the plan of raising the supplies of the year within the year was very proper, and therefore declared himself ready to support the proposition of the chancellor of the exchequer, as far as it went. But he was afraid that, notwithstanding every modification that could be suggest ed, there would still be a consider. able inequality in the operation of the tax. There was no doubt but some men of large property spent less than men of inferior fortunes, and consequently would pay less to this tax.

He was inclined to carry this principle of providing the whole supply farther than the right hon. gentleman had done; and he was sure that the burden would be less felt by the community at large, if the plan had been formed upon a larger scale. In the first place, if the whole sum of twenty-one mil hions had been raised within the year, government would not have had occasion to borrow any money; and by that means individuals would have had it more in their power to have raised money upon their property than they had then, when the high interest given by government precluded them from borrowing at 51. per cent. the legal interest of the country.

It was

well known that the consequence of moried men obtaining such large interest in the public funds was, that the country was in a manner drained of money. If the plan was adopted in the extent he proposed, this inconvenience would be avoid ed, and a great saving would be made; for government now paid 8 per cent. for money, and that expence of course fell upon the country at large. But it might, he confessed, with great propriety be asked, what security the public had, that, after advancing so large a sum

of money, it would be better disposed of than that which they had already given. The chancellor of the exchequer had stated, on a former night, that great reductions had been made in the expenditure of the country without diminishing its force. He had estimated this saving at six millions. Would not the people naturally ask why these six millions had not been saved before? It followed from hence that the public gave their money too readi➡ ly and too liberally.

He then adverted to the war; and allowed that the enemy had spoken in a tone sufficiently high to rouse the spirit of every Englishman; but he did not approve of the idea of a defensive war, because he did not think it could be carried on longer with advantage to this country. What was the reason, he asked, that, at such a crisis as the present, we had not been able to preserve one ally? He disapproved of the lofty and imperious tone assumed by people in office to foreign powers, and was not surprised at those powers being offended at it. Why did we not endeavour at this time to stir up the powers of the continent, to support a cause in which they were much more interested than we were? He concluded with observing, that upon the grounds which he had stated, he should support this measure; though he should have done it with greater pleasure, if it had been carried to a greater extent.

The principal speakers in opposition, who opposed the bill upon its introduction into the house on the 4th of December, were Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr.Tierney, and Mr. Plumer.

Mr. Nicholls objected to the measure, as it did not appear to

him either just or necessary. If it was considered as a tax upon luxury, it was not just, because it was not optional; the tax was unjust, because it was retrospective. If it were considered as a tax upon expenditure, it was also unjust, because expenditure was not proportional to property. The chancellor of the exchequer had calculated, that a man who should pay thirty pounds, was a man of one thousand a year; the largest sum proposed to be paid was four hundred, and of this there were only two instances: according to this rule, then, there would be only two persons who spent thirteen thousand a year; and surely it would not be conteaded that there were not any more in this country of much more considerable fortune; but the right honourable gentleman had said, that it would be expedient to light en our unfunded debt, and to raise the supplies within the year. This declaration came with a bad grace from a gentleman who had, during his administration, increased our national debt one half, by an addition of 185 millions. The tax, be said, would crush the middle orders of the people. He instanced the case of coach-inakers, who would lose a considerable part of their employment by the adoption of the bill; they would be in the same situation as the watch-makers now were. He boldly asserted (notwithstanding a laugh against him) that this tax was not necessary, because the war was no necessary. Mr. Nicholls then alluded to the insincerity of ministers in their professing a desire for peace. Until they disavowed the opinions they expressed at the beginning of the war, he never would believe them sincere in their endeavours for its discontinuance. His reason was

this, some of them coincided in opinion with the late Mr. Burke; and his opinion was, that the representative government of France ought to be annihilated; for if not, French principles might be propa gated here, and the commons might assume a power they did not possess before. To prove how far the opinion of Mr. Burke went, he read an extract from the 71st page of that gentleman's charges against Mr. Fox, and concluded with reprobating the unjust interference of peers in elections.

Mr. Hobhouse contended, that, judging from past events, he could not think that the estimates of the chancellor of the exchequer were to be relied on. The excess of the preceding year, he said, in the single article of the navy, amounted to 3,000,0001. For this sum no provision was now made in the supplies, so that, independent of any other loan which might be necessaryduring the year,28,500,0001. was to be raised. As to the ways and means, he observed that 2,750,000l. were to be raised in the usual manner, upon the land and malt tax. malt tax. The growing surplus of the consolidated fund and the lottery were taken together at 750,0001. But instead of boasting of the surplus of the consolidated fund, it would be more the laguage of truth to speak of its grow. ing deficiency. By the papers on the table, it appeared that, in 1796 and 1797, there was a deficiency of more than 250,000l. Therefore some provision ought to be made for the amount of the deficit. He expressed his dislike of the close connexion between the bank of England and the government of the country, and thought it extremely curious that the bank direc tors, after having invariably attri

buted

buted all their former difficulties to the large supplies which they had been obliged to make to government, and after having shown such strong tokens of distrust of the chancellor of the exchequer, that they should give such renewed proofs of their confidence as to agree to the further advance of three millions towards the supplies of the current year. If they relied on the promise of the minister for speedy payment, it appeared from their own correspondence that they had been often disappointed. He then alluded to the seven millions to be raised by an assessment upon the assessed taxes. His principal objection to the plan proposed was, that it would fall unequally. Large capitalists who lived upon little, and continued from year to year to place the remainder out at interest, would pay but little, while the generous man who lived in a style equal to his rank in life, and by his expenditure promoted the subsistence and happiness of the tradesman, would be obliged to pay a large quota. The inequality of this tax was also discernible in its operation upon different classes. Those in the middling walks of life would pay a full tenth of their income, while those in the highest would not pay a fifteenth or twentieth. The largest sum at that time paid by any individual for assessed taxes was 4001. and upwards. This appeared by a paper which had been laid before the house a few days before. This measure would also fall unequally upon different trades; for many persons carried on trades in large buildings with less profits than those who carried them on in small counting-houses; the former must contribute a larger proportion than the latter.

Mr. Hobhouse next spoke to the

chancellor of the exchequer's plan of raising twelve millions by loan. It had been said that the sinking fund would in the course of the year 1798 be procactive of a saying of four millions, which sum would cancel as much of the funded debt as the four millions, part of the twelve millions, would have created. The remaining eight millions he proposed to extinguish, by continuing the forced assessment fifteen months beyond the year 1798. This was surely a melancholy prospect for the country; if another supply should be wanting during the year 1798, or if the war should be prolonged beyond that year, the public would be paying the present assessment in discharge of a past debt, and have to provide millions upon millions besides; the triple would be tripled, and the quadruple be quadrupled. He concluded a long speech, by asserting that he would give a hearty negative to the proposed resolutions.

Mr. Tierney, with great force of argument, opposed the minister's plan of taxation, upon the ground of its falling so partially upon the subject. His observations upon the other ways and means for raising the supplies were very similar to those made by Mr. Hobhouse. In this long debate many allusions were made on both sides to the justice or injustice of the present war, irrelevant to a question of finance.

The committee divided on the first resolution,

Ayes Noes

The bill was read a first time on the 7th of December. On the question that the bill be read a second time, it was ackowledged that the bill which had been brought in contained considerable abatements and modifications to

the

the principle on which it went. But it was still strongly contended by several members, professed friends to the minister, that the adoption of the measure would bear down the middle order of manufacturers, who by long œconomy and labour had raised a small capital; among these was Mr. alderman Lushington, who was decidedly against over-burdening the middle class of society. He was for throwing the burden upon the upper classes. He should not care much that men from 5 to 10,000l. a year, and upwards, complained of their burden; but he should be sorry if those from 1501. to 2001. a year were oppressed. He thought that the operation of the measure in its present shape went to do away that middle class, and divide the state into the two decriptions of the very poor and the very rich. His idea in general upon the subject was, that he who paid less than 101. a year of assessed taxes should not be included in the meaning of this bill. By imposing an additional half rate in the higher classes, he was convinced that the sum of six millions and a half might be raised without the odium and the danger of extending the tax so far to the lower and middling classes of society. He had the utmust confidence in the present administration, and thought they had as much talent and virtue as any set of men that could be found in the country. The further discussion of the bill took place on the 14th, when Mr. Pitt moved its second reading. Upon which Mr. Wigley said, he would not suffer the bill to proceed further, without such opposition as he was able to give it. The house would remember, that, at the opening of the session, the speech from the throne (which he considered as the speech of the

minister) stated that the resources of the country were ample, yet the present measure went to say, in contradiction to that speech, that the funding resource was exhausted; and that to avoid laying a greater weight upon it than it would bear, the people must submit to a novel, unprecedented, vexatious, and, to some classes, oppressive mode of taxation. As the voice of the country was then very loud against it, he had entertained some hopes that the minister would have abandoned it, and thought of some means of a better kind; but was sorry to find that it was his intention obstinately to persist in a measure so impolitic and unjust, which bore so heavy upon the middle ranks of the people, inasmuch as the lower and the higher were entirely exempt from it.

Mr. Henry Thornton said, that he had received the particular and unanimous instruction of his constituents to oppose the bill, at a meeting which had been held for that purpose; not only the particular provisions and modifications, but the principle of the bill, was also unanimously condemned. For his part, were he merely to speak his own sentiments, he would wish the bill to go into a committee, in order to see how far it might be new-modelled, and rendered more palatable to all classes of people.— Mr. York supported the measure, and reprobated as unconstitutional the doctrine of members of parliament being guided by the instructions of their constituents.-Lord Hawkesbury also defeuded the bill, and contended, that whether the war was just and necessary was not then the subject of inquiry; that question had been frequently discussed, and the house had in that session come to an unanimous decision upon the late negotiation, to