3 MAY 1862, Page 11

HORSFALL v. COCHRANE.

?TIRE chaotic state of public opinion on questions of retrench- I merit was curiously illustrated on Tuesday by two motions made in the House of Commons. Mr. Horsfall, in a very sen- sible speech, proposed a committee to consider whether the Custom-house establishment could not perform some of the duties of the Board of Inland Revenue. The recent reduc- tions in the number of articles paying duty have greatly diminished the labour of Custom-house officers, but the department still costs 770,0001. a year. The reductions in the Inland Revenue have been almost as numerous, but collection still costs 1,500,0001. At the same time, all along the coast are dozens of little ports at which the collections are less than 500/. a year, and are, in fact, absorbed in the necessary offi- cial expenses. Mr. Horsfall thought there was room for reduction, Mr. Gladstone agreed with him, and the House gladly conceded the inquiry. The attempt at economy is one of the few made in the last two years in the true direc- tion. Mr. Williams on Monday gained, we think, his first victory, by striking out 50001. voted for Highland roads,which Righland proprietors ought to make for themselves, but his success, though the House laughed and applauded, is not of the kind which tells. It is in the departments rather than in miscellaneous votes that the money is thrown away. The substitution of one array of collectors for two may, or may mot, be expedient ; Mr. Gladstone thinks it is not ; but if carried out it will save us a sum which will be sensibly felt in the estimates, and is therefore a just object of inquiry.

The assent of the House would in itself indicate a prevalent desire for economy, but scarcely an hour before forty-nine members had voted for a scheme to improve London which would have cost in one year the capital value of any probable saving in collections. Mr. B. Cochrane wanted a committee to inquire whether if Government" adopted more comprehen- sive plans of building, greater public convenience, greater eco- nomy, and greater unity of design might not be secured." He made a most readable speech, and criticized existing plans with much point, but he really wanted to build an administrative palace, and Government shrank back in alarm. So would the tax-payers have done. No doubt it would be an excel- lent thing to combine all public offices under one roof in a palace worthy of the Administration. No doubt, also, 'London needs improvements, and, above all, a centre which may give to the "province covered with houses" something of the coherence of a true city. The system of making London pay all expenses for itself, which was only adopted within the century, has tended to starve improvement, and leave the capital far behind the great centres of continental activity. But Parliamentary buildings are not the economical remedy. The Houses, which could not shelter themselves without spending three times their estimates, ought to be wisely timid of plans for repeating that wild extrava- gance. We all know how an administrative palace would be erected. The estimates would be reasonable, and, after a furious quarrel about styles, we should have a design which architects would pronounce beautiful and the public exceedingly inconvenient. Then each department would ask for room, and yet more room, and the estimate would grow, and grow, till Parliament in despair refused any more money, and half the departments were left scat- tered all over town. Besides, why should we do it just now, when the revenue shows no surplus, and Lancashire calls for aid.? Symmetry is an excellent thing, but business can be done very well for another year or two in an unsymmetrical building, and nothing but taste is offended if we potter on in the old misshapen and scattered offices till a new cycle of prosperity once more justifies a little expenditure on outside show. Mr. Cochrane said his plans would produce a saving, but he knew, and his hearers knew, that he put in the argu- ment in compliance with Parliamentary etiquette. Improve- ments always cost money, and as Mr. Cowper showed, though 2000/. a year for the Foreign Office seems a high rent, still 200,000/. spent on a new one represents 10,000/. a year. The mover wanted beauty, not thrift, and the forty-nine gentle- men who followed him wanted it too, and illustrated by their; vote, as by their subsequent cheers for Mr. Horsfall, the double current of opinion. The stream begins to run strongly in favour of large retrenchments, but there is an under-tow which, but for hard pulling, will carry us again to sea. The nation is tired of its taxes, yet eager for efficiency, improve- ment, and outward forms. The man who can reconcile the two tendencies is the financier England seeks.