to give my vote for the slavery of Europe. But if there be no man upon earth who will venture to assert so monstrous a proposition; if the very reverse of all this be demonstrably true; if every step that the enemy takes upon the continent is a step to the accomplishment of our destruction, if every city that he ransacks, every district that he acquires, is a fund of wealth and a levy of soldiers, to be employed hereafter in an exterminating war against us: then, in God's name, to what do we look? or wherefore are we hesitating?"

Since, then, Sir, this motion appears to me to be founded on no principle of policy or necessity; since if it be intended for a censure on ministers,-it is unjust; if for a control, it is nugatory; as its tendency is to impair the power of prosecuting war with vigour, and to diminish the chance of negotiating peace with dignity, or concluding it with safety; as it contradicts without reason, and without advantage, the established policy of our ancestors; as it must degrade in the eyes of the world the character of this country; as it must carry dismay and terror throughout Europe; and, above all, as it must administer consolation, and hope, and power, and confidence to France; I shall give it my most hearty and decided negative.

Mr. Jekyll said:-I expected, Sir, that the motion would have been attended with at least this advantage, that it would have procured to the House the satisfaction of knowing the precise object of the war. My hon. friend over the way, has not, however, afforded us any certain ground of judgment upon this point. The hon. gentleman thought proper to state that my hon. friend's motion had no reference to

peace.

On the contrary, the motion had so far peace in its contemplation, as it was the direct purpose of it to avoid all engagements which could tend to impede a peace on secure and honourable terms. The hon. gentleman alluded to the victory of the Nile. He asks, what was the sensation which this glorious achievement produced? I will tell him, that the sensation of joy which it occasioned was combined with the hope that it might tend to the restoration of peace. Now, however, it is thrown out that not peace but war was the great consequence to which it led, and we are called upon to rejoice, not in its pacific effects, but in its tendency to give new vigour to schemes of warfare and coalition. If the moment in which we stand on the proud eminence of such a

But

triumph be not the moment to think of peace, in what state of our affairs can we turn our thoughts to this great object with propriety? I see no ill consequence that could result from making offers of peace frankly and directly. This country, however, is again to be embarked on the ocean of continental politics; we are again to enter the lists without knowing the purposes for which we are engaged, or the extent to which we may be involved. The hon. gentleman says, that the faith of treaties with France is not to be trusted. If there be any thing in such an objection, it must be an objection to all peace. He says that if the negotiation of Paris or Lisle had concluded in a treaty, the expedition to Egypt would nevertheless have taken place. On this principle we are never to make peace because treaties may be broken. Thus we are again brought back to the war of extermination, which I thought had now been exploded. it seems, as the phrase is, we are to rouse Austria and Prussia to second the magnanimity of Russia and the vigour of the Porte on this occasion. Is there any man, who understands even the grammar of politics, that can look for efficient co-operation towards any great object of general concernment to Europe? Who does not know the schemes of aggrandizement which Russia meditates at the expense of Turkey? Who did not apprehend that when a Russian fleet was allowed to pass the Dardanelles, the Ottomans had, as it were, consented to their own destruction ? What kind of vigour do we expect to be displayed by the Ottoman Porte in this new scheme of coalition? Does not every body know, that as a nation, the Turks are the most sluggish people on the face of God's. earth? Have we not proofs before our eyes of their debility and impotence? How, then, can men of common observation talk to us of the importance of the Turkish co-operation for any efficient attack upon France? What part can they perform in the great schemes which are to be attempted for the deliverance of Europe?—I am afraid indeed that continental connexion is too surely the forerunner of foreign subsidy. If subsidies are to be granted, the sending our specie abroad must be the necessary consequence, and to what that may lead it is impossible to say. No man can feel more than I do the splendour of lord Nelson's victory; but while this blush of triumph sits upon the face of this country, there is a disease upon

its vitals which must excite some alarm. This is the state of our finances. On this subject we have the result of the laborious investigations of a committee in cart loads ofstatements which there seems no inclination to discuss. It is a subject, however, to which our attention is immediately directed, when the measures which are to be adopted necessarily lead to subsidies. We are told that many of those powers on whom the Scourge of French tyranny has fallen are so exhausted, that they have not physical resources left to enable them to throw off the yoke under which they labour. What a prospect does this open to us! What unlimited demand for subsidies and pecuniary aid of every kind from this country! The hon. gentleman made some allusions to what had been said in another place respecting the insular policy of this country, and I am sure the expressions which he quoted were not in the style by which the eminent statesman is distinguished. What the hon. gentleman means by a "snug, tight, domestic war" I cannot tell; but I am sure that the principles laid down by that person for the insular policy of this country, are the true principles of our prosperity. I have ever thought that the policy of this country was, to avoid continental connexions, and our most eminent writers have recommended this policy.

The motion was negatived.

Debate in the Commons on the Income Duty Bill.] Dec. 5. Mr. Pitt brought in the bill to repeal the duties, imposed by an act, made in the last session, for granting an Aid and Contribution for the prosecution of the war; and to make more effectual provision for the like purpose, by granting certain duties upon Income, in lieu of the said Duties." The bill was read a first time. On the 6th, it was read a second time, and on the 7th it was committed.

Dec. 14. On the question, that the report be taken into farther consideration,

Sir John Sinclair said :-I arise, Sir, to oppose the motion, from the full conviction, that the present bill is so exceptionable a measure, that it is impossible, by the efforts of any committee whatever, to make it entitled to the approbation of the House. I shall endeavour, with as much brevity as possible, to explain what has occurred to me on this interesting subject. The House is fully aware, that for

raising those extraordinary supplies which are necessary to defray the expenses of war, one of four measures, has been usually adopted. In some countries, a treasure has been accumulated for that purpose in time of peace; in others, the necessary supplies have been raised within the year. According to a third plan, the sums wanted have been levied by compulsive loans, of which there was lately an instance under the directorial tyranny of France. The last plan, is that of raising money by means of voluntary loans, or through the medium of what is called the funding system; a mode of raising money which some gentlemen are inclined to reprobate, because they only contemplate its defects, but which I have ever considered as the climax of financial invention, the greatest of all political discoveries, the most valuable mine that ever a nation was possessed of, and, in a peculiar manner, the source of the strength, the prosperity, and the happiness of this country. Indeed, Sir, it may be sufficient to remark, that if we had attempted to carry on our wars on any other plan, in consequence of the inability of the subject to bear the pressure of additional taxes, either those wars must have been in the highest degree unsuccessful, from the want of funds to carry them on, or the people would have been driven, by oppression and despair, into a state of insurrection; nor could we have preserved, as we have hitherto been fortunately enabled to do, amidst all the calamities of war, that best source of public prosperity, the means of industry and of re-production.

But, we are told, that we have funded too much already; that the price of stocks is low; that money cannot be borrowed in large sums, except on very disadvantageous terms; that we ought to husband the funding system; that we must pay a salvage for the protection of our property; and, above all, that we are now under the necessity of resorting to a new financial expedient, namely, that of borrowing a part, and of raising the remainder of the extraordinary supplies by taxes within the year. There can hardly be, in my opinion, a more erroneous idea. If the funding system is at all to be abandoned, instead of pursuing this miserable expedient, the result of irresolution and timidity, we ought manfully to resolve to raise, not the half, but the whole supplies within the year. By following the plan that is proposed, we shall neither enjoy the advan

tages of the one system, nor of the other, whilst we must feel the disadvantages of both. If all the taxes were raised within the year, the money of the kingdom would not be collected in the metropolis, for the purposes of a loan; so that there would be a greater quantity of wealth in the country, applicable to the payment of the extraordinary taxes to be imposed; whereas, if we have both a loan in London, and extraordinary contributions in the country, it is absurd to imagine, that the circulating wealth of the nation will be equally divided: hence, there must be either a deficiency of money in the country, to pay the taxes, or a want of money in the capital, to furnish the loan. It is next contended, that the new system has already answered in practice; and to it, we are told, ought to be attributed, the present flourishing state of our public credit, and what is called the high price of stocks. There never were more groundless assertions. During the American war, the lowest price that the funds ever reached, was, in February 1782, when the 3 per cents were never lower than 53, though no artificial means were made use of to buoy them up by means of weekly purchases. When the bargain for the loan was concluded in April last, the 3 per cent consols were above 48; they are now at 54: Is it possible to suppose, therefore, that this plan has at all materially contributed to increase the price of stocks; the difference is 6 per cent. Can no other cause be assigned for that rise, but the measure now under contemplation? Is nothing, for instance, to be attributed to the land tax redemption bill, which, I am informed, has partially succeeded in particular districts, and the beneficial consequences of which we hear so much of on other occasions? nothing to the astonishing increase of our commercial wealth, and the improvement of our agricultural resources; and nothing to our naval victories? to which, indeed, more than to the financial measures of the right hon. gentleman, our present prosperous situation ought to be ascribed. In short, four causes are assigned for this rise of 6 per cent as suits best the convenience of the minister. Let us give each of them a fair proportion, namely, 14 per cent. Let us suppose that we have occasion for 25 millions this year, and that we borrow the whole, instead of raising a part on the new principle, within the year, the difference, at the rate of 1 per cent is,

but 375,000l. and for that paltry and miserable sum, the whole nation is to be subjected to the grievous oppression of this intolerable measure.

Let us admit, however, for the sake of argument, that it is wise and politic to raise a part of the supplies within the year, and that it has been found beneficial in practice; it next becomes a matter of question, whether the assessed-tax bill of last year, is not as fair a mode of raising that contribution, as the new system that is suggested? And after all the arguments used in favour of that bill, it is a circumstance hardly to be credited, that it should now be proposed to repeal that plan and substitute another in its stead. If the members of this House in particular, were to recollect the many strong declarations which were made in its favour, from authorities they are in general accustomed to listen to with peculiar attention and respect, they would probably hesitate in regard to the adoption of a new system, for raising any part of the supplies within the year.-Indeed, the question is, whether it is not better to have some criterion, than none at all? By having a criterion, you stand some chance of preventing evasion, and, above all, you render a harsh inquisitorial disclosure of property unnecessary; but if you have none, unless the most oppressive and ty rannical system is pursued, the whole income you can expect to derive from the measure, will depend on the voluntary seal, and unfortunately, the lax morality, of the great body of the people. But if a new plan must be adopted, and if property instead of expenditure, must be attacked, it becomes a matter of nice discussion, whether the extraordinary contribution should be raised by a tax on capital, or a tax on income, or by blending the two together, which though the most complicated, yet being unquestionably the justest, ought to be preferred. What I mean is, that every man should pay, instead of 10 per cent on his income, per cent on his capital, and 5 per cent on his income, by which persons who had no capital would be greatly relieved, and those who were possessed of considerable property, would pay more in proportion to their opulence, than under the system that is proposed. Almost the only objection to this plan is, the difficulty of ascertaining the value of a man's capital. But is it not the same in regard to his income, unless it arises from some fixed and

regular stipend, and is liable to no uncertainty of deduction? Let us consider this important part of the subject in the three great lines, of a landed income, of a commercial income, and of a professional income.-A landed income may be supposed the most certain and permanent, and in some particular instances it may be so; but, in general, a person of landed property, after deducting every public tax or imposition to which he is liable, is subject to a variety of burthens. In the first place, he is frequently under the necessity of being at very heavy legal expenses for preserving his property, and he is clearly entitled to deduct those expenses, as it is proposed that the public shall avail itself of that part of his income, by taxing the gentlemen of the law. In the second place, he is under the necessity of spending money in the improvement of his estates, as in draining, fencing, building, &c. And in the third place, any person of landed property is subject to a variety of deductions in consequence of the rank he holds in the state; he is obliged to act as sheriff, as justice of the peace, and other public situations, without any recompense or emolument whatsoever; and if any plan is in agitation for building a bridge, for making a turnpike road, or forming a canal, which may ultimately prove of material consequence to the neighbourhood, a gentleman of landed property must subscribe for all such measures, unless it is intended to check by law the progress of public improvement. It is still more difficult to ascertain the income of the commercial individual, whose capital and income, indeed, are in fact so intimately combined together, that it is impossible to separate them. The income of a commercial man, also depends upon a variety of circumstances besides his capital; it depends on the situation in which he happens to be placed, the connexions which he has formed or inherited, the talents which he employs in his business, and the industry with which he prosecutes it. Are we to tax situation? That was given up in the case of the famous shop-tax. Are we to tax the advantage derived from connexion? It would be the first time that any individual ever paid any demand to the exchequer, for having a number of friends, and probably deserving them. Are we to tax talents? It would be a strange circumstance in finance to impose burthens upon those, by whose ingenuity new_arts were

discovered, or the old ones improved; who contribute so essentially to enrich the nation, and who are justly accounted the surest source of its commercial prosperity. Or, above all, are we to tax industry? If so, the man that is idle and profligate will pay nothing; whereas the sober and industrious will be burthened in proportion to their exertions. Let us next consider how professional men can ascertain their incomes. To what a variety of casualties are they not exposed! They may be disabled by sickness; they may be injured by ill founded personal or even political prejudices entertained against them; or their profits may be impaired by public calamity and distress: indeed, many of them must be ruined by this bill, which must diminish, in various instances, their professional business; and all of them will be entitled to the deduction of a full third of their clear income, which every prudent professional man does usually deduct, to form a provision for himself in his old age, and a capital for his family at his death.

These circumstances prove, that it is as difficult to estimate income, as to ascertain the value of capital, and are strongly in favour of that blended system which seems to be the only just principle on which such a tax or contribution as this can be imposed. Indeed how is it possi ble to demand, at the same rate, from a person who has an income without a capital, and from one who has both income and capital? One person, for instance, draws his subsistence from an income of 600l. a year, from the profession of the law; at 10 per cent he is charged with 60l. to the excheqeur, which he must deduct from his income. Another person has 20,000l. of 3 per cent consolidated annuities, producing him 600l. At 10 per cent he will only pay 601. also, though by selling only about 1207. of his 3 per cents according to the price of the stocks, he pays his tax, and only loses about 31. 12s. per annum of his income. Where then is that boasted equality, which is said to be so much in favour of this plan, and which renders it so infinitely superior to every other? On these grounds I cannot help thinking, that if the measure is at all to be adopted, it ought to be altered on the principle which I have now taken the liberty of recommending, namely, that of laying the tax partly on capital and partly on income.

Let us now, Sir, proceed to consider

the specific plan that is submitted to our consideration in the present bill. The House must still recollect the elaborate speech, in which the right hon. gentleman laid before us a general view of the income, supposed to be enjoyed by all the various classes of the community. In some points I may differ with him; and when I heard the right hon. gentleman expressing himself with so much doubt respect ing various particulars, and resting on the antiquated notions of Davenant, and the guesses of modern authorities, I could not help wishing that the right hon. gentleman had given more assistance to an institution I had the honour of suggesting; I mean, the Board of Agriculture, by whom all these points, had it been properly supported, would have been before this time, fully ascertained. It has ever been a favourite opinion with me, that no country could be well governed, unless its real situation was thoroughly known"Ad consilium de republica dandum, caput est, nôsse rempublicam." Indeed, had not the progress of that institution been checked, by those who were regard less of the interests of the country they governed, provided they could gratify their own personal spleen and resentment, we should now have been debating, not on loose calculations and uncertain data, but on a general report on the state of the country, founded on authentic information, which it would have been in my power, before this time, to have laid upon the table of this House. But let us suppose that the calculations of the right hon. gentleman, if not perfectly just, yet are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of discussion; and that the various classes of the community, which he has enumerated, have an income of 100 per annum; yet I question much, whether they really can afford to pay any thing like so large a sum as ten millions, in the course of one year, in addition to the thirty millions, which they already yield to the exchequer. The persons who will be subjected to this new tax on income, may be divided into three classes. The first consists of those who already save a part of their income, and who, by this act, will be obliged, however reluctantly, to part with a portion of those savings which they were anxious to lay up. It is the principal object of this bill, to get at this description of individuals. But I do not think that this resource is any thing like so considerable as gentlemen imagine. If we sup

Ano

pose that there are 3,000 persons who enjoy, at an average, 1,000l. each (which, in these luxurious times, will include, I am persuaded, all the misers in the kingdom), the total income they possess will not exceed 3,000,000l. per annum, and the tax will not produce above 300,000. ther description of persons, are those who formerly lived up to the full extent of their income, or, perhaps, beyond it, but who will now begin to save, and to reduce their establishments, in order to pay this new contribution. I am afraid this class will be a very numerous one, and that, to the full amouut they are compelled to pay to this tax on income, we shall loose in the excise and customs, and other branches of the revenue. The only remaining class consists of those who will continue to live as formerly. Perhaps, indeed, they cannot retrench, owing to the largeness of their family, their professional situations, and various other circumstances. Having neither saved the money before, nor being able to save it now, they must either deduct it from their capital (if they have any), or borrow it where they can find it.

And this leads me again to allude to the great disadvantage of blending the two systems together, namely, that of borrowing money for the public service, and of raising the supplies within the year. The consequence of a public loan is, that all the money of the kingdom not only flocks into the metropolis, but also into the hands of a particular set of individuals who job in the funds. What follows? It is evident that any private person cannot borrow money almost on any terms. Whereas, if there were no loan, the circulating wealth of the kingdom would be spread over the whole surface of the country; the loan-mongers of London would be glad to lend their money on respectable private securities, and less difficulty would be found in raising the whole of the supplies within the year, than the proportion which it is proposed, by this bill, should be levied. We shall suppose, however, that the nation is able to pay the proposed tax of 10 per cent on income; yet, when I consider the various objections which may be urged against it, some of which go to the very root of the measure, and others, which, though they affect only particular branches of it, yet are almost of equal moment,-I can scarcely think that the House will be disposed to pass such a bill into a law.