Lords Sitting of 21 May 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord Monteagle, from several places, against Church Rates, the Opium Trade, and in favour of National Education.—By the Earl of Hardwicke, from Northfleet, for an Alteration in the Duty on Foreign Fruit.—By the Earl of Aberdeen, from Greenock, and Dalhousie, against Intrusion of Ministers. —By the Duke of Argyle, from Glasgow, in favour of Emigration to Canada.—By the Earl of Breadalbane, from Rosshire, for an Alteration in the Church Patronage (Scotland).—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Trowbridge, that Stock in Trade might not be Rated.— By the Bishop of Norwich, from Swaffham, that some measure might be taken to relieve the present state of Religious Destitution in the country.

ANGLO SPANISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he had to present a petition from an officer of the late Spanish Legion relative to the settlement of his claims on the Spanish Government. The noble Viscount opposite was pleased to say, when he (the Marquess of Londonderry) moved before Easter for the correspondence with the Spanish Government on the subject of those claims, that a negotiation was then in progress respecting them, and at a subsequent period, he had been informed that the negotiation was still going on. Now, he did not wish to press inconveniently on her Majesty's Government; but he felt it necessary to ask, in justice to the parties interested, if the noble Viscount would name a day on which he could state positively whether the negotiation were brought to a close, or whether the noble Viscount would leave him to resort to the only course he could adopt—that of moving an address to her Majesty, praying that she would direct the case of these unfortunate people to be taken into consideration by her Majesty's Government? The petition which he had to present was from the representative of James Cotter, late an officer in the Spanish Legion. The petitioner stated that he had heard by mere chance that a commission was sitting to decide on the claims of the officers of the Legion, and that he had in consequence proceeded to London to substantiate his claim. There he was kept for three months, separated from his family, far away from his business, and subjected to an enormous expense before he procured his certificate. He therefore complained of the delay in settling his claim, and prayed that he might be reimbursed in the expenses to which he was put while he was unnecessarily detained in London. A noble Earl (Clarendon), the petitioner uuderstood, had stated, that the commission was proceeding in the most satisfactory manner; but, so far from the commission giving satisfaction, the petitioner said he would prove, if a committee of inquiry were granted, that they had in several instances acted with cruelty and injustice. This was only one of many petitions which he had received, in which the petitioners stated, that so far from the conduct of the commission being satisfactory, it was directly the reverse.
The Duke of Richmondwished to point out to his noble Friend a part of the peti-
462
tion to which he objected, and on account if which it would be desirable to withdraw t, in order that it might be amended. His noble Friend must know that it never vas the practice of that House to receive petitions that contained statements of anything said by any noble Lord in his place.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas willing to withdraw the petition if the joint were pressed; but the petitioner only stated that he had heard so and so— that a general report prevailed that such an observation had been made, the mention of which did not appear to him to be incorrect.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, the petition was clearly irregular, and it certainly was not the first time the noble Marquess (though so far as he was concerned, the noble Marquess was welcome to it) had read answers from petitions to speeches which he had made in that House.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the noble Earl was disposed to make assertions which were not exactly correct. Could the noble Earl state the time when he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had done that of which he was accused?
The Earl of Clarendoncould not state the precise day, but such, nevertheless, was the fact.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the question which the noble Marquess had put to him, he could answer it at once. There was no necessity for him to give notice of a day on which to answer it. The negotiations were not completed, they were now proceeding, and it therefore remained for the noble Marquess to take whatsoever course he thought fit.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas obliged to the noble Viscount for his courtesy, because it relieved him from a state of embarrassment with respect to the numerous parties who were interested in the settlement of those claims. He should, therefore give notice, that on the 4th of June he would move an humble address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to give directions for the settlement of those claims. If the negotiations were not at that time brought to a close, he could postpone the motion; but if brought to a close prior to that, he trusted that the fact would be stated.
The Duke of Richmondagain objected to receiving the petition, on the ground

463
that it referred to what was said by a noble Lord in his place. It was well known that petitions containing such references were invariably withdrawn. He conceived it to be a good rule, and one that ought not on this occasion to be departed from.
Petition withdrawn.

FRENCH CLAIMANTS.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the petition which he rose to present, was connected in some degree with the administration of justice; and he called the particular attention of the noble Viscount at the head of the Treasury to it, because he was sure, that if the statements contained in the petition were verified, as he believed they could satisfactorily be, the noble Viscount would see the propriety and justice of acceding to what the petitioner required. In the year 1818 or 1819, a convention was entered into with the French Government by the noble Duke below him, by which a considerable sum of money was appropriated to the discharge of claims made by British subjects on account of losses which they had sustained by confiscations during the revolutionary contest in France. Commissioners were appointed to investigate those claims; and an Act of Parliament was passed, by which it was enacted that any of the claims not decided satisfactorily to the claimants by the commissioners, might be brought by appeal before the Privy Council, provided those original claims were made within a certain time. But certain of the claimants, from various circumstances, were not able to comply with that provision, and their applications were not made within the specified time. It turned out, however, that the sum paid was larger than what was necessary to meet the demands that were preferred; and it was accordingly ordered by the Treasury, and was considered as just, that the second class of petitioners, who were in the first instance late in their application, should be placed in the same situation as the first, and that they should, after investigation, receive compensation according to the extent of their losses. The Act of Parliament, however, only applied to the first class, and some difficulty was found in extending the right of appeal to the second class. With that view an arrangement was made by the Treasury, that the right of appeal should be extended to the
464
second class claimants, but that they should bind themselves to the decision of the Privy Council. One of those claimants was the present petitioner, John Warr, or De Warr, the son of Patrick Warr, and he made a claim for the value of estates in Burgundy and Champagne. With respect to Burgundy, he rested his claim on the purchase of the estate by his father; and with reference to Champagne, his claim was founded on the marriage of his mother with his father, the latter deriving his title to the estate from his wife. Such were the circumstances of the case. The claim was considered by the commissioners, and was by them rejected. An appeal was then lodged before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who rescinded the decision of the commissioners, and directed the commissioners to ascertain, by estimate, what was the amount of the claimant's loss by the confiscation of the estates in Burgundy and Champagne, named in the award. Nothing could be more clear or concise than that decision and direction. It would appear from it, that the commissioners had nothing more to do than to ascertain, in the manner of a writ of inquiry, what the loss of the claimant was. In the mean time, while these proceedings were taking place, the commission was changed, and a new set of commissioners were appointed. The former commissioners decided in public, every body knew what they were doing, and an opportunity was given to all who were interested to inquire into their proceedings. But the new commissioners took another course. They investigated in private, they decided in private. None of the parties were heard prior to the award. That award was given in general terms, and those who were interested could not tell on what grounds it proceeded. They applied, therefore, to the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, requesting that the commissioners appointed to consider those claims might be called on to state the precise grounds of their award in this case. The Lords of the Treasury were satisfied with the justice and propriety of that application, and made an order on the commissioners, directing them to give the necessary explanation. It appeared, from the statement which was produced in consequence, that the commissioners had omitted to give compensation for a part of the Burgundy estates, and that they

465
had entirely omitted the estates in Champagne. Now, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had directed the commissioners to investigate and ascertain the amount of loss sustained with respect to both estates. The parties were heard before the commissioners, both with respect to the omission of the loss on a part of the Burgundy estates, and as to the total omission of the loss with respect to the Champagne estates. The commissioners held that, by the marriage contract, the property in the Champagne estates was vested in the wife, and that the children had no claim on it. The contract of marriage was in consequence laid before M. Dupin by the party claiming for his opinion, and he decided, that under the marriage contract, the son had a just right to claim. That was a matter which, in point of fact, the Privy Council appeared to have before decided. But, if that body had not done so, then it would appear that a question of law, and a most important question too, the commissioners had taken upon themselves to decide. Under these circumstances it became a question whether the claimant had a right again to appeal, and application was made to the Privy Council. The Treasury did not allow that appeal, but a minute was drawn up, which declared the facts stated in the opinion of the Privy Council. He (Lord Lyndhurst) did not object to the terms of that minute, but on the part of the claimant he objected to the course which had been taken; for the Treasury formed part of the Government, and the Government was a party to the subject-matter of the claim; the petitioner, therefore, contended he had a right to state his own case, and be heard by counsel upon it, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The minute proved to be useless, for the judicial committee would not give an opinion upon an ex parte statement: however, the Treasury persevered, and the judicial committee refused to pronounce an opinion upon it. Under these circumstances, the petitioner required that this case should be submitted by way of appeal to the Privy Council; if not, he would suffer a grievous injustice and loss, as the fund was now in the course of distribution. The Treasury had, in fact, given, by its minute, judgment against itself, for in drawing up the case it was not left to the decision of the commissioners, but it was
466
directed that further inquiry should be made. That being so, what course ought to be taken? Why, that course of proceeding which was pointed out by the Act of Parliament, under which the petitioner had a right to appeal from the decision of the commissioners upon an important question of law, which ought to be submitted for decision to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. The petitioner stated, that he had taken the opinions of two eminent lawyers in France, and that opinions had been also taken from French lawyers on the part of the Government, and he had reason to believe those opinions all corresponded; if so, therefore, it was but reasonable and just that he should have the benefit of those opinions; but if they differed, still he had the right to have a decision pronounced between them by the proper and fitting tribunal. Under these circumstances, he presented this petition, feeling very certain that the noble Viscount at the head of the Treasury would direct whatever was proper to be done with respect to its prayer.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the petition related to a matter which had been heard before the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and that the petitioner had no legal right to ask that which by his petition he prayed. It would be mere matter of favour and discretion to grant the prayer, and its concession would depend upon the nature of the claim and the proceedings which had taken place upon it. The statute certainly gave a right of appeal to the Privy Council, provided the appeal was presented within three months after the adjudication of the commissioners. The adjudication complained of was made in 1835, so that five years had elapsed before the party thought himself entitled to try the matter before the Privy Council. But the information which his noble and learned Friend had received was in many respects inaccurate, and it differed much from the information derived from official documents which had reached him (the Lord Chancellor). His noble and learned Friend had correctly stated, that the claim was originally made in respect of two estates. To one of these estates, situate in Burgundy, the claimant had succeeded in right of his father, and with respect to which no question could now arise, as its value had been ascertained, and the party had been paid it

467
with interest. The other estate (in respect to which he also claimed compensation) was situate in Champagne, which was the property of the claimant's mother, a French woman, who had married an English subject. These two claims came before the commissioners, who were under a misapprehension as to a matter of fact, for they had supposed the father of the claimant was not a British subject, and under that misapprehension they rejected both claims, on the ground that the present petitioner did not come within the provisions of the statute, by reason of his parents not having been British subjects. Upon this the case had come before the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and the decision of the Privy Council, which was reported and in print, turned simply on the point as to whether the commissioners had been mistaken upon the matter of fact as to whether the father was or was not a British subject, and, if so, whether the son was entitled to claim compensation. The Privy Council never went into the question of title at all, and that appeared not only from the printed report of the case, but also from the certificate given to the Treasury by the learned persons who presided as to the grounds of their decision that the father was a British subject. It was accordingly sent back to the commissioners, not, as it had been stated, to ascertain the value of the two estates, but to ascertain the loss the petitioner had sustained by the confiscation, and the commissioners were desired to examine the case de novo. The construction his noble and learned Friend had put upon the reference back was not the true construction of the decision of the Privy Council, who had merely examined as to the matter of fact, and sent the claims back to the commissioners to ascertain what the claims were, and how far they were maintained, the terms of the reference being "to ascertain the amount of the petitioner's loss in respect to the confiscation of the two estates." The commissioners proceeded accordingly to review their decision as to the compensation with respect to the Champagne estate, and they adhered to their decision, on the ground that the mother was solely entiled to that estate, and that there was no community of interest in it between the father and the mother, and they reported against that claim. With that decision the claimant was dissatisfied, and to a
468
certain extent he had reason to be so, and accordingly an opinion had been taken upon the marriage contract from M. Dupin, but the question whether the husband had an interest in the Champagne estate had not been put to that learned person, as his noble and learned Friend supposed. However, the question was ultimately referred to the law officers of the Crown in this country, and they differed from the decision of the commissioners, on the ground, that in their opinion, the husband having survived the wife nine months, had a life-interest in the estate, and that he being a British subject, the son who inherited was entitled to claim compensation to the extent of the value of the life-interest of the father.
Lord Lyndhurst: That is disputed. This is the first intimation the petitioner has had of the nature of that opinion of the law officers of the Crown; at least I am so instructed.
The Lord Chancellorwas certain his noble and learned Friend had not been instructed correctly as to that part of the case. Both his noble and learned Friend and himself had had experience enough in the discussion of private rights to know that it was not uncommon for the parties to tell those who advocated their interests all that was in their favour, but to keep back matters which made against them. It was better that the whole truth should be stated before a complaint was made. But, in fact, a further question had been put to the law officers of the Crown— namely, how far the son had an absolute and indefeasible interest in the Champagne estates after the death of both parents. The law officers of the Crown reported their inability to answer that part of the case, and it was accordingly referred to M. Dupin and M. d'Est Ange, in France, and those learned individuals held that the son had not an absolute and indefeasible right to that estate. Such being the case, he (the Lord Chancellor) was at a loss to know what question could now be referred to the Judicial Committee, except the opinion of the French lawyers, the accuracy of which would be all the Judicial Committee could have to decide. There had been a very long and protracted investigation of these claims, and no pains had been spared to come to a right conclusion; and if the party could not impugn the opinions of the French lawyers, he could not be entitled to more compen-

469
sation than he had already received. If his noble and learned Friend could have had recourse to the documents and opinions he (the Lord Chancellor) had seen, he would have found the claim of title to be such as he had stated it.
Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack said the petitioner was too late in making the present application. Why, the moment the judgment was known to the petitioner, he claimed the right of appeal. He differed from the opinion expressed by his noble and learned Friend, that this was a matter for the discretion of the Treasury. The Act of Parliament gave the absolute right of appeal, and what said the Treasury minute? Why, that the claimant should be placed by it in the same situation as if another act was passed. It was clear that the award of the commissioners was incorrect; it gave no compensation whatever for any part of the Champagne estate, it was entirely confined to the Burgundy estate, and therefore the party had a right to correct it by an appeal to the Judicial committee of the Privy Council. His noble and learned Friend had said the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken. But they were parties—they were the advocates for the Treasury before the commissioners. Was the petitioner, then, to be conclusively bound by the opinions of the law officers of the Crown? The opinions of the French lawyers had never been submitted to the claimant, and he had a right to have those opinions referred to a court of appeal, in order that the court might exercise a judgment upon them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the law officers of the Crown gave any opinion at all, it was in favour of the petitioner. Those who had absolutely decided against his claim were the two French lawyers whose names he had mentioned.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that ought not to bind the party. The courts of this country admitted the opinions of foreign lawyers as matter of fact, and the opinions of one set of lawyers might in court be met by the opinions of another set, and the British tribunal then decided between those opinions.
Petition to lie on the table.

FINANCE.
The Earl of Riponsaid that he did not anticipate that any objection would be made to the production of the papers for which he was about to move,
470
inasmuch as they had been laid before the other House of Parliament, and were only in continuation of some documents he had moved for in the course of last session; nevertheless, with their Lordships' permission, he would take the liberty of making a few preliminary remarks upon the subject to which those papers referred. At the commencement of this session he called their Lordships' attention to what appeared to him to be the very unsatisfactory, and, as he thought, alarming condition, in which the finances of the country stood. It then appeared to him, that they were about to enter upon a course of financial policy pregnant with danger to the best interests, if not the safety of the country, and he, on that occasion, stated the various reasons that led him to that conclusion. He showed that within the three last years there had been a very considerable excess of expenditure over the income of the country; and that that expenditure had arisen from causes over which he did not think the Government had any control, or for which the Government could be held responsible. Those causes were a state of things at home and abroad which compelled the executive government to call upon Parliament to make a large provision for the great establishments of the country. He stated that it appeared to him that, looking at the situation of the country, both at home and abroad, in its domestic and its foreign relations, there was no reason whatever to justify them in hoping that any change was likely to take place in that respect, and which would make it either prudent or safe to reduce the expenditure of the country. Since the time he took the liberty of stating those views to the House he had watched, with a good deal of vigilance, the course of those public events to which he referred as having caused the unsatisfactory and critical state of the country's finances, and it would have given him real satisfaction if he could say that anything had occurred during the last three months, since he made those observations, which would justify him in entertaining more sanguine views as to the possibility of curtailing the expenditure so as to bring it really within the regular income of the country. It might be true that, in some respects, some of the causes of anxiety and uneasiness might be diminished. There might be now a greater probability of some matters connected with our foreign affairs being settled than at that

471
time. But it was not very apparent, and at all events it remained yet in doubt. Although it might be true as regarded the internal condition of this country, that it could not be said to be in some respects in that state of alarm and anxiety in which it was at that time, yet he thought it would be the height of imprudence for any body to advise that the military force which was last year increased in consequence of the then state of the country, should be diminished, merely because some of the most unpleasant symptoms which appeared in the early part of this year had been partly removed. And certainly, as regarded another portion of the United Kingdom, he could not see the smallest ground of hope that they could dispense with any measure of precaution that Parliament had thought it necessary to establish. There was a volcano there, which might now be in a state of repose. And so it was. But it wanted nothing but the signal from those who controlled agitation and governed treason in that country, it wanted nothing but the signal from them, and God knew how soon it might be given, to burst out and desolate that unfortunate part of the empire, and expose it to all those horrors belonging to that pestilent system of agitation which had prevailed there for a length of time. Looking at these objects as grounds for maintaining our establishments at their present height, he saw no reason whatever for entertaining the expectation of a diminished expenditure. But since he first introduced the subject there had occurred another necessity for exertion on the part of this country, for which he for one, at least, was totally unprepared; and that was the impending hostilities with China. He did not know, and no one knew, what was the nature of the operations intended to be adopted with respect to China. They knew nothing of the object to be obtained —nothing of the chance of their success. Regarding all these things they were entirely in the dark, and if he did not anticipate any necessity of great exertions in that quarter of the globe at the commencement of the Session, it was only to be ascribed to the language of her Majesty's speech from the Throne. Because, although the speech referred to the unsatisfactory state of our relations with China, and contained an assurance that her Majesty's attention should be strictly applied to that important subject, yet
472
there was not one single word in that speech to lead any man to suppose that we were upon the verge of a war with that great empire, although at that very time her Majesty's Ministers must have known (though they did not think proper to tell Parliament of it) that a war with China was most probable, because at that moment must have been issued the ordinance connected with the government of India in relation to China. There was, therefore, at least the probability at that time that the result of those negotiations would be hostilities between the two countries. To talk of China having the power to carry on a successful war with this country, would, doubtless, be held to be the height of absurdity, but there was a vis inertœ belonging to that mighty empire which would make it exceedingly difficult for us, if only the Chinese would stand still, to impose upon them any terms whatever. Therefore nobody could tell, the most sanguine mind could not anticipate any period at which those hostilities might terminate, or could pretend to define the amount of the expense in which this country might be involved in consequence of them. It appeared to him, therefore, that the situation in which the country stood now, as regarded these matters, was precisely the same as at the commencement of the Session. There was precisely the same source of uneasiness and anxiety as existed when he formerly addressed the House. He, therefore, had watched with, he hoped no unreasonable impatience, but certainly with some anxiety, to ascertain the views which the Government might form, and take the opportunity of developing, as to the mode in which they proposed to meet the exigencies of the financial crisis in which the country was involved; and, in remarking upon this subject, he would take the liberty of stating, in the first instance, how the matter really stood— what was the actual condition of the country at this moment; what the actual condition of its financial resources; and what were the exigencies which Parliament was called upon to meet. It appeared, that in the year ending the 5th April 1838, the excess of expenditure over the income of the country was 1,428,000 l., in the year ending the 5th of April 1839, the excess was 430,000 l., and in the year ending the 5th of April 1840, it was 1,457,000 l.; the total excess of expendi-

473
ture over the income, during those three years, being about 3,300,000 l. This was rather a formidable deficiency to go on from year to year; but it became ten times more formidable, when it was looked at in connexion with the estimated deficiency of the present year. Because it appeared, from what had been stated, that the estimated deficiency of the current year ending April 1841, supposing, in the first instance, that no increase of taxation were to take place, would be not less than 2,337,000 l., so that that sum added to the pre-existing deficiency of 3,300,000 l. would make a total deficiency in I he course of four years of not less than 5,637,000 l. Was it safe to go on in this way? Embarrassments of every description would arise, unless some check were placed upon a system at once so unwise and so dangerous. The matter stood thus:—The expenditure of the present year was calculated at 49,432,000 l., exceeding in a great degree the actual expenditure of last year, and materially exceeding that of many previous years. It appeared that the income did not amount to more than 46,700,000 l. Supposing the revenue to be the same as last year, the income would amount to somewhat more than 47,000,000 l.; but it was stated that, in consequence of certain negotiations that had been going on with France, it was necessary to calculate upon a diminution of the revenue for the ensuing year of about 300,000 l. Such being the probable result of the conditions which the new treaty with France would impose upon the country, the estimated income of the present year, therefore, being reduced to 46,700,000 l. would leave a deficiency to be provided for of 2,732,000 l. He did not wish to say anything upon the subject of the possible terms of a commercial treaty of which he knew nothing. It was, perhaps, not very difficult to guess upon what articles the reduction of duty would be made; but when the Government said it would cost 300,000 l. to carry the treaty into effect, he took it for granted that they had considered not only the loss that would result from the reduction of the duty on the goods imported from France, but also how far that reduction upon French goods would tell upon the importation of similar goods from other parts of the world. If Ministers had only counted upon 300,000 l. as the loss likely to result from the dimi-
474
nution of the duty on goods directly imported from France, he was afraid they would find that that sum would not measure the whole amount of the loss they were likely to sustain. But he could not suppose that, in making their calculations, they had overlooked so important a point of consideration. It was obvious, that the Government had very clearly seen the necessity of endeavouring to meet this state of things by an effort to bring the income and expenditure of the country more near to each other. It was accordingly proposed to impose new taxes to the amount of 2,337,000 l. But the amount of the estimated deficiency being 2,732,000 l., and the proposed new taxes amounting only to 2,337,000 l., would still leave a sum of nearly 400,000 l. unprovided for. And how was that to be met? By a vote of credit. And what was a vote of credit? Nothing; but borrowing. It was a loan of some kind, lo be obtained either by the issue of Exchequer bills, or by raising money in the market. The country, therefore, was to lay itself under the obligation of an additional loan, notwithstanding the resolution to impose additional taxes. It was said, that a portion of the expense which the country would this year have to meet was of a temporary nature; and conspicuous amongst the items of this temporary expenditure was 350,000 l. for Canada, and 150,000 l. for prosecuting the war with China. It was contended, that it was not necessary to raise fresh taxes to meet an expenditure of this temporary character. If he (Lord Ripon), were perfectly satisfied that this was a temporary expenditure, referable solely to the present year, he might be disposed to admit the truth and validity of the argument; but their Lordships would perceive, that if the difficulties in Canada and in China, should not this year be overcome, a state of things might continue in those countries which would render a similar expense necessary in the ensuing year, in which case another loan would be necessary; and thus, from year to year, the country would be reduced to the wretched condition of raising loans— of annually borrowing sums of money to meet the deficiency of the revenue in the excess of the expenditure over the income. He looked upon this, not only as highly inconvenient, but as exceedingly dangerous. He feared that the winding up of the financial year of 1841 would show

475
a deficit of not less than 850,000 l., all of which must be obtained by the process of borrowing — a process which would still further increase the expenditure of the country (because money could not be borrowed without paying interest), and still further widen the difference between the income and the expenditure. Even if he were satisfied that this was a temporary expense, and that the country could calculate upon its not being continued, he confessed he should still feel very uneasy at the state in which things would be left; because it appeared to him that the principle upon which the Government had determined that the finances of the country should stand in future, was that of a deliberate rejection of any systematic plan for securing an habitual surplus. This seemed obvious from the fact, that the taxes to be raised were just enough to meet the ordinary expenditure, but not one farthing more. He thought that this was a very unsatisfactory state of things in which to leave the country—a state of things under which our power was likely to be most materially crippled, and all our relations, both at home and abroad, impaired. He knew that many persons were of a different opinion. He knew that many persons thought it a useless thing to attempt to maintain a surplus. It was said, that the money that might be devoted to the reduction of the debt by means of a surplus would be infinitely more beneficial to the community if left to "fructify" in the people's pocket. That was a species of fructification which he (Lord Ripon) confessed he did not understand. It was a principle from which he totally differed, being satisfied that the finances of the country could never be based upon a sound, safe, and wholesome footing unless, in time of peace, there was an habitual surplus. He did not say to what extent the principle of maintaining a surplus should he carried. People might differ upon that point; but that a surplus of some kind should be maintained appeared to him to be indispensably necessary. He begged their Lordships to consider for a moment the consequence of not having a surplus. If the income and expenditure of the country were to be kept upon an exact balance, it was clear that there could be no means whatever of meeting any sudden demand that might be made upon the finances, without borrowing money. This inconvenience would be
476
completely avoided, if it were the policy of the Government to maintain an habitual, systematic surplus. Suppose, for instance, that there was a surplus at the present moment of 2,000,000 l. there would then be no necessity to borrow money to meet the expenditure necessarily incurred in Canada and China. It was perfectly true, that if the surplus were applied to meet these sudden and unforeseen demands, it would not be possible to go on reducing the debt; but then it was to be remembered, that the debt would not be increased; and when other countries saw that we had the power of making sudden exertions to protect our honour or defend our rights, without increasing the burthens of the people, they would be less disposed to offend the one or encroach upon the other, than they would be if they saw us perpetually crippled and kept down by the paltry and ill-advised policy, which rendered us incapable of making any exertions whatever without the immediate necessity of borrowing money. Again, with a revenue so complicated as ours, it might be very desirable, from time to time, to modify the high taxation which pressed upon the country, and to reduce it; but changes of this description must always be accompanied with some uncertainty as to the result, and most probably with some temporary loss to the revenue. Under such circumstances, how great must be the advantage of a surplus. He might point to an instance which occurred within his own experience, as an illustration of the advantage derived from the practice of maintaining an habitual surplus. In the year 1823, there was a real surplus of a very considerable amount. A question arose of infinite importance, as regarded the well-being of Ireland, connected with the revenue of the country. The duty on spirits had been raised, from time to time, during the war until it amounted to an enormous sum. But it did not produce the amount of revenue that it might have done, because it gave rise to a most extended and most alarming system of illicit distillation—a system productive of the greatest possible evils, and leading to the demoralization of whole districts. The people all turned to smuggling; and everybody knew that when men were once habituated to a violation of the law in one respect, they soon ceased to yield obedience to it in all other respects. So it was in Ireland. The whole

477
country was in a state of the greatest disorder. He thought the most unjust, the most unconstitutional laws had become necessary to put down the tremendous evil that had arisen. The army had been occupied, much to the detriment of its discipline, hunting all over the country in small detached bodies, not for a hidden enemy, but for concealed stills. As he had said, the whole country was in the utmost confusion; and the state of things became absolutely intolerable. What was done? There was but one remedy. All others had been tried, and had failed, and that remedy was a reduction of the duty on spirits. It was reduced, he thought, one-half, entailing a possible loss upon the revenue of not less than 800,000 l.; though it certainly was not anticipated that the actual loss would be so great, because, if the plan succeeded, the duty, instead of being paid upon a comparatively small portion of the whiskey distilled in Ireland, would be paid upon the whole of it. But, at all events, the necessity of the case was so strong, that it was requisite to run the risk even of losing the whole of the 800,000 l. This he was enabled to do without difficulty and without danger, because he had a considerable surplus. He maintained that it was an immense advantage to be enabled to carry into execution, without hesitation and without doubt, so great a change, without risk or danger of embarrassing or deranging the finances of the country. Suppose we had a surplus now—suppose, instead of being in the unfortunate predicament of having an excess of expenditure over our income, we had an actual surplus, in that case the Government night have carried into effect the project for the reduction of the postage, without imposing any new burden upon the country. If that reduction were to increase the comfort and happiness of individuals, to promote the diffusion of knowledge, and he knew not what besides, what an advantage it would have been to have conferred all these benefits upon the public, without the necessity of imposing other taxes. Of all things in the world, he believed that nothing could be so unsatisfactory as the imposition of a new tax, as a substitute for one taken off. And why? Because those who benefitted by the repeal of a tax, very soon forgot the obligations they were under to the government who made the repeal; but those upon whom a new tax was imposed,
478
felt always pinched and screwed, and would never let the government alone until the burden was removed. The wisdom or policy, therefore, of substituting one tax for another, he considered as very problematical. There was another point upon which the advantage, of maintaining a surplus was, he thought, apparent. He referred now to the unfunded debt, and to Exchequer bills. Exchequer bills were a very convenient security to the persons who held them, and at the same time afforded a very convenient mode to the Government of raising money. Perhaps in some respects they were too convenient, because the facility of obtaining money upon them, held out a great temptation to stretch a point or two in expenditure. It was for that very reason that he thought it of vital importance that we should always be able to have the Exchequer bills in hand—always have it in our power, by means of a surplus, to check, controul, and limit this species of security. If there were no surplus, there was always the danger of being involved in very great inconveniences, and very great expenses with respect to Exchequer bills. This had occurred very lately. Last year 4,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills were funded; but the effect of that funding was not to keep the Exchequer bills at a high premium and a low rate of interest; on the contrary, the premium which before had been 3l. or 4l. per cent., ultimately sunk to a discount; and what was the consequence? Why, that the Government was compelled to raise the interest upon the Exchequer bills that stood out, in order to prevent their being paid into the revenue, and this led to an expense of 150,000 l. If there had been a surplus, the Government would not have been compelled to resort to such a measure, and an expenditure of somewhere about 180,000 l. would have been saved to the country. He held that the possession of a certain surplus was the only means of preventing a perpetual derangement of our finances, and the only means of keeping them in a sound and healthy state. In respect also to the circulation of the country, he thought it highly desirable that the Government should strive to avoid the necessity of coming annually to Parliament in the manner it was now doing. Every Exchequer bill that was issued was, pro tanto, an extension of the circulation of the country, and an exten-

479
sion of a species of circulation over which trade and commerce had no influence. It might happen that the issue of Exchequer bills—which the necessities of the Government, in a fiscal point of view, might render imperative—would take place at the very moment, when in a commercial point of view, an increase of the circulation was the least desirable thing in the world. Hence would arise many difficulties of a most embarrassing nature. Taking all these things together, it appeared to him that it would be a most unfortunate circumstance, if he were to understand (he might be mistaken, and sincerely hoped he was), that the principle upon which the Government intended lo administer the finances of the country was that of the rejection of a surplus as a part of the system. He believed that if they acted upon that principle, they would create much disappointment, and give rise to many difficulties of a most serious character. He was confident, that if Ministers thought that satisfaction would be given to the country by adopting the principle of rejecting a surplus, in order to avoid what undoubtedly would be a pressure upon the people, namely, the imposition of a further amount of taxation, in order to create a surplus; if they thought that by this means they could conciliate the nation, and procure for their measures a favourable reception, he was satisfied they would be extremely disappointed. If any emergency should arise which should compel them to come again for an additional loan, the country would not fail to condemn the unwise and impolitic course that they had pursued. Although they might raise the money that they now wanted, they might depend upon it, that if in the course of two or three years it should be necessary to call upon the public to make still further sacrifices, they would find it infinitely more difficult to obtain the money, than if they were to try to get it now, when it would be so much more advantageous to our finances, and therefore more satisfactory to all who looked not merely to their own interests, but to those of the country in general. The noble Lord concluded by moving for certain returns relating to the revenue.
Viscount Melbournesaid, his noble Friend seemed to admit that the state of affairs, both at home and abroad, was somewhat better than it was at the time that he called the attention of the House
480
to the condition of the finances at an early period of the Session. His noble Friend said, that there now appeared to be a probability that some of the questions which at that time appeared to him to be menacing and threatening, and to be involved in great difficulty, would be settled without much further delay. His noble Friend admitted, that the state of affairs at home was more tranquil, and that even in that part of the empire which he likened to a volcano that only required a signal to break out into a frightful irruption—it was difficult, perhaps, to imagine how a signal was to be given to a volcano, but even in that part of the empire his noble Friend admitted that there was a temporary calm; though he described it as one upon which the Government had no right to rely. He would not hazard any predictions, nor would he pass any praise or panegyric upon the present state of affairs. He would not say more than that which was obvious, plain, and manifest. He was always very much afraid of predictions: they were very apt to be falsified, and to be followed by events directly the contrary of them. But he thought that, even upon the showing of his noble Friend, her Majesty's Government were entitled to thanks for the alteration and improvement that had already taken place, and that a well-founded hope of further improvement might be entertained, without expressing any very confident prediction upon the subject. But his noble Friend said, that matters had occurred abroad of which he was not aware at the commencement of the session, which had led to great difficulties and to great expenses, and to which he thought the attention of Parliament was not properly called in her Majesty's speech. Now, if his noble Friend would consider the words of her Majesty's speech, which he had quoted but partially, he would at once perceive that nothing could more distinctly point out the circumstances which had taken place, and the measures that were likely to be adopted in consequence of them, than the terms in which the subject was referred to in the speech from the Throne. These were the words:—
"Events have happened in China which have occasioned an interruption of the commercial intercourse of my subjects with that country. I have given, and shall continue to give, the most serious attention to a matter so

481
deeply affecting the interests of my subjects, and the dignity of my Crown."
It was perfectly impossible, speaking with the usual reserve of speeches from the Throne, that the attention of Parliament could have been more directly pointed to the subject, Parliament being, of course, aware of what had happened in that part of the world. Alluding to the excess of expenditure over income which had of late years been growing up, his noble Friend said, "This is very alarming; it is impossible that such a state of things can go on; it is pregnant with danger, and calls for very great exertions on the part of the Government and the country." It was for that very reason that Government had adopted the measures that they had adopted, for that very reason that they had proposed the measures that they had proposed. It was from a strong sense that the excess of expenditure over income, and the system of borrowing money every year could not be sustained with honour and credit to the Government, nor with safety to the interests of the country, that the Government had proposed the measures which they considered adequate to the circumstances in which the country was placed. His noble Friend had stated very clearly the whole of the financial difficulties against which the country had to contend, and had pointed out some further defalcations in the revenue, which he thought ought to be calculated upon. His noble Friend said, that it would be improper for him to go into any consideration of the articles of a treaty which was not yet concluded, and of which he knew nothing; but he trusted that due consideration had been given to all the matters to which the treaty related, and to all the circumstances which might render the loss to the revenue, in consequence of an alteration of the rate of duty on certain articles, greater than was at present expected. He believed that full and complete calculations had been made upon the subject, that all the circumstances to which his noble Friend referred had been carefully taken into consideration, and that the loss that the revenue was likely to sustain had been placed at the highest probable sum. It was very possible, and he trusted it would turn out so, that the loss would not be so great as had been anticipated by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House of Parliament. His noble
482
Friend stated that the expenses which the Government considered of a temporary character only, were to be met by Exchequer bills—by a vote of credit, which it was impossible to deny was nothing more nor less than asking for a loan. That was perfectly true; but the Government, when it took this course, made a distinct statement, that, according to the best of its belief, these expenses would only be of a temporary and occasional nature, and ministers did not think that they would be justified in laying a permanent tax upon the country to meet expenses which they trusted would not continue another year. If these expenses should continue, if they should grow up to a larger amount, or if they should be succeeded by other expenses of a similar character—an event which, amidst the complicated interests of this country in every part of the world was but too likely to occur—it would then be for the Government to determine what course it would pursue to meet the difficulty; but under the present circumstances ministers did not think that they would be justified in calling upon the country to load itself with a permanent burden for the purpose of meeting an expense which they trusted would not continue beyond the present year. But the great objection which his noble Friend made to the whole system in which ministers conducted the financial affairs of the country was, that they did not proceed upon the principle of retaining or imposing such an amount of taxation as should secure a surplus of income over expenditure. This was a very great question in financial affairs, and a very difficult question, and one which it was of great importance should be decided correctly and justly. The principle upon which the Government of this country acted for many years, was that of receiving and maintaining a surplus. He did not remember in what year it was, that Mr. Huskisson moved a resolution in the House of Commons, to the effect, that there ought always to be a surplus of 5,000,000 l. [The Earl of Ripon: 1819]. Well, the resolution was carried by a very large majority. But great difficulties followed— great financial pressure—great pecuniary trouble spreading itself over the whole of the country. As these difficulties increased, it was found to be quite impossible to maintain the principle of always providing a surplus; and it appeared to him to be a very difficult question whether it was wise

483
to propose taxes for the purpose of creating and sustaining a surplus, or whether it was not better to impose no more taxes than were absolutely necessary to meet the expenditure of the country, and to leave the capital not required by the exigencies of the state, to fructify (using a term that had been much ridiculed, but not on that account the less apt) in the pockets of the people. That was a question of very considerable importance, and one upon which at different periods a great deal of political feeling had existed. His noble friend had passed many eulogiums upon the advantage of having a surplus. No doubt it was a great advantage to have more money than one wanted to spend, whether in public or private affairs. It did not require much eulogium to prove that. But in reality the question was a very serious one. Taking all the elements of Government into consideration—taking the feelings of the people into account— looking to the circumstances in which the nation stood, and also to the politico-economical bearings of the subject, it did not appear to him to be a clear question whether it would be wise or prudent to impose taxes upon the country for the sake of producing a surplus. At the same time, it was not a question upon which he would undertake or presume to give a decided opinion at present; but he said that, under the present circumstances of the country, and in the present situation of the country, the measures that the Government had prepared appeared to him to be sufficient for the occasion, and the best that could be proposed. Of course, he had no objection to the production of the papers for which his noble Friend had moved.
Lord Ashburtonwas understood to say that the doctrine of the noble Lord would encourage the idle in every part of the country to enjoy the present time without care for the future. If they looked back to the declaration of almost every Minister who had directed the financial affairs of this country, they would find the same principle maintained throughout, that had been so clearly stated in the speech they had heard from his noble Friend. At the close of the American war, when the country came out of a most unfortunate contest with a deficiency of between five and six millions, what did Mr. Pitt recommend? Not what would be recommended at the present day—not the course of com-
484
mon and low popularity of reducing the taxation, and leaving the burden upon our children; but he boldly met the difficulty, and immediately a sinking fund was created, which amounted to something like the same thing as a surplus revenue. Unless this country returned to that sound and honest principle—for there was nothing but roguery and swindling in the opposite system—it would put itself in a position to be insulted by every nation in the world, and would find itself without means and resources. The principle laid down by Mr. Pitt was followed until late years by almost every statesman who had occupied himself with the financial affairs of the country. He would recommend the noble Viscount to read some of the speeches of Mr. Huskisson on the subject. Mr. Huskisson said, that it was absolutely impossible that any country could be independent in her power and resources unless the principle were observed of having some amount beyond the ordinary expenditure. A resolution passed in the House of Commons, to the effect, that
"For the reduction of the national debt, and to provide for future relief from part of the present burdens, it was necessary there should be a clear surplus of income beyond the expenditure of not less than five millions, and with a view to attain that important object it was necessary to increase the income of the country by additional taxation,"
That was the resolution of the House of Commons in 1819, and he had never heard any one express any other feeling than that of extreme reluctance at not being able to act upon that principle. What would happen to this country if it was called upon for any warlike exertion—and no country, however pacific, can answer for what might come upon them from another nation? The consequence would be, that, to meet the expense of a war requiring eight or ten millions of money, they must have recourse to one of two means—they must either borrow, or lay on taxation for the purpose. Suppose they went upon the principle of borrowing —and every minister would say that the necessity was merely temporary, and that peace would probably be proclaimed before the following session. Well, borrowing was justifiable, provided the principle was laid down that there should be some surplus for a sinking fund which in a given number of years should extinguish the sum borrowed: that was a sound

485
principle. If they looked to other countries they would find that principle acknowledged by our children—if he might so call them—the Americans. They borrowed, but did not lay on any taxes on the people for carrying on their war. There was nothing more justifiable and sound in finance than to borrow for such a purpose; but it was not only not sound, but not honest, not to make provision for the gradual payment in time of peace. Now, the Americans did not owe one sixpence, and he doubted very much whether they would be caught by the notion of the money "fructifying" in their pockets, and whether they would not continue to think, that their honour was concerned, in paying off during- peace the debts they had contracted in time of war. The noble Viscount had got China and Naples upon his hands, and there was a quarrel, about what he (Lord Ashburton) did not know, with Portugal. Then, the noble Viscount had the boundary question in America to settle. Any Minister for Foreign Affairs would be unfortunate in having so many affairs of the kind upon his hands; and if, with all the pacific disposition of the noble Lord who at present filled that office, he found those difficulties grow upon him, it was only necessary to remind their Lordships of the fallacy of considering those events of unfrequent occurrence. The surplus, moreover, independent of the objects for which the necessity had been pointed out, was necessary to make provision for the ordinary fluctuations in the revenue which necessarily must occur; and Mr. Huskisson had said that, with a revenue of fifty millions, it was necessary to be prepared for a fluctuation of ten per cent. He had too good an opinion of the honesty and common sense of the English people to doubt their willingness to submit to any provision which was necessary to secure the independence and honour of their country. With respect to the treaty with France, no one would see with greater pleasure than himself a commercial intercourse established between the two countries. If the project were entertained in a really good spirit on the part of the two countries, he knew of nothing more likely to give general satisfaction; but the little experience he had had, left him in considerable doubt whether anything effectual would be done. With regard to the Exchequer, it had been shown by his noble Friend,
486
that the effect of having no surplus with which the Exchequer bills in the market, which were too much for the circulation to carry, could be bought up, was they were saddled with an expense of 150,000 l. while the money concerns of the country were deranged, because the Government had an unfunded debt more than the market could bear. If there were a surplus, all that confusion would be prevented, and the difficulties of Exchequer bills obviated. Questions of finance did not very often come before their Lordships, and thanks were due to his noble Friend for calling their attention to the subject. It was one of the most important considerations that could occupy the minds of the Government and of the country. He would conclude by asking the noble Lord if provision for concluding the treaty with France would be made during the present Session?
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was impossible to answer that question then.