that the adoption of the present measure would create some alteration, but the objection upon the constitutional ground is very easily removed. Nothing can be more easy than to place under the annual controul of parliament funds that are at present permanent, equivalent to those which are taken away by this measure. Certain branches of the consolidated fund may be made annual, even to a greater amount than two millions of land-tax. This would answer every purpose of constitutional controul. Ministers would not then have it in their power to apply money without consent of parliament more than before. It is my intention, therefore, to move a particular resolution to obviate this objection. Such funds as parliament may judge most expedient for the purpose of controul may be selected and submitted to annual vote in the same manner as the land-tax, and instead of two millions, the sum may be augmented to the full amount of the dividends which will be taken out of the market. Parliament will thus have the annual controul of 2,400,000l. By this means it will so happen that the constitutional check of this house will for some years be more, and never will be less, than it was before,

Another objection urged by some is, that from the present repartition to perpetuate the existing land-tax would be to perpetuate an inequality which is so great as to form no inconsiderable abuse. They say, that if the tax were equalized, they would have no objection to render it perpetual. Let us consider this objection more closely and attentively. Since the revolution, especially during the latter part which has succeeded, it has never been in contemplation to equalize the land-tax by a new repartition according to the real amount of property, and the ability of different districts. We know that in this house, though the vote for the land-tax had the undoubted right to adopt a new repartition, no such proposition was ever made. With the experience of a century before us, then, if we have seen no such attempt ever made, is it more likely that it would be corrected, even were the vote to be annual, than if the grant were made perpetual?

I do not now argue whether it would have been right to revise

the repartition at present established. I am ready to admit that I consider it to have been an original defect of the present plan of repartition, that no periodical revision was fixed. I think that it would have been wise to have made such a provision, and that it would have been happy for the country had it been done. Two important guards would be necessary; to prevent the inequality from being too great, and at the same time not to discourage improvement. That principle, however, not being at first recognised, and property having been since transferred without any attention to it, would it now be wise, just, or popular, to make a new valuation? I think not. If so many years experience has shewn that no inclination to establish a different repartition prevailed, ought we to allow much weight to the objection, that to perpetuate the tax would be to perpetuate the inequality?

I have likewise heard, that it has been objected that this very measure would tend to introduce an equal repartition. It ought not to be expected that these opposite objections will come from the same quarter, and that a grievance will be felt both ways. It does happen, however, that the same mind embraces opposite and contradictory objections. Those who are determined to ob ject to every thing, may continue to bring forward in a regular opposition arguments against a measure which do not proceed upon the same principle. On the present occasion, however, I do not expect that this mode of attack will be employed; at least I do not anticipate such a mode of opposition from any of those I now see before me. The question, then, is, does the present measure give any new facility for the introduction of a general land-tax? If the measure did give any new facility for employing the substantial resources of the country, and deriving additional means of strength without distressing the people, I should be more disposed to claim it as a recommendation, than to consider it as a defect. In times like the present, whatever supplies us with the means of calling into action the real resources of the country, and giving new energy to the contest we maintain, would deserve the cordial support of every man who is a friend to the happiness and prosperity of the country, and in a particu

lar manner of those who would be the greatest sufferers, if the hostile designs of the enemy were to succeed.

The measure to be proposed to you, however, possesses no such recommendation. It leaves the question of a more equal repartition of the land-tax precisely where it found it. Parliament now has the undoubted right to raise more than four shillings in the pound on the land; and what greater authority would it acquire were the present redeemed? If the whole were to be redeemed, for it would be sanguine to suppose that the whole will be redeemed within a few years by the owners, the only thing necessary to be provided as expressly as any legislative provision can guard, is, that if ever a new land-tax is imposed, it shall not be imposed upon those who have redeemed in any different proportion from that on those who have not redeemed. It would be necessary to provide that the amount of what may have been redeemed should be deducted from any new impost. It appears to me that such a provision would secure those who shall take the benefit of redemption as much from any additional charge in future on that account, as those who had not bought up their land-tax at all. This, then, appears a sufficient answer to the general objections which have been suggested against the measure. As to the various details which it embraces, it would be idle to enter into any minute discussion of them, till the com→ mittee has had further time to take them into mature consideration.

There is one objection, however, which is partly connected with the detail of the measure, and partly applies as a general objection. This regards the option to be given in the second instance to become a purchaser of the tax, provided the owner himself should be unwilling or unable to buy. Cases may occur in which the proprietor finds it inconvenient to make the advances necessary for the redemption. Great pains, however, have been taken to lighten this inconvenience. Every attention has been paid to give the landholder all the advantages consistent with the ultimate success of the scheme. It is of infinite importance to gain during the war every benefit which the - measure is calculated to afford; it is of the utmost impor

"

tance to secure that assistance to credit, which will supply us with the means of that resistance which our independence, our property, and our happiness calls upon us to make. For this reason the landholder ought to have no unlimited and exclusive privilege in the purchase of his tax, though the terms will be such as to render it highly beneficial for him to become the purchaser himself. To enable him to take the benefit held out to him, every facility will be given him for raising money, and even should he lose the first opportunity of purchase, the redemption of the tax will not be hopeless. A period should be fixed at which he shall have the liberty to redeem, though, on his refusal, a third party in the first instance has become the purchaser.

Such are the views upon which the plan is founded. As to the terms upon which the purchase is to be made, I shall explain them very shortly. Payment of the redemption will not be demanded in money, but will be received in transfer of stock to the commissioners for liquidating the national debt. This mode has the advantage of accommodating itself to the fluctuation of stock, and each transaction liquidates itself. The present price of three per cents. being about 50, affords an interest to purchasers of six per cent. At this rate stock sells at from 16 to 17 years' purchase, and the tax will be sold at 20 years' purchase. Every pound of annual tax, therefore, will be equal to 40%. capital stock. Should stocks rise to 75 the purchase will be 30 years, and the rate of purchase will thus vary one year with every variation of two and a half per cent. in the price of stock. From this statement of the comparative purchase of the stock and tax, it is evident that the public gains one-fifth of the purchase by the transfer of stock.

As far as the landholder is concerned, the question then is, whether 20 years' purchase will present a sufficient inducement to redeem, and whether 20 years be a sufficient advantage for what he parts with at 17 years' purchase. This rests wholly upon the supposed difference between landed and funded security. Landed property in general throughout the kingdom sells at from 28 to 30 years' purchase; funded at present from 16 to 17. We are giving landed security for funded, and at the rate of

20 years' purchase. At this rate the share of advantage to the public is small, to the individual it is very considerable, if the advantage purchased is considered of the same description as landed property. I do not say, however, that it is exactly of the same description as landed property; they are to be distinguished by their respective advantages and disadvantages. The benefit to the purchaser by redemption is less valuable than landed property in this respect; it is dry and unimprovable possession. Land, however, is improvable, and it sells not only on its present value, but on the calculation of progressive improvement and speculative advantage. Other temptations to the purchase of land are command, influence, amusement, pleasure, occupation, according to the temper and disposition of the purchaser. It cannot be said, however, that the purchase of this benefit is rendered more valuable by any of these advantages. It should be recollected at the same time, that the purchase of the tax, if not absolutely the acquisition of enjoyment-if not a freedom from vexation, is freedom from something which a man would wish to be without. It has this advantage too, that if not susceptible of improvement, it is attended with no risk. The purchaser is exempted from the care of management and the trouble of collection, and taking all the advantages and disadvantages together, it may be considered as a purchase of a very desirable nature. While the owner is thus induced to become the purchaser, the public, as we have seen, derives a very considerable benefit from the transaction.

The next part of the plan is to give a facility to the possessor of land also to become a purchaser. For this purpose it is intended to give the tenant for lite or in tail, the same power to raise the money by burdening the property as proprietor in fee, provided, however, that the money so raised shall be strictly applied to the purchase of the tax. It is even intended to allow them to give a rent charge upon the property to the amount if convenient, to increase the facility of the possessor becoming the purchaser. It is likewise proposed to give the proprietors of settled estates power to sell such a portion of the estate as shall