left unknown the actual amount of the whole
interest payable, and of course
the whole amount of the charge.
An account of the change which this year took place in the sinking fund was also omitted. The funded debt of Great Britain was now 801,500,600l. The fourth subject of comparison was that of the expence of the civil and military government at the two periods. Ireland was at that time separate; but, without including the charge of governing her as a separate kingdom, the whole expense under this head was 4,128,000l.; 1,500,000l. of which was derived from the annual taxes, and charged on the consolidated fund. The whole charge on account of Ireland was 1,200,000l. The joint - charge now was 19,313,300l., which, after allowing for an increased charge of collection, and a variety of subsequent establishments, left the general charge 7,714,4901. Our expense was, therefore, double its amount in 1792. But our army was also doubled it was
true. The right honourable gentleman would say that many fresh charges had arisen, and that our establishments had been greatly increased. Our whole charge was
now 26,872,000l., whilst in 1792
it was 7,714,490l. What could
mates should be reduced within