REDUCTIONS. (Hansard, 30 July 1833)

§ Mr. Charles Buller
was rising to bring forward his Motion on this subject, when

Mr. Stanley
thought, that the hon. Gentleman had expressed his acquiescence in the observations of the right hon. member for Tamworth as to the inexpediency of bringing before the House abstract propositions. No one could dispute the general proposition that it was desirable that all reductions should be made which were practicable; but this proposition contained an abstract principle; and if anything was necessary now, it was something' more than a declaration of the 175 necessity of making every practicable reduction.

§ Mr. Charles Buller
contended there was nothing abstract in his proposition. It pledged the Ministers to make such arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament as might be necessary to diminish the burthens of the country. He would, however, abandon his Motion if the noble Lord would allow him to place it on the Journals, and would promise to do something in consequence of it. Was the noble Lord ready to acquiesce in that proposition?

§ Lord Althorp
If the hon. Member meant to say, that the House was to pledge itself to make every practicable reduction,—surely the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say, that the House was to make impracticable reductions? If the hon. Member merely wished the House to express the opinion, that it was desirable for the House to make reductions, no one could dissent from that proposition, because it was a truism; but the hon. Member's Motion implied more than this, for it pledged the House to arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament.

§ Mr. Charles Buller
was desirous that Ministers should pledge themselves to something specific—to declare, that it was possible to make extensive reductions, and to promise to effect them. He was sorry to press the subject forward in so thin a House, and when some were in the act of retiring from it, but without any intended discourtesy he felt bound to proceed. There was no subject in which the people took greater interest than in the diminution of burthens by lessening expenditure, and it was the duty of the House to ascertain, in the first instance, whether it was not possible to make considerable reductions. Matters of figures could never be made interesting, but fortunately for him it was not necessary to enter into any wearisome details. He did not mean to charge any particular departments with extravagance—nor to touch a single sinecure; he was in favour of a larger economy, which must be accomplished by a diminution of the public establishments, without the slightest danger to the public safety. He did not ground his proposition on prevailing distress, for he did not believe that it existed to any material extent; but there was no doubt, if the people were not oppressed, they 176 were greatly injured by taxation. He supposed it would be admitted, that taxation was in itself an evil. Time was, when a proposition had been made by the right hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson) for a reduction of sixteen or seventeen millions of taxes; but although Ministers had now forgotten their opposition dreams, it was the duty of the House to decide whether some greater degree of economy than was at present practised was not only expedient but necessary. The Reform of Parliament had been brought about for the purpose of lessening taxation, and the people had not put all their great energies in motion for the purpose merely of reducing a million in the imposts upon tiles, soap, and articles of that description. It would be most dangerous to make the people believe, that the late reform had done no good because not sufficiently extensive, and it was already a serious evil, that the House had lost, in a great degree, the confidence of the country. He was aware that he ought not to breathe a syllable in favour of a violation of the public faith, either by a fraudulent alteration of the currency, or by what had been miscalled an equitable adjustment: and it would be unfair and un can did not to admit that Ministers had done much towards reduction since they came into office. They had abolished three millions of taxes, and relieved the country from two millions of expenditure, and all departments of the public service were carried on with increased economy. They had also rid the country of many placemen and sinecurists, and all he complained of was, that they had not done enough. They were bound to do more in accordance with the wishes of the people, and their own declarations. Without being the apologist of sinecures, he might say, that the evil was not so much the amount, as the mode, and if the aristocracy must be supported from the hard earnings of the people, sinecures were much cheaper than jobs. As to the reduction of the establishments, everybody knew, that one ship or one regiment could not do as much as two ships and two regiments; but the question was, whether one ship and one regiment could not do all that was at this time required? He knew that there was always opposition made by the heads of each department to any abolition of expense in his department. Turgot had long ago 177 stated that opinion. The hon. Member read an extract from Turgot's letter to the King, saying, that every officer maintained the necessity of keeping up the expenditure with which he was intrusted. It had often been said, when Ministers were called upon to aid a generous people struggling against an odious tyranny, that the nation could not afford to go to war; true, but it might just as well go to war as keep war establishments. In the whole expenditure of the year there were 29,000,000l., the disbursement of which Parliament could not control; but it could interfere to save a very large sum out of the remaining 21,000,000l. He would not go through the items, but he might notice one which greatly exceeded the necessary sum—viz., the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, which cost the country 100,000l. a-year. There was also a number of judicial sinecures and jobs which ought to be abolished; and, he believed, the country looked upon the diplomatic expenditure as a job from beginning to end, meant to provide the aristocracy with comfortable situations and comfortable incomes. At the same time, he allowed that the Ambassadors and higher officers spent more than they received, while the chief gainers were those in lower departments. He would touch briefly upon the three great heads of charge—the army, navy, and ordnance. The cost of the army, deducting the dead weight and the non-effective force, was about 9,000,000l.; and it was well worth remark, that although the calculation had been that the dead weight would be reduced at the rate of about 100,000l. a-year, such had been the mismanagement of the fund thus applied, that it had been actually increased since the peace. As to the effective force of the army, he admitted, that the estimates had been smaller than usual last year, but they ought to be still considerably lower. Nevertheless, he gave Ministers credit for what they had done, although, on the abstract principle, the army ought to be less in number now than even in 1792. Our possessions abroad were certainly more extended; but they ought, in all but a very few cases, to pay their own expenses, and maintain their own army. The great measure of justice recently given to Ireland, would render fewer troops necessary there; besides, Ministers having won the hearts of the people of 178 England, could not be in need of a standing army to keep the King's subjects in subordination. The abolition of slavery also would enable them to reduce the force now employed in the West-Indies. He did not wish to reduce this establishment to the standard of 1792; but, in 1823, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), then in Opposition, had contended, that 68,000 men could not be required. On another occasion the noble Lord ad-argued, that misgovernment alone rendered 29,000 men necessary for Ireland. Did the noble Lord still mean to contend, that, at this moment, the same misgovernment required that 25,000 men should be kept there? The same views had been supported by the present Secretary-at-War, while the late Secretary-at-War had gone so far in 1823 as to assert that the whole of the army at home ought to be disbanded. The hon. Member went into some further particulars upon this point, and afterwards proceeded to the naval department, contending, in the first place, that Lord Castlereagh was the most economical Minister this country had known since the time of Mr. Pitt. The navy was a favourite service, and he did not wish to see it reduced too low; all he would say upon it, therefore, was, that he was anxious to see it placed upon the same footing as during the Administration of Lord Castlereagh. The account of the ordnance stood thus:—In 1823, the estimates were 1,007,000l.; in 1828, 1,914,000l.; in 1832, 1,793,000l. So that the cost of this department at this moment was more than in 1823 by no less than 786,000l. The hon. Member contended, that it was expedient that the number of the household troops should be reduced, and that the colonial expenditure should be diminished. This was a vast source of profusion on the part of Government; and unless that were reduced, little would be done towards assailing the root of unnecessary expenditure. The question was this—was the country bound to defend colonies that could not defend themselves? If they cost the country (with few exceptions, such as Malta and Gibraltar) a large sum of money annually, were they worth preserving? Adam Smith had justly compared the colonies of a country to the expensive equipage of a private family. Ministers could not, he was aware, make the necessary reductions instanter—to attempt that would be preposterous and 179 impracticable. All he wished was, that the House should give the country an assurance that such reductions were in contemplation. He hoped, that they would be obtained from Ministers freely, and without extortion, and in redemption of the pledges they had repeatedly given. He had not brought forward the Motion in hostility to them, and it was not to be viewed as a censure upon, or a suspicion of them. If their intentions were honest, they would themselves support it; if they opposed it, he should not be sorry to see them defeated by the House, and the Motion carried in their despite. He was chiefly anxious that the Resolution with which he should conclude should be carried, for the sake of the House, as it would tend so importantly to restore to it the confidence of the people. It had encouraged hopes of great retrenchments; those hopes had been disappointed; and, as the sole power of the House depended upon its popularity, he was naturally very desirous that it should retain it. Nothing could be more dangerous than to disappoint the public expectations, or to tell the people that, however solemnly it had been promised, they were not to expect relief. The hon. Member moved—"That it is the opinion of this House, that, in order to satisfy the just expectations of the people, it is necessary that such extensive reductions be made in the public expenditure as shall effectually diminish the burthens of the country; and that it is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to make such arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament, respecting the effective and non-effective services of the military, naval, civil, and colonial establishments, as may be necessary for the attainment of this object."

§ Mr. Buckingham
said, that great expectations of economy were indulged by the nation at the time when his Majesty's Government came into power; and though large allowances were made for the peculiar circumstances in which they then stood, yet certainly the public had a right to expect that something considerable would be done towards relieving the burthens of the people. He regretted to say, that the just expectations of the people had been most grievously disappointed. The people of England bad of late years become too intelligent, and too well informed, not to know, that if ever men by their speeches, and by their express declarations on going into 180 the Cabinet, stood pledged to economy, those men were the present advisers of the Crown. The people in the present day not only read the debates of the present moment, but, with the view of ascertaining what had been the declarations of public men in times past, they referred to the debates of former Sessions. Much had been said of the necessity of rendering our establishments efficient; for his part, he thought our army was already too efficient, much more so than the necessities of the country required. Of late years, nations had agreed to interchange their commodities much more extensively than in former times, and hence they became more dependent upon each other. For these and other reasons, he deprecated the continuance of so large a military force as this country had hitherto maintained. The expenses of foreign embassies were also enormous; the times had passed away when the bulk of mankind were to be imposed upon by the pomp of oriental splendor; and in Europe at least, the practice of sending magnificent retinues with Ambassadors ought to be discontinued. One intelligent and able functionary, with, perhaps, the assistance of a competent secretary, would be quite sufficient for all the purposes of modern embassies. The fact was, that the expenses of embassies amounted to ten times as much as they ought. On all these grounds, he thought some distinct pledge ought to be given on the part of his Majesty's Government before the present Session came to a close, that would inspire confidence, and afford to the people a well founded hope that their reasonable expectations on the subject of reduction of taxation would be realised.

§ Lord Althorp
admitted, that the subject was of great importance; but he confessed he could not discover what possible advantage was expected from bringing such a Motion as the present under the consideration of the House, other than making it the vehicle for conveying to the public a speech which might be expected to make an impression out of doors; as to its serving any other purpose, he professed himself unable to discover any. An endeavour had been made to cast blame upon his Majesty's Government, and the Record of Parliamentary Debates had been searched for the purpose of establishing the inconsistencies of the present advisers of the Crown. He trusted, that 181 the House would dispense with his proceeding into a detailed vindication of their conduct up to the present time. As to the Motion itself, he could not but regard it as a Motion of censure—if it were not to be looked upon in that light, it could not be considered of any use whatsoever; and if the House thought that Government had not done all that it could to accomplish the wishes of the people, they would agree to the Motion, but not otherwise. If the Government had not redeemed the pledges which they had offered to the nation on accepting office, then he should say they deserved censure; but they had most fully redeemed those pledges. During the whole course of their career in office, they had taken economy for their leading principle; true, they might not have realised all the expectations of the people, but they were warranted in saying, that they had realised all just and reasonable expectations that intelligent and unprejudiced persons could entertain; they had reduced three millions of taxes; and they had made not only that reduction in the amount of the money payable to the Treasury, but they had, at the same time, greatly reduced the patronage of the Crown. That they could now safely do; for, as he had often before said, the country could no longer be governed by patronage. The reduction, then, of taxation, and the relinquishment of patronage, were the principles upon which they had proceeded; and he would affirm that they had, in the pursuit of those principles, gone the utmost length that they could go, without exceeding the line of their duty. The hon. Member who spoke last had talked of reducing the army. Could that be done, he asked, in the colonies, at the moment when they were about to abolish slavery? Surely, when in the course of trying such an experiment as that of abolishing colonial slavery, the Motion of the hon. member for Liskeard was one which, if adopted by the House, would be liable to much misconstruction; and he, therefore, should propose another Resolution in its stead, or as an Amendment. It might not, perhaps, be very useful to adopt that which be should propose; but it would be perfectly harmless; its adoption would save the House from the necessity of negativing the Motion of the hon. Member, and it would likewise have the effect of admitting that which he was at all times perfectly ready 182 to admit—namely, that some reduction was required. The noble Lord concluded by moving—"That while this House acknowledges, with satisfaction, that, by the reduction of the public expenditure, and by the financial arrangements carried into effect, there has been a reduction of taxation in the last and the present Session to an amount exceeding 3,000,000l. annually, they feel it their duty to affirm the determination to which they have already come, to adhere to the just principles of a wise economy, and to apply those principles to all departments of the State, paying a due regard to the national engagements, and to the interests of the public service."

§ Mr. Fryer
gave credit to Ministers for their good intentions; but good intentions alone would not do; they must have acts. He was afraid, however, that they were kept down by the fear of the oligarchy of the landlords. If they meant to relieve the country they must establish a Property-tax, not an Income-tax, for to that the public would never consent; but to a Property-tax they roust come at last. He did not want to turn Ministers out, but out they must go if they did not reduce the expenditure: and who was to come in in their places? Was it the Tories? He did not want the Tories; but they must come in if the present Ministers could not stay in. The Duke of Wellington must come in with his quantum suff. of steel and cold lead, which the people did not want. If, however, the Duke should come in, there was no doubt that one of his first acts would be the repeal of the House and Window-tax, and probably have a Property-tax in their stead, to the discomfiture of the landed oligarchy. There was no doubt that he would come down on that occasion as he had on those of the Test Acts and the Catholic question. He would repeat it, that the Duke would come in, and must, if Ministers did not change their plan; and when they were out of office, and sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, they would learn to do better. What was a Reformed Parliament for, if it did not relieve the people from the pressure of taxation? All that he meant, was to urge the Ministers to do that which he was sure they were well inclined to do if they were not afraid of the landed oligarchy.