calling, and make 400l. where at firft he expected to get but 2001. Against these vexations he could fee no fecurity; for what was to be depended on but the probity or religious fcruples of an inferior officer of the revenue. Mr. Smith, after reprobating many other abuses to which the provisions of the present bill might give rife, again expreffed his earnest wish that a longer period than that of three or four days fhould be allowed for its examination and difcuffion, that the people might enquire, and know to what a system they were going to be fubjected.

Mr. Secretary Dundas replied, and Mr. Smith explained. : Mr. Martin faid, that he thought the bill required modification; and fome great meature of finance was certainly neceffary to fupport this war, now become necessary.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, although convinced that never was there a fubject of greater importance in all its afpects and in all its confequences, agitated within these walls, I fhould not have thought it incumbent upon me, in the prefent ftage of the business, to have troubled you with any obfervations, were there not fome points which have been touched upon to-night, which I am defirous, as soon as poffible, to place in their proper point of view. What has been urged by fome Gentlemen who fpoke in the course of the debate, while it could not be confidered fairly as argument, was directed in such a manner against the farther progrefs of the measure, was fo calculated to excite prejudice, and to beget misconception, that it demands fome degree of notice. It is a fatisfaction to me to find that the propriety of raifing a certain part of the fupplies within the year has in general been conceded. If we can judge from what has appeared to-night, there is nobody in the Houle, except the hon. Baronet who opened the debate, who is difpofed to conteft the principle. I am thus relieved from the necellity of detaining the Houfe with any argument upon that fubject, or faying any thing in reply to one folitary antagonist by whom the principle was denied. Whatever authority may belong to that individual member, and no man has more, the wor thy Baronet himself feemed to reft entirely upon that authority, as he did not add a fingle argument in fupport of his pofition. The Houfe then will no doubt be willing to dif penfe with any argument upon this branch of the question, There were fome others, however, who entering upon the confideration of the fubject with liberal profeflions of appro bation, and a firm conviction of the neceffity of great and extraordinary

extraordinary exertion in the caufe in which we are engaged, admitting the benefits which might be derived both in present vigour and permanent refources from the plan of raifing a great part of the fupplies within the year, yet thought themfelves at liberty, not after full confideration of the whole details, not after weighing maturely the regulations by which this great principle is to be carried into execution and followed up with effect, not after long and fineere endeavours to remedy what was defective, and to improve what was wrong, reluctantly felt themfelves compelled to difmifs the measure as impracticable to the end propofed, but, in the first inftance, haftily, peremptorily and impatiently have expreffed a determination to fhut the door againft all improvement, and to oppofe all farther deliberation. Although agreeing in the prin ciple, and aware as they must be that a measure of fuch magnitude and importance muft depend much upon the arrangement of details, and the regulation of provifions, they feem refolved to check all attempt to bring thefe points again into confideration. Confeffing the neceffity of great and vigour ous effort for the falvation of the country, in which fome of them, now for the first time, have tardily difcovered that our fafety is involved, they do not wait to reject the measure upon any ground of final and invincible objection, but they come forward to refift it in the very outfet, previous to a mature examination of its details, and a fincere endeavour to correct its provifions. The hon. Gentleman who fpoke laft (Mr. Smith) approves of the principle of raifing a confiderable part of the fupplies within the year, but he declares himself an enemy to any plan of rendering that principle effectual by a general tax. The Houfe will, no doubt, think this a most valuable conceffion of the hon. Gentleman! If it be neceffary for the effort which we are called upon to make, if it be effential to the firm eftablishment of publie credit, to the future profperity of the empire, to obtain that fupply which is requifite for the vigorous profecurion of the conteft, it is evident that it must be obtained by a fudden tax immediately productive. If it is impoffible by an encrease of the exifting taxes on confumption, by introducing evils ten times more fevere than thofe which are imputed to this measure, it is evident that nothing can realife the principle but fome extraor dinary and general tax. If the hon. Gentleman, as I perceive he does, admits that fuch an encrease of the taxes on confumption as would produce ten millions within the year is impracticable, it follows that there is no other mode but a

tax

tax upon property fo far as it can be difcovered. We must lay the contribution then, either upon capital or on income. From this general operation, however, the hon. Gentleman would exempt ali thofe whom he is pleased to call exclusively the ufeful claffes, and lay the whole of the weight on what he calls the ufelefs clafs. In the clafs of ufelefs the hon. Gentleman has thought proper to rank all the proprietors of land, thofe men who form the line which binds and knits fociety together-thofe on whom, in a great measure, the adminiftration of justice and the internal police of the country depends; thofe men from whom the poor receive employment-from whom agriculture derives its improvement and fupport, and to whom, of courfe, commerce itself is indebted for the foundation on which it refts. Yet this clafs the hon. Gentleman thinks proper to ftigmatife as ufelefs drones, of no eftimation or merit in the eyes of fociety. When the confequences with which this light flippant theory, the offspring of mere temporary unthinking policy, would be attended, are fairly confidered, the hon. Gentleman will find that his dif tinction between useful and ufclefs claffes is as little founded in truth as the practical fyftem he founds upon it would be inconfiftent with the general intereft of those whom he thinks entitled to peculiar favour. The queftion then is, whether capital or income be the proper object of contribution? The hon. Gentleman fays that capital is the criterion which ought to be adopted in the cafe of the commercial man, and income, where it is deprived of land, Taking for granted, that the principles of the hon. Gentleman were well founded, no lefs than three fourths of the whole income liable to contribution is calculated to arife from this fource. Even, upon his own argument then, he ought not to confider this meafure as fo incurable, as to refufe going into the Committee. If then, he is fincere in his profeffion of defire to facilitate the raising of a confiderable part of the fupplics within the year, why fhould he refufe to proceed farther in a measure which is at leaft capable of embracing three-fourths of his object; and in other parts fufceptible of alteration and improvement, If, however, what has been fo univerfally recognized as important to be done, is to be done effectually, the great confideration on which of thefe leading objects it will be most advantageous to the public, and leaft inconvenient to the claffes of contribution to impofe this general and comprehenfive tax, I am afraid, that to that very plan, which he himself thinks preferable, thofe objections on which he refted the defponding VOL. I. 1798.

Ff

hope,

hope, that the country neither could, nor would fubmit to the meafure, would apply with aggravated force. Every objection which he fo long and vehemently urged against the danger of disclosure, will apply to thofe new theories of policy on which he would act. The hon. Gentleman fays, he is against disclosure. How, then, is he to ascertain the amount of that commercial capital, the profits of which, he thinks, might justly be made to contribute? Would he be contented with that loofe declaration, which experience has proved to be fo favourable to evafion? Would he recognife the juftice of a principle which he would utterly defeat and nullify by the provifions he recommends to carry it into effect? What then does he do to fupport that great caufe, to invigorate those extraordinary efforts which are neceffary for our fuccefs in a conteft, which all but a few, who but lately have got some new lights, have long confidered to be connected with our existence? Yet, when appearing for the first time as a profelyte to the cause of his country, and of mankind, though standing in the new character of a convert, he still retains fo much of the bias of his old opinions, that he denies the means of rendering those measures effective, which he acknowledges to be indifpenfible, and carrying into practice that principle which he profeffes to approve. The real difpute between us then is, nothing but a matter of detail. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's fpeech was founded upon objections to the provifions of the bill, and many of his objections were, either utterly unfounded in any thing it contains, or they were of fuch a nature, as to admit of being corrected in the committee. In arguing the matter in this way, in the prefent ftage, the hon. Gentleman could be regular only upon a point of strict form. He knows very well that the bill went through the committee to get the blanks filled up without undergoing any difcuffion in that ftage, and that it was intended to fubmit it at a future period to the detailed examination of a committee. But granting that the prefent were, in a fair view of the fubject, the proper ftage for the difcutlion of points of detail, let us fee what are the objections which, in the hon. Gentleman's eflimation, are fo fatal to the meafure. To the main objection, which he urged fo repeatedly, and with fo much acrimony, it may easily be anfwered, that the hon. Gentleman affumes what is not in the bill. feemed to be taken up merely to afford him an opportunity of embellishing his difcourfe with the violent invective and or fenfive epithet by which it was diftinguished: I allude to

it

what

what was ftated refpecting the character and duties of the furveyor to be appointed under the bill. I will not recapitulate the odious defcription which the hon. Gentleman applied to the perfons who were to act in this capacity. Gentlemen think it fair to characterize this clafs of perfons by the odious appellation of fpies. What is the purpose-what is the tendency of fuch invective? What can be the effect of this reproachful language, thus indifcriminately applied, but to bring into difcredit thofe officers under the revenue without which it could not be collected, and without which public business must be at a ftand? The hon. Gentleman fays, that the furveyor is at liberty to furcharge to any amount, and pending the appeal to which this furcharge gives rife, the tax will continue to be levied on the whole of the demand, including the furcharge. What is the remedy which the hon.. Gentleman difcovers for this? He tells us, in alluding to a remark of an hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring), that the difcuffion of the appeal might be rendered fo intricate as to confume fix, or even twelve months.-This objection the hon., Gentleman urges triumphantly, at the very time too that he ftates it to be the mode which a perfon furcharged will adopt for his relief, at the very moment when he is compelled to acquiefce in the payment of a furcharge from which he takes care that it shall be impoffible for the commiffioners of appeal to relieve him! Such an argument is the confequence which is ftated. In fact, however, it fo happens, that no fuch grievance can exift. The furveyor's furcharge is not acted upon in the first inftance, unless confirmed by the commiffioners. The furveyor has no difcretion whatever to add to the charge on which the contributor thall be compelled to pay.. In fact, the objections of the hon. Gentleman, instead of operating against the bill in toto, demonstrate the neceflity of going into the committee, that the bill may obtain a full confideration, and a fair difcuflion. As to the general declamation upon the character and function of the furveyor, which fome gentlenen are pleased to confider in the odious light of a spy, it is a matter for the committee to adjust the powers and the duties with which he thall be entrusted. Is this, however, any argument for the immediate rejection of the bill? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that no precaution whatever ought to be taken to avoid thofe fcandalous evasions which there is but too much reafon to expect may be attempted? The hon. Gentleman fays, he has no reafon to fuppofe that, the measure of last year was evaded. The hon. Gentleman,