fligate profusion and plunder at home. What then is the inference? Because I thought that there was a prospect of peace in 1792, when appearances were in its favour, was I to conclude that I should be disappointed by a subsequent appearance of ambition, turbulence, and phrenzy? Are we to say now, that we ought to have scruples in opposing that violence? that we are not to judge of present as well as past appearances? I am as impatient for the hour of peace as that honourable gentleman, or as any man in this house, or in this country. I have as much reason as any man in this country can have, for wishing to see peace return, when it is accompanied by security. But when I say, I do not wish to see a "nominal and delusive peace," it is because I value peace. I do not wish to have peace proclaimed for a moment, in order to unnerve your strength, to slacken your efforts, to disband your force, to expose you to sudden and violent hostility, without your present means of defence, or any effectual resistance. Should peace be proclaimed without security, you may indeed have a peace that is nominal and delusive. I wish, for the benefit of Europe-I wish, for the benefit of the world at large, and for the honour of mankind, as well as for the happiness of the people of France, although now your enemies, but who are objects of compassion-I wish, I say, that the present spirit of their rulers, and the principles they cherish, may be extinguished, and that other principles may prevail there. But whether they do so or not, is more immediately their concern than ours. It is not to any alteration in that country, but to the means of security in this, that I look with anxiety and care. I wish for peace, whether their principles be good or bad; but not to trust to their forbearance. Our defence should be in our own hands. In that we shall find the bulwark of our safety against France, whatever may be the pride, ambition, or animosity of that power against us, and which it has manifested in almost all the periods of its history; and I agree with what has been lately said, that its tone was never higher than it is at present. Certainly much depends upon the posture in which you converse of peace. What is the real foundation of the strength

of a nation? Spirit, security, and conscious pride, that cannot stoop to dishonour. It comprehends a character that will neither offer nor receive an insult. Give me peace consistently with that principle, and I will not call it a peace "nominal or delusive;" and there is no man who will go farther than I will to obtain it. To any thing dishonourable I will never submit; nor will this country ever submit to it, I trust. There can be no man who has an English heart within his bosom who can wish it; or can wish that you may, by an untimely diminution of your strength, expose yourselves to the renewal, with aggravated insults, of those evils which we have already had too much reason to deplore,

December 14, 1797.

On a motion for the second reading of the bill for increasing the assessed taxes, a long and animated discussion took place.

After Mr. Fox had delivered his sentiments in reprobation of the measure, MR. PIIT rose :

1

Before I proceed to make any remark upon the wide variety of topics which the honourable gentlemen upon the other side of the house have introduced, I shall just advert to the last point on which the right honourable gentleman* insisted. The other parts of his speech were directed against the whole of the measure in substance, but in the latter part he separately urged the propriety of delay. The right honourable gentleman founds this argument for delay upon the agitation which this question has excited in the public mind, and the objections to which the measure is liable in its application to a great number of his constituents. I am aware, that in all great towns, particularly in the metropolis, the objections will be felt with peculiar force; but at the same time I am sensible that in the provisions of which the bill is susceptible, many modifications may be expected, many are practicable consistently with the leading principle of the measure, and many are necessary in

* Mr. Fox.

order, as far as possible, to prevent it from bearing hard in particular instances. I am aware even that greater modifications may be necessary than appeared to me requisite upon the first consideration of the subject, and when the first imperfect outline of it was presented. This, however, does not by any means tend to impeach the general principle of the measure. These objections are capable of modification without defeating the salutary object, which it is the purpose of the measure to secure. Instead of feeling these objections as completely destructive of the principle, every hour's reflection convinces me, that though it is our duty to enquire in what respects modification may be proper, how it may be practicable, how mitigation may be given so as to prevent any oppressive application of the measure, yet as to the general necessity of providing for the public safety, and repelling the danger by which we are threatened, on the determination we shall form upon this question after mature discussion depends, whether by the exertions we have pledged ourselves to make, we shall rescue the country from impending calamity, and lay the foundation of as great a portion of future greatness and prosperity as any nation ever enjoyed, or whether we shall surrender the dignity of the British nation, and expose to inevitable ruin the sources of its glory and its power. Feeling as the representatives of the people, that it is our duty to provide for these important and essential objects, we shall be deterred by no difficulties, we shall spare no pains, we shall sacrifice every local prejudice, every partial opinion, to a consciousness of the necessity in which we are placed, to make a vigorous exertion. Feeling as I do that necessity, I know my duty too well not to persist in what I conceive to be a measure calculated to save the country from the present danger, and to enable it to struggle against future attacks. It is our first duty, as guardians, to provide for its present safety, and to transmit to posterity the blessings which we have enjoyed, and the means of preserving them. It is by these considerations that our conduct ought to be directed; it is by these great maxims of policy that the measure ought to be judged.

Can we then conceive it our duty, on account of some particular objections of some alleged hardship of application, to hang up the bill altogether before its provisions have been discussed, before its details have been arranged? Must we forego the opportunity of suggesting the case where the evil would be felt, of removing prejudice where it exists, and obviating objections. where they are well-founded? Instead of agreeing to any delay, both in real respect to those who complain of the hardship with which the bill in its present shape would attach, and in duty to the public, for whose service in this important crisis we are called upon to provide, we ought to lose no time to examine the bill with the utmost attention, and see where the pressure which it would occasion may be mitigated. What are the particulars and extent of the farther modifications which it may still be necessary to introduce, it will not be incumbent upon me now to state. It will be recollected that, when I first opened the subject, I stated that, as a visible criterion of income, I preferred the payment of the assessed taxes, because it was more comprehensive, better calculated to diffuse the burden, and more suscep→ tible of modification in the various classes where it would be required, than any other criterion which could be taken. It will be recollected, not by the honourable gentleman,* who had thought it proper to absent himself from his attendance in parliament, but it will be recollected by the house, that one great recommendation of this criterion I stated to be, that the principle being still preserved, it furnished greater means of modification, more opportunity for providing for the particular cases of hardships and inconvenience, than any other criterion which could be adopted. The means of this modification are now in our power, and we shall but perform our duty to our constituents, by shewing our readiness to consider the inconvenience, and to apply the remedy. That many modifications are necessary I am aware, and in the committee, both those which I may propose, and which others may suggest, will be considered. This I trust will be a sufficient answer to what fell from a worthy aldermanț + Alderman Lushington.

* Mr. Fox.

at the beginning of the debate. Much as I differ from that honourable gentleman as to the extent of the abatement, and the nature of the scale of contribution he proposed, I was glad to hear the manly and decided manner in which he enforced the necessity of great exertion, and the propriety of raising a considerable sum, without recurring to the system of funding. I am convinced that the sentiments he expressed were congenial to the feelings of a great majority of his constituents and of the country; and I could not help remarking the contrast between the language he held, and the tone of the honourable gentleman* on the other side, compared with the sentiments of their respective constituents, in the indiscriminate opposition to every part of the plan, which characterized the speeches of both the honourable gentlemen.

Having made these observatious on the question of delay, I shall proceed shortly to consider some of the other topics on which the honourable gentlemen insisted. I do not complain of the wide field of argument which they took up; I know that in a parliamentary sense they were regular : whether they were justi fiable in the use they made of this privilege, and whether they made a proper choice of the topics which they introduced on the present subject, I shall leave for the house to determine. The object of this bill shortly is, an extraordinary grant of money for the support of the war; it proposes to raise within the year a certain part of the supplies, by a tax on income, on the visible criterion of the assessed taxes, subject to modification as circumstances may require. In considering the whole of the case, then, the first question that occurs is, whether it is proper to grant any money at all? Then, whether the principle of raising a certain part within the year ought to be admitted? And, thirdly, whether by this criterion attaching to income in the course of expenditure, the burden would in general be fairly apportioned?

As to the first point, whether any money at all ought to be granted, the honourable gentleman, † though he did not say so in