But what part of the hiftory of that transaction proves that a difference in taxation was the ruling motive with Scotland upon that occafion? The ratio of the tax on land between the two countries was fettled on particular grounds, in my opinion reasonable in themselves, and fatisfactory to the parties concerned; they may be feen ftated at length in De Foe's book. In regard to the taxation of a particular fort of beer or ale ufed only in Scotland, a difference was also ftipulated for in favour of that countrya, and likewise an exemption from certain temporary duties then exifting in England', and from any tax to be impofed on malt during the war.c But as to all the other great duties of customs and excife then in force in England, and all duties to be imposed after the expiration of those temporary taxes, except in the cafe of the fort of beer I have mentioned, an equality of rates was exprefsly agreed to, though with this equitable qualification, that, befides a certain fum to be paid immediately, a fund should be created equal to fuch portion of the share of the common revenue which would be raised on Scotland, as might be applicable to the then debts of England; to be applied, ⚫ in the first place, to the extinction of the debts of Scotland, and afterwards to objects of local improvement there [[ I conceive that Scotland, when fhe agreed to the Union, looked to far other advantages than a general and fuppofed beneficial difference in taxation, a difference he could always infure without a Union. She looked to advantages which, by increasing her wealth and general income, would enable her to flourish under an equal ratio of contribution,-the points the two parties had agreed on excepted,-to the common exigencies of a Art. 7. e Art. 14. fupra, p. 102. • Art. 15. Art. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. the the United State. Whether fhe has been difappointed in that motive for her conduct, and that profpect to which the looked forward, I will now proceed to inquire. Indeed, that Scotland has thriven through the whole courfe of the prefent century to an extraordinary degree, in all the branches of national wealth and improvement, is a fact notorious to all who have attended to the progress of that part of the kingdom, but particularly to fuch as are acquainted with, or most interested in her concerns. The truth of the fact therefore does not feem to be controverted; but it is faid the argument is fhallow which attributes ( every increase of trade, of population, of wealth in Scotland from that day to this, to the Union, as if nothing 'was due to the progreffive ftate of the world during a cen < tury, and Scotland alone, amidft furrounding nations, was 'to have remained stationary;' and it is added, if fuch was the viciousness of her conftitution, the miseries of her 'conftitution, the miferies of her fituation, or the depref'fion of her resources, well might she have accepted any ' terms.' I do not believe it was ever the intention of any body to afcribe all the improvements of Scotland exclusively to the Union. The general caufes alluded to have no doubt operated there, but one might afk in this place, why those caufes are fuppofed to have been of fuch powerful agency in Scotland fince 1707, but of none in Ireland before and fince 1782? It is often difficult to afcertain with exact precision the specific causes of national prosperity, and to affign to each its true share in the general effect. If the Union put Scotland in a secure fituation of participating in the influence Mr. Ffter's Speech, p. 104. P of of events and circumstances which were deftined to meli. orate in a greater or lefs degree all the parts of the British dominions, much was gained by that country, and thus far I think I have already proved. I have referred to the known oppreffion exercifed towards her by her more powerful neighbour while they had feparate Parliaments, the continuance or renewal of which was, by the Union, effe&ually prevented. I have moreover fhewn that what England then practifed againft Scotland, though to her own detriment, and England and Great Britain long afterwards are accused of having practifed against Ireland, may be again practifed against her by a separate government remaining in this country. This is no threat; none now living will ever be so unwife or so unjust as to attempt it. But can they entail their wifdom or their juftice on fucceeding ages and their yet unborn fucceffors in influence or power? Arguments and facts, however, fatisfactory and numerous, might easily be adduced to fhew that the Union has not merely proved of this negative advantage to Scotland, but has been in a great degree the direct cause of her increafed profperity. On this head the House cannot have forgot the powerful and convincing ftatement made on a former day by a Right Hon. Gentleman peculiarly skilled in the history and fituation of that country. I fhall therefore content myfelf with adding only a very few circumftances to what was detailed upon that occafion. If I can make it probable that the trade of Scotland has increafed fince the year 1707, in a greater ratio than that of England, I think I fhall have a right to conclude that this excefs in the improvement of the former country has been been owing to the Union. That tranfaction was not likely to benefit England in the fame proportion; other general caufes of melioration would probably dò so to a greater extent, from her fuperior advantages of climate, fituation, and capital. The facts I have to ftate are thefe: The Scotch duties of excife at the time of the Union amounted only to 30,000l. thofe of cuftoms to 35,000/-or, together to 65,000%. At that time the cuftoms of England were 1,341,559% the excise 947,6121-together, 2,289,1617.¢ According to the account annexed to the 23d Report of the late Committee of Finance, it appears that the grofs total receipt from the cuftoms of Scotland in the year 1797 was 403,5361., from the excife of that country 958,173/. Those two fums added together make 1,361,7092. In England the grofs amount received in the fame year from the customs was 6,124,346/., that from the excife 11,080,0444-together 17,204,3901. Now, Sir, that fum, large as it is, falls extremely fhort indeed of what it fhould have been if the advance in its amount had been in the fame proportion as that which appears to have taken place in regard to the customs and excise in Scotland; for it will be found that by that ratio the amount for England would have been very near forty-eight millions®, It may indeed with truth be faid, that the rate of those duties was very confiderably lower in Scotland than in England at the time of the Union; but, although by the stipulations of that treaty they were (with the exceptions İ De Foe, p. 123. Treaty of Union, Art. xv. ft. 5 Ann. c. 8. * 65,000: 2,289,161 :: 1,361,709 : 47,956,479738 have mentioned) to become the fame after it in both countries, yet Parliament, authorized fo to do under the 14th article of the Treaty, has in truth fo greatly favoured Scotland fince in respect of two of the main objects of excise revenue, malt and diftilled fpirits, that the firft in that country does not now, and did not in the year 1797, pay more than one half, and the other not two-thirds of the English duties. It is also to be observed, that a heavy duty on many articles confumed in Scotland, such as tea, fugar, coffee, &c. &c. and which is therefore in truth paid by that country, is now collected in England. But if another mode of comparison fhould be preferred, we may find the materials for it in De Foe, That writer informs us that it had been estimated that the custom and excife of Scotland, if put on the fame foot with thofe taxes in England at the time of the Union, would have produced, -customs 70,000l.-excife 40,000l.-in all 110,000l. Now, even this fum will be found to be, to the produce of thofe duties in England at that time, not as the present produce in Scotland is to that in England, but as it is to a fum exceeding that by much more than one-half, viz. 28,337,9191. Upon the whole, therefore, I think it is impoffible not to fee that the produce of thofe two great branches of re The duty on falt ufed in Scotland is now but in the pro portion of 4 to 10 to that in England, ft. 38 Geo. III. c. 89. The poll-office duty is alfo much lower in Scotland, 39 Geo. III. c. 77. @ P. 188. * 110,000: 2,289,161 :: 1,361,709 : 28,337,919;16568 |