The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Maberlysaid, he should not have risen to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, had he not felt it to be necessary to call the attention of the House to the state of the finances. He supposed the right hon. gentleman intended, when the House was in a committee of supply, to move for a vote on account. Now, he thought that the House ought to come to a resolution to vote, at the commencement of the session, small sums on account of the several branches of the public service, and to defer the voting of large sums until it was made acquainted with the sources from which the money to make them good was to come. Last year, the right hon. gentleman had told the House, that he had a sinking fund of 5,000,000l., when in point of fact he had no such thing. He had also told them, that it was necessary to diminish the unfunded debt, and had absolutely been allowed to raise a loan of 8,000,000l. to do so. Now, he should like the right. hon. gentleman to tell the 68 House what he had done with the sum which he had raised for that purpose? The right hon. gentleman carried, he believed, the act which he obtained into execution; and he was informed that the right hon. gentleman had received 3,500,000l. in Exchequer-bills, and the remainder in money. Now, that loan was granted for the express purpose of paying off 6,000,000l. of the 11,000,000l. due from the government to the Bank. What, he would ask, had the right hon. gentleman done with the proceeds of the loan after he had obtained it? Why, he took the 4,500,000l.—which he had received in money, and which he had obtained for a specific purpose—and applied them to the ways and means of the year, and to what he was pleased to denominate the sinking-fund. The hon. member then asserted, that no reduction in the amount of the unfunded debt had been effected by the loan which the right hon. gentleman had obtained last year. He had been informed that the right hon. gentleman had appropriated 1,200,000l. to the service of the sinking-fund for the present quarter. Now, he should like to know where the right hon. gentleman was to get that sum? Not from the revenue, he was quite sure. He must either borrow it from the Bank, or get it from some quarter with which the House was not, though it ought to be, acquainted. He did not blame the right hon. gentleman for not having a revenue equal to his anticipation, but he did think that, in consequence of the defalcation which had taken place in it, the whole subject of our revenue should undergo the investigation of a committee. The consideration of our finances ought not to be deferred till May; it ought to be undertaken immediately. When our finances were in a flourishing state, the right hon. gentleman had brought on the budget early: now that they were in a deranged state, he deferred it to the latest opportunity. He contended that the right hon. gentleman had no sinking-fund of 5,000,000l. this year; and that he ought therefore to state his ways and means before he asked the House to grant a supply of 20,000,000l. Without having any wish to embarrass the right hon. gentleman, he felt himself under the necessity of opposing the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. gentleman had declared that 69 he had no intention to embarrass him; but if he were to be drawn by the hon. gentleman into a premature explanation of his plans for the year, he should not only be greatly embarrassed himself, but should produce much embarrassment, and inflict infinite mischief, upon the public. Now, as he did not wish either to embarrass or to injure the public, he must decline, with all courtesy to the hon. gentleman, to answer any of his questions. Not that, by so doing, he intended to admit that any of the hon. gentleman's statements were correct, or to conceal, or wish to conceal, the financial circumstances of the country from the House, when the proper time came for disclosing them. It would be absurd in any man who filled the situation which he had the honour to fill, to think of mystifying its accounts. He had no such wish: he only wished to avoid being drawn prematurely into a statement, which, if misunderstood, might do much mischief. The hon. gentleman had complained, that he had postponed his annual statement of the finances of the country, because they were not in a flourishing condition. Now, he begged leave to say, that he had done no such thing. He had stated, on a former occasion, why it had been impossible for him to do that which the hon. gentleman seemed to think he ought to have done long since. He found that, at the close of last year, circumstances affecting the foreign relations of the country had occurred, which made the sending out an armament to assist its ancient ally, the king of Portugal, a matter of indispensable necessity. That armament could not be sent without causing an expense which was not anticipated; and, although the expense of maintaining it was to be repaid hereafter by the Portuguese government, still it was necessary to provide funds for it in the interim. Until the effects of that armament were seen, until the time of its stay was calculated, until the extent of the operations in which it was to be engaged was fully ascertained—it would have been absolute madness in any minister to have attempted to inform the House that the finances of the country would only be affected to a given amount, in consequence of that armament. When his majesty sent down to the House his message, informing it of his intention to support his ancient ally the king of Portugal, the House, by an immense majority, 70 determined to support his majesty in the policy which he had adopted. Therefore, if parliament, when it met, had postponed giving effect to that policy, it would have adopted a course which would have been most prejudicial to the success of the measures, in behalf of which it had previously voted. That was the reason why he had said, that it would be impossible for him—without reference to any considerations immediately personal to himself, which he allowed that he could not call upon the House to notice—to bring forward at an early period of the session the general finance of the country. He reminded the House of the course which he had hitherto pursued with regard to the budget, and desired them to infer therefrom, that he had no desire to postpone the consideration of the financial state of the country, because it appeared to some gentlemen not to be in the most flourishing condition. In January 1823, he was appointed to the office which he now had the honour to fulfil. It was a department entirely new to him, and he had, he confessed, his lesson to learn; but, notwithstanding all the difficulties of his situation, he had brought forward his financial statement on the 21st of February. In 1824, he had brought it forward on the 23rd of February. He at that time stated his decided opinion as to the principle on which he meant to act. He thought, and he then made the declaration, that it was indispensable, in time of peace, that the statement of the finances of the country should be laid before the House at the earliest possible period. In 1825, the budget was submitted to the House on the 28th of February. Last year it was not introduced until the 15th of March. That, however, was not his fault. The statement was prepared and ready at a much earlier day; but the House must recollect how much parliament was at that time occupied with the important question of the currency. And he could assure the House, that it was sorely against his desire, that his financial statement was put off from day to day. He thought he had now shown, pretty clearly, that he harboured no wish to put off the business unnecessarily; and though he would not do so foolish a thing as to promise, that, under every possible circumstance, he would bring forward, at a particular time, his financial statement—still he thought the House would not sup- 71 pose, because it was impossible for him to introduce the statement this year so early as gentlemen wished, that he felt any disinclination to do so at a proper season. He had already shown what his sense of duty was. He conceived the course he had adopted, in the outset, was a right one. So far as the government was concerned, the putting off to a late period the financial statement was the most inconvenient course that could be pursued: and, but for the circumstances he had stated, it would have been in readiness long before. Now, he would ask of the House, whether, in fairness, he could, with any view to the public advantage, enter into a partial discussion of this subject— which would, he must say, be wholly unintelligible? He had, the other day, asked for the means of defraying the army and navy estimates, agreeably to the pledge given by the House, in answer to the king's message: and he had then observed, that the vote for civil contingencies, with respect to some of the items of which a dispute might arise, should not be called for, until the account was perfectly ready. His motion, this evening, would only be for a certain sum, on account. He had not done any thing unreasonable in taking this course; and, whatever might be the opinion of the hon. member, he thought it his positive duty to seal his lips on this subject, until he was ready with the whole statement.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he wished an estimate of the supply and of the ways and means to be laid on the table.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that 20,000,000l. had already been voted for the army, navy, and ordnance, without sufficient attention having been paid to so large an appropriation of the public money.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleywas of opinion, that not much less than 20,000,000l. had been voted; and it was high time that the House should endeavour to lessen so enormous an expenditure. There might, he was convinced, be a very great reform effected in all the establishments of the country; and he warned the right hon. gentleman, if he came forward to lay any more burthens on the country, that he would, if he stood alone, oppose such a proposition, and call for some reform in the expenditure of the state. The question, relative to an issue of Exchequer bills, 72 which was put to the Bank directors a few days since, had not been satisfactorily answered by the hon. governor, or by the right hon. gentleman; and he now entreated him to consider the inconvenience which the country would experience, if there were a fresh issue of Exchequer-bills. They had now Exchequer-bills outstanding to the amount of 25,000,000l.; and the Bank had 21,000,000l. of notes in circulation, which it was not in the nature of things that they would be called on to pay. But if any unfavourable circumstance arose in the foreign policy of the country, the right hon. gentleman might be called on to pay those 25,000,000l. of Exchequer-bills, without a shilling in the treasury to meet the demand. Was that a situation in which the country ought to be placed? He knew that the Exchequer-bills carried a very low rate of interest; but, in what a situation were they placed a twelvemonth ago, when they were obliged to cancel a part of those Exchequer-bills! If the sinking fund had been made use of on that occasion, they would have received 100l. for 100l.; but, instead of doing that, they employed it in purchasing three per cents at 95l. and 96l.; and when they wished to contract the amount, of Exchequer-bills, they funded in the four percents at 107. If what happened last November should occur again, Exchequer-bills would, undoubtedly, be at a discount. He warned the right hon. gentleman to pause before he increased the quantity of Exchequer-bills. If, in future, there should be a fair surplus revenue, he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would get rid of the delusion of a Sinking-fund, and employ that surplus in relieving the country from a portion of its burthens. If, in that case adverse circumstances should occur, the government would be enabled to defend the country with effect, or to assist the merchants, should they be in distress.
§ Mr. Humeprotested, on the part of the public, against the procrastination of business of so important a nature. He had heard nothing from the right hon. gentleman, but that particular circumstances had prevented him from bringing forward his annual statement. But what those circumstances were, he did not know. It was pretty evident, however, that if there was no government, as was in some degree the case at present, no business of importance could be brought before the House. The hon. member for Callington 73 had, on a former night, very justly observed, that he did not know of whom the administration consisted, or who were the responsible parties. This was a very serious evil, and ought to be rectified as soon as possible. The right hon. gentleman said, it would be madness for him at the present moment, to state any thing about the financial situation of the country: but, it was greater madness to adopt the conduct of an inconsiderate spendthrift, and to plunge into expense, without knowing what they had to meet it. The reasons adduced by the right hon. gentleman for delay were quite insufficient. Why not lay on the table of the House the items of expenditure, to show why the expense in particular departments this year, went beyond that of other years? The rule which the right hon. gentleman had laid down on entering office was, to produce the accounts as early as possible, and he had done so for four years; but he now said, "I cannot lay my statement before you, because I do not know what the expense on account of Portugal may be." This was the worst possible reason that could be devised. Having been hurried, by a species of madness, to meddle with other people's affairs, instead of minding their own, they were now told that no estimate could be formed of the probable expense that would attend their interference. Much had been said about entering into this dispute, for the purpose of upholding the honour of the country; but, in his opinion, it would redound more to the honour of the country if they maintained their credit, by paying their debts, instead of creating fresh ones.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the estimate of the civil contingencies for 1827 was 290,000l. This was lower than the estimate of last year, and what he now proposed was, to ask for 200,000l. on account. That was the only vote he meant to submit to the committee.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he always had, and always would, object to this mode of voting money; and he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to one or two items in the accounts of civil contingencies. Some gentlemen in this new parliament were not, perhaps, aware of the expense of the diplomatic service. They ought to know, that 226,000l. were voted for it in 74 the civil list. Under the head of "contingencies," there were in addition to that, 200,000l.; and there were 88,000l. extraordinaries, in addition to the 226,000l. of the civil list. Last year, the minister to the court of France (for it seemed to be considered necessary that this country should vie with the Autocrat of Russia, in having the most splendid palace for the representative of his majesty) caused 11,000l. to be laid out in the purchase of a superb building. This sum was taken from the civil list. There was besides a charge of between 16,000l. and 17,000l. for the extraordinary expenses of his suite; and 12,586l., in addition to the sum taken from the civil list. Thus a sum of between 23,000l. and 24,000l. was laid out for one individual as the representative of Great Britain at the court of France. The diplomatic expenses, including plate, for the last year, amounted to 364,000l. This, however, was exclusive of a large grant for consuls and missions to South America. So that there was nearly 500,000l. a-year expended on the diplomatic service. This scale of remuneration was far beyond what the country could bear; and therefore he objected to voting the present sum. The expense of the diplomatic department in nine years, ordinary and extraordinary, had been 3,000,000l. sterling. Now, he put it to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, whether this expenditure ought to be tolerated, when they saw their table covered with such appalling statements of distress? When their countrymen were in rags, and absolutely wanting food, was it fair to support a few individuals in such splendor? It kept up an appearance, on the part of England, which she was not able to support. The people on the continent imagined, on account of this system of extravagance, that England was overflowing with wealth; when in fact the country was a patch-work of pauperism and wretchedness. The expense of this department ought to be cut down to 150,000l. per annum; and then it would be twice as much as it was in 1795. He observed, that there was likely to be another addition to the public expense; as it had been announced, that the marquis of Hertford was about to be despatchedot the court of Russia, in compliment to that monarch. Let them look to the situation in which they were placing themselves, by this act, with reference to that 75 power. It would make the emperor more haughty and imperious than ever. He would suppose that this country was humbling herself to conciliate his good graces. Last year, the duke of Wellington was sent on a special mission to Russia, which cost the country 6,536l. The duke of Devonshire had also been sent on a special mission to that court, on occasion of his imperial majesty's coronation; for which a charge of 10,000l. was made. Now, they had been told, that the duke of Devonshire would defray all the expense himself. [It was here intimated, that it was the duke of Northumberland who had expressed his intention of bearing all the expense, when he attended the coronation of the king of France.] He certainly never understood that the duke of Devonshire, who was a particular acquaintance of the emperor Nicholas, was to be repaid. At that very time, too, we had an ambassador to Russia who was costing the country 16,000l. or 17,000l. a year; for in these matters there were no small sums, and tens of thousands were the only figures employed in connection with ambassadors and royalty. Yet, after this expenditure on diplomatic ceremony and court etiquette, another mission was about to be fitted out to the same prince. Neither was extravagance of this kind limited to the old world; the republics of the new were to be initiated into the mystery of spending money without limit or object. Sir C. Stuart had been sent to the Brazils at an expense of 12,000l., to which was to be added a fresh charge for his secretary, lord M. Hill. Besides all this, there was a sum of 25,000l. for presents of snuff-boxes to foreign ministers. Was it fair to ask, if our own ministers received 25,000l. in the same way? He hoped they did, in order to keep up the reciprocity of the transaction. In India if the same amount as was given in a present, was not returned in the same way, it was considered an insult. But to come to these items. The first was a present, to the amount of 1,000l., from his majesty to the French Chancery, on the exchange of the ratifications of a commercial convention. The next was a sum of 500l. to the Swedish Chancery, on the exchange of the ratifications of a convention. Then there was to the chevalier de Los Rios, late envoy extraordinary from the king of Spain, upon the termination of his mission, 400l.; so that an ambassador, on his coming, received a present, and when he was going 76 away, he got another. The next item was 500l. to colonel Hamilton, for having brought from Bogota the treaty with Colombia. A sum of 23,532l. then followed, which was paid to Messrs. Rundell and Bridge, for gold snuff-boxes, as presents from his majesty to foreign ministers on different occasions. Among these were, to count Ozarowsky, charged with a special mission to his majesty from the emperor of Russia, 788l. 10s. The next item was for boxes to the Swedish minister, the Russian minister, and to the minister of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, 3,333l. Then, to the Colombian ministers, on the exchange of the ratifications of a treaty, there was 1,963l. 10s. Now, he objected to this as setting a bad example to republics, and as being an attempt on our part to corrupt these honest, unsophisticated states. The hon. member then alluded to presents to the amount of 836l. 15s. to the minister of the Hanse Towns; 1,086l.15s. to prince Polignac; 4,556l. 12s. to the ministers of the Ottoman Porte; and to his grace the duke of Northumberland, a diamond hilted sword, value 10,812l. Considering such items as these in the light of an extravagant waste of the public money, he felt every disposition to oppose the present vote.
Mr. Secretary Canning(who spoke in an exceedingly low tone) was understood to say, that the vote which the hon. member opposed, and all the items which he had submitted to so minute an examination, had already received the approbation of the House; inasmuch as they were included in the estimates, not of the present, but of the preceding year. Under these circumstances, it might not have been necessary more particularly to notice the hon. member's objections, had not names been alluded to in the course of his speech, which every one in that House must know were entitled to the utmost respect. The hon. gentleman had said, in reference to the mission of a noble duke to a foreign court, that he had been informed that the embassy had been intrusted to that noble person, on the condition, and with the understanding, that its prosecution should be attended with no expense to the country; and further, the hon. member appeared to suppose, that some such arrangement, expressed or implied, had been, on a former occasion, alluded to in that House. Now he was at 77 issue with the hon. member on that fact. So far from any such assurance having been given, the direct contrary was distinctly understood. With respect to the dukes of Northumberland and Devonshire, he was clearly of opinion that no man, however exalted his station, or affluent his private fortune might be, should be allowed to represent and support the dignity of this country, in the eyes of foreigners, at his own expense. If the duke of Northumberland had made a considerable advance of money out of his own private funds, to sustain, in a becoming manner, the character of this country, for liberality and hospitality, at the court of France, it was quite right that he should receive some testimonial, if not a remuneration, for his services. With regard to the duke of Devonshire, who went to the court of St. Petersburgh, on a special embassy to the emperor of Russia, on the occasion of his coronation, he could assure the hon. member, on his word of honour, that the 10,000l. which had been granted, was a sum which nothing like defrayed the expense incurred by that nobleman in his mission. In fact, it did not cover one third of the expense of the noble duke on that occasion. He repeated, that it was against his judgment and wish, that individuals, however exalted, should be placed in such situations, and permitted to bear any part of the cost. However, he should probably gratify the hon. gentleman, by assuring him, that the noble marquis, to whom he had alluded, was going out at his own expense.—This was contrary to his wish; but, on the present occasion, he had been obliged to give way to the noble marquis, although he did not approve of allowing private individuals to take a high office, and sustain its dignity from their own private resources, and without expense to the country.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Secretary had taken no notice of the repairs of the English Ambassador's palace at Paris.
§ Mr. Canningsaid, it was really useless to give explanations to the hon. member, for he went on repeating his objections, as if nothing had ever been said to enlighten him. He had, on a former occasion, told the hon. member, that he had no more to do with the purchase of the palace in question, than the hon. member had. Two years ago a question arose as to whether it would be better to sell the palace or re- 78 pair it. Surveyors were sent from England to report on the subject. They reported in favour of repairing it; which was accordingly done. It was most unfair in the hon. member to add the accidental expense occasioned by repairing the palace to the salary of the Ambassador, for the purpose of making it appear that the annual charge was enormous. It was not lord Granville who decided upon the repairing of the palace, but the Treasury.
The motion was agreed to.