which some gentlemen had alluded. -The two great opponents of the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan, came forward at the desire of their constituents, on this day, and displayed their usual abilities against this bill. Mr. Sheridan rose first, and after making some remarks upon his and his right honourable friend's absenting themselves from the house, he entered into a long discussion of the question, whether the war was just and necessary, or unjust and unnecessary; but as the arguments used upon this occasion have often been detailed before, and as they are somewhat irrelevant to a question of finance, they are omitted here.-Respecting the bill, he observed, that the people were now called upon to submit to great burdens; but when they are called upon to raise large sums, they should, in his opinion, have great examples to encourage them. They were told that their private interest was nothing; the public interest ought to be their only consideration. But with what propriet and consistency could this language be held by some members of administration, when it had been publicly stated, that in one office, that of the secretary of war, the clerks had fees and perquisites from the amount of 5,000l. to 18,0001. per annum. Some gentlemen might treat such perquisites as mere "parings of cheese and ends of candles" (alluding to a former speech of the right honourable secretary), but the public must wonder at the immense size of this concecrated cheese, and be dazzled with the light of those Haming tapers that thus blaze on the altar of corruption. To show the impracticability of the plan of taxation then before the house, he alluded to certain resolutions which had been voted that day by the city of London, which went to show that it was impossible for a very numerous class of householders ever to pay the tax, should the proposed mode of raising it be unfortunately passed into a law. Another ob jection to the tax was, that it meant to impose a tax on the expenditure, and not upon the property. If the system was enforced, he contended that it would go to erect in every parish a fiscal inquisition to pry into the property of indi. viduals, to ascert in their gains or their profits, and thus lay open and expose the improvement or decay of their circumstances. By the bill it appeared, that persons overrated might ap cal; but to whom? to their own neighbours and fe' low-parishioners, if any description of men should be found base enough to undertake so degrading an office. If the spies of government should doubt the word of those who ap pealed, they might then be exa❤ mined upon oath, and evidence upon oath might also be brought to contradict their declaration. They would then be reduced to this dreadful situation, either to incur the suspicion of being perjured men, so strong were the temptations held out to them; or, if they made a fair avowal of their circumstances, and said that their income amounted to 2001, without taking into the account the accidental circumstances which might impair it, should it come to be impaired, and the next year it amounted but to 1501.; either such persons must appeal, and divulge the decay of their circumstances, or must hold up a false front to those with whom they dealt; and, should they fail, be accused accused of having held out false an ry, such as coaches, horses, &c. but " He remarked also, that to rouse the energy of the people, it was necessary to hear of the sacrifices of the crown. It was from the highest place that the example ought to be It would animate and cheer given. the heart of the kingdom. 'Solamen miseris socios habuisse laborum.' He concluded a speech of great length, by declaring that he never would have a seat high or low in any administration, until public opinion shall have decided for a thorough and perfect reform of all our abuses, and for a direct return to the genuine principles of the British constitution, argu Mr. Pitt rose to answer the ments of his opponents. He began by acknowledging that in the present shape of the bill, and without D any modification whatever, it was liable liable to great and important objections. Very large and industrious classes of the eople might be affected by it, and consequently it would admit of amendments, But the principle of the bill stood unshaken, and the objections in ght be easily obviated in a committee. He trusted that by the conduct the house would adopt upon this occa sion, they would show that they were the real representatives of the people, and consu ted their true interests His opponents had declared, that no possible modification could make the bill unobjection able, and had expressed thems lves hostile to the whole principle of it; but he had no doubt but the result would prove them to be in error. Mr. Sheridan, be observed, had begun and ended his speech, by say ing directly, that he would not vote for granting any supplies towards the farther prosecution of the present war, and that he would not consent to grant the money while his majesty's present ministers continued in power In pursuing this argument, both Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Fox had branched their speeches into a variety of topics, which at first view did not appear to have any great connexion with the subject then before the house. They had asserted that there was an impossibility of the present administration making peace; but they had neglected to state the means by which other ministers would be enabled to effect the object which every man wished for,, viz. the restoration of peace, upon secure and honourable terms. Here Mr. Pitt contended, that if, when the subject of a change in administration of this country was formally discussed, these entle men had failed. after a full exertion of all their abilities, to convince a majority of the justice of their ar guments; if they had not then clearly proved what they had formerly asserted, that his majesty could not find any nine men, in his journey from Windsor to London, less capable than the present ministers of administering the public affairs, they had not strengthened much their arguments by any thing which had fallen from them that night, or by any event which had occurred from the time they had quitted their duty in parliament to the present hour. With respect to the radical change which the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) had so strenuously insisted upon, he urged that it was not asy to conjecture what it was, for that part of his speech was couched in terms which appeared to be studio sly obscure. One thing, however, might easly be collected from what he had said, that a parliamentary reform was only a part of that general change which he was so anxious to obtain; a change from which it ap, eared no part of the present existing government was exempted. It ap peared, however, a little singular, that the right honourable gentle man should consider an unlimited change as the best means of preserving every thing as it stood at pre-ent. With respect to a fact, advanced by the right honourable gentleman, that ministers had declared that they would not make peace with a republic in France, he could only say, that no such declaration was ever made by any of his majesty's ministers. Here Mr. Pitt entered at considerable length into the defence of ministers in their conduct relating to the negotiations for peace, which naturally 1. d to the old question, of the justice or injustice of the war. He contended, that though the war had had not been entered into for the purpose of destroying any set of principles in France, yet it did not follow, that having been forced into the war by the unjast aggres sion of France, we were not to oppose those principles which were so dangerous to every civilized go vernment, and particularly as they had led to that unprovoked aggression against us. The principles of those who were so forward in calling for peace with France had been gradually increasing from the commencement of the war to the present time; they now had reached the point of saying, that the war was perfectly just on the part of France. These gentlemen had now pretty clearly discovered their opinions; they said the ordinary mode for raising the supplies was gone, but they had not stated what was the mode they themselves would suggest. They went, however, to the length of saying, that all extraordimary means of raising them were bad. So that, upon the whole, the mode these gentlemen would recommend, as the best and safest to obtain peace, would be to tell the enemy, you may ask what terms you please, because we are the aggressors; besides, our finances are so exhausted, that we have not the means of resisting any terms you may think proper to impose upon us." He concluded, with hoping the house would read the bill a second time, and let it go into a committee. 66 Mr. alderman Combe, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Mainwaring, an nounced that they had all received instructions from their respective constituents to oppose the bill. The words used in the resolutions entered into by the constituents of Mr. Mainwaring were so strong, that, he said, he was sorry to be obliged to repeat them to the house. The house divided-for the se- The house having resolved itself into a committee on the 18th of December, Mr. Pitt rose and stated the modifications he meant to propose in this bill. But as an outline of it, as it was finally passed, has already been given, it would be superfluous to detail in this place the debates upon those modifications. The third reading was proposed on the 3d of January, 1798, upon which a long debate took place between the ministerial and opposition sides of the house. Mr. Nicholls said, that he had not as yet heard an answer to any of the objections which had been made to this tax when first proposed, and in the succeeding stages. The first objection made to it, was, that it was unequal, and therefore unjust. If a tax was to be imposed on income, it ought to be on the idea, that income was the evidence of property. Let two men draw each 1001. a year, one from the long annuities, the other from the short annuities, their income would be the same; and they would therefore pay the same tax, viz. 101. yet they had manifestly different portions of property; the annuity of one being worth twelve year's purchase, while the annuity of the other was only But worth six years' purchase. equal burdens on unequal portions of property were unjust. The next objection which had been taken was, that by compelling the higher orders of the middle class to œconomise, it would destroy the employ of the artisan, and diminish the revenue, by rendering the taxes D 2 on on consumption less productive. To this some answer had been attempted; the chancellor of the exchequer said, he had relieved the lower orders by diminishing the tax on theirs. As far as the relief granted to the lower orders would occasion less money to be raised, he acknowledged the modification to be beneficial; it was pro tanto an abandonment of the bill. But as far as an additional burden was laid upon the higher orders of the middle class, he thought the modification was not beneficial. For the mischief was, that the direct pressure on the higher orders of the middle class would occasion an indirect pressure on the lower orders, for it would destroy their employ ment. He denied that the chan cellor of the exchequer spared the lower orders. He destroyed the life of the poor man, if he took away the employment by which he lived. He regarded Mr. Pitt as being more famous for his talents as a debater in that house, for the purpose of amusing the members, than for his talents as a statesman: this reminded him of an expression of Themistocles the Athenian, who said, "he could not play upon the fiddle, but he could make a little city a great state." The chancellor was the reverse of this, he could play on his fiddle and amuse that house, but he had reduced a great empire to a little state. Even his friends acknowledged that he was no great war-minister; facts had compelled them to make this acknowledgment. Beginning the war with all the powers of Europe on his side, he had so conducted it, that every ally had either aban doned him, or been subdued, while France had been exalted to a power almost beyond the dreams of ambition. Sir Francis Burdet stated in strong terms many objections to the bill; but these objections, and also those of other gentlemen on the same side, were so similar to the objections made on the second reading, that to repeat them is superfluous. He accused the minister of having passed decrees that would not have disgraced the most tyrannical code, destructive of that freedom of opinion, once the pride and security of Britons; and asserted that those laws so highly prized by our ancestors, for the protection of general freedom, had been by him suspended or repealed. He had placed, he said, error in the throne of reason; and under pretence of maintaining the constitution, he had squandered the wealth, shed the blood, and annihilated the liberties of the people of England. These were the atchievments of the right honourable gentleman, and this was the minister and the system the house was then called upon to drain the blood of the country in order to support. He called upon those country gentlemen who might have been frightened into a support of the present system, to stand forward at length in support of their country. Mr. Jekyll also opposed the bill; and on the next day the debate was resumed and carried to a great extent.-The principal speakers were, Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Fox, on the opposition side of the house, and Mr. secretary Dundas, Mr. Pitt, and Dr. Lawrence on the ministerial side. The arguments made use of upon this occasion related principally to the old question of the justice or injustice of the war, and to an elaborate defence of the conduct of administration on one side, and an ardent and open reprobation of their measures on the other. Mr. secretary Dundas, in the |