Dropmore, Feb. 17, 1822.
My friend Buckland is so far from being a quiz in a buzz wig, that he is, I think, one of the men I should most choose for an agreeable companion in a post-chaise. Whether he is prepared to undertake so formidable an expedition as you speak of, I should have some doubt, and the rather because he has usually some project of his own for spending the long vacation abroad in the prosecution of his inquiries. I can, however, have no difficulty in asking him the question, and at all events I should be glad of the opportunity of making him known to you, because I am sure you cannot but like him.
I have been reading Lord Londonderry's speech, which, as far as I understand his figures, seems to me more satisfactory than I had hoped. The great question is—will it satisfy the country gentlemen, without whom he cannot go on, and will they, on this ground, make a real and firm stand in his behalf? Of that of course I cannot pretend to judge, nor perhaps is it easy to say who can.
Government have certainly, under all the circumstances, acted wisely in taking the present moment for reducing the Five per cents. quite down to Four, though it is obvious they might have made rather a better bargain by a little further delay. So far is well, and I think the Malt Tax is, on the whole, the best they could have chosen, though I am not sure whether the Window Tax would not have given more general relief. His million for next year (assuming Ireland to be tranquillized), I also fully understand and approve.
But pray explain to me if you can (for from the newspaper I can make nothing of it), from what quarter his 500,000l. in each year, for the four preceding years, is to come? Observe he states it (if said Courier be correct), as something independent of, and in addition to, the future reduction of Four per cents. down to Three.
If by the conjuration of what is called borrowing of the community, in order to keep up the nominal Sinking Fund, he means to apply the five millions annual surplus at simple interest, and not at compound, he ought in the first place to say so distinctly, for whether right or wrong (about which much might be said), it is, at least, a more complete departure than any yet made from the original principle of the Sinking Fund. I do not say it would be necessarily wrong because new, but it would be so new that it ought to be brought distinctly under view.
But I suspect this cannot be his meaning, both from his relying so much on the necessity of keeping up Pitt's measure, and also from his expressly stating the larger amount of this sinking fund of five millions in proportion to debt when compared with Pitt's original million in proportion to the debt of 1786. The fallacy of such a comparison would be monstrous, if the one was a fund working at compound interest, and the other be meant to work only at simple interest. Besides, even if this were to be done, the annual interest set free by the 5,000,000l. annually applied would, at four per cent. be 200,000l., not 500,000l. So I am at a loss to make it out, and perhaps after all it is only the blunder of the newspaper reporter. If you can explain it to me pray do.
Lord L—— takes no notice of the successive falling in of the army and navy half-pay and pensions, which, if the present amount be as he states it, 5,000,000l., cannot be put at less than from 100,000l. to 150,000l. to put in in each year. I suppose he was afraid of the old joke against Sir George Yonge, who was said to have expressed a hope that the half-pay officers would die off fast, and be thus provided for.
Ever most affectionately yours,
G.