be on our side. For after the repeated avowal of the highminded principles upon which the right hon. gentleman entered into the war, and upon which his new allies are disposed to continue it, would they now say that they never would have intermeddled in the affairs of France, unless France had directly attacked us? If so, then, what becomes of the proud cause in which we thought ourselves to be engaged-the cause of religion, of humanity, of morality—the defence of civil rights, and of regular governments? The principles of the French republic are still said to be inimical to this cause; and against such principles we must all concur in continuing the war; then England must appear to be the aggressor, whether we persevere in the contest from the magnanimity of these principles, or from some other less glorious motive.

When, then, may we now expect to treat? If religion, morality, civilized government, &c. &c., invaluable objects, no doubt, are to be no longer contended for; are we to persist in the war for the possession of the Cape of Good Hope, the island of Ceylon, and Trincomalee? And are these the fair prizes to which we aspire, and to which the boasted defence of religion, morality, &c. must be sacrificed? Must we then, for all our indemnities, fall foul on our allies, and the concessions we contend for, be torn from the Dutch? If we If we persist in these demands, and the French continue to reject them, what then will remain to be done? Must we again rear the standard of morality and religion? Is it then we are told that we must fight manfully? Would it not be better that those who would have us fight manfully, should manfully give up their places? And by what means do they endeavour to reconcile us to this hopeless contest? By craftily setting up our pride against our interest-by asking us, are we not ready to spend our last shilling, and our last drop of blood, sooner than permit the enemy to dictate to us the choice of our ministers? But this betrays only mean and little craft, and no soundness of judgment. Have not ministers themselves endeavoured to dictate to France the mode of government it should adopt? Have they even contented themselves with prescribing the principles it should act on? Have they not, moreover, insisted on their choice of persons and of forms? That such was their intention, appears form no less an authority than his Majesty's speech, wherein parliament is told, that when such

an order of things is established in France, as may enable their government to maintain the usual relations of peace and amity, then he would have no objections to treat with them. Is not this dictating to France the form of government she should embrace? And has not the directory a right to retort upon us, and say, that until they adopt the form of government we choose to prescribe, England will continue in her hostility to France; and there can be no solid and secure peace between the two nations, but at best an hollow truce, a mere suspension of arms? In this opinion my right hon. friend (Mr. Wyndham), if so I may presume to call him, must undoubtedly acquiesce: for according to him, a peace with France, while France continues to act on her present principles, would be far worse than anything that may arise from the continuance of the war. In this opinion, at least, I doubt not but he is sincere.

The people, we are told, must now submit to great burdens, and these burdens shall fall where property is great. But when they are called on to submit to great burdens, in my opinion, they should have great examples to encourage them. They are told, your private interest is nothing, the public interest must be all to you. But with what face can this language be held to them, either by the right hon. gentleman, or his new converts? For is there a man among them who has not betrayed more anxiety to secure his own individual job, at the expense of the country, than to contribute towards relieving the country from the burdens under which it groans? When we hear that in one office that of the secretary at war-the clerks have fees and perquisites from the amount of £5000 to £18,000, some gentlemen may treat such perquisites as mere parings of cheese and ends of candles, but the public must wonder at the immense size of this consecrated cheese, and be dazzled with the light of those flaming tapers that thus blaze on the altar of corruption.

As to the measure more immediately before the house, I cannot but mark it with my strongest disapprobation; nor can I wait for its going into a committee before I express my opinion upon it; for no possible modification it can receive will be able to reconcile me to a measure, the principle of which I abhor. It is a measure that argues the grossest and most irrational violation and outrage of the regulation of all taxes; it runs foul on all the principles on which they can be raised; it is a penalty on

any

economy-a bounty on perjury-a libel on the public spirit-a commission of bankruptcy against the whole commercial part of the community. To show the impracticability of such a measure, I shall not now detain the house with detail of argument; it stands sufficiently evidenced by the resolutions unanimously voted this day by the city of London, and which show that it is impossible for a very numerous class of householders ever to pay the tax, should the proposed mode of raising it be unfortunately passed into a law. It is a fact equally evident, that they are not able to pay the taxes now imposed upon them. Indeed, when so large a class of the community are unable to contribute to the exigencies of the state, we must be very near the end of our resources. But we are told, it will not affect the poorer descriptions of the people. No assertion can be more unfounded: for must it not touch all those profits arising from the luxuries in which the rich indulge? Must not the retrenchments of the wealthy trench on the means of subsistence of the poor? Yes-you may tell us, they are not taxed. The poor are not taxed, I allow you; but they will be starved; for they must be starved who derived their livelihood from the expenses of the great.

Numberless are the objections that may be urged to the principle of this bill; it goes to impose a tax on the expenditure, and not upon property. But I would agree with the right hon. gentleman, that property should be taxed, could he devise a criterion by which it could be accurately estimated; but surely he will not say, that carriages, horses, &c. are a perfect criterion of property; he has already admitted that they are not, and in this I also agree with him. But sure I am, that the ultimate operation of the present bill must tend to ferret out all property; but can this end be attained without the disclosure of the means of individuals? If such a system be, therefore, enforced, will it not go to erect in every parish a fiscal inquisition, to pry into the property of individuals, to ascertain their gains or their profits, and thus lay open and expose the improvement or decay of their circumstances? Will not such a system prove hostile and fatal to all industry, to all trade, and cut up by the roots every species of property? Look at the bill. What does it tell you? If you are over-rated, then you may appeal—and to whom? To your own neighbours and fellow-parishioners, if any description

of men can be found of so base a nature as to undertake an office so degrading. But, to what a trying situation must the person so appealing be exposed! If the spies of government say they doubt his word, he is then to be examined upon oath; and evidence may also be brought on oath to contradict his declaration. To what a situation, I say, is he then reduced! Either he must incur the suspicion of being a perjured man, so strong are the temptations held out to him-or, if he makes a fair avowal of his circumstances, and says his income amounts to £200 (without taking into account the accidental circumstances. that may impair it), should it come to be impaired, and the next year amount but to £150-either he must appeal, and divulge the decay of his circumstances, or he must hold up a false front to those with whom he deals; and, should he fail, be accused of having held out false pretences, and have upheld his credit by fraud. If he comes forward, and makes this discovery of his situation, he is accessary to his own ruin; and, if he shrinks from this discovery, he may forfeit his character for integrity. Upon the whole, if you follow up the principle, you must get at all actual property. To this it must ultimately go but then it would be found a mean and narrow principle, and principally arising from narrow prejudices. If you attempt to call on the highly opulent, whose income may exceed £20,000 per annum, but who spend comparatively little, how are you to ascertain the proportion they should pay? It cannot be done; and if it could, the attempt would be impolitic and unjust. The right hon. gentleman has said, that he wished he could get at the hoards of the miser; that misers ought not to be permitted to delight in pressing their bags under their pillows, without coming forward with their due proportion for the protection which the state gives to their treasure. If such treasures had never been actively employed in industrious commerce, it might be proper to derive a resource from them; but who would toil for an income, if they were not permitted to spare or expend it, according to their own notions, and in the same spirit with which it was amassed? Such a measure is sacred, and not to be touched. The revenue, it is true, depends, in a great measure, on the liberal, or rather prodigal, expenditure of the opulent; but if there is permitted to be no saving, and all must spend to a proportionate extent, then you enforce a maxim destructive of the vital principle of all in

dustry and prosperity. To the sacred principle of saving, I cannot but profess myself a friend, though the habits of my own life have been little regulated on it; and to encroach on this sacred principle, will be utterly to extinguish the spirit which enlivens industry, and from which all private and public wealth can alone be derived. However the right hon. gentleman may be disposed, from the general opposition with which he sees the country receive his proposal, to give a variety of modifications to it, there is no possible modification which can reconcile me to its adoption.

The house divided; for the second reading 175; against it 50.

JANUARY 4, 1798.

INCREASED ASSESSMENT OF TAXES.

The order of the day for the third reading of this bill was read. MR. SHERIDAN rose and said, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) who has just sat down, has called for more explanations of what other gentlemen have advanced than I ever recollect to have heard in this house. In candour I must conclude that the hon. gentleman really wanted information upon the points which he affected not to understand; and that where he did misunderstand or mistake the arguments of others, he did not mean to be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. The speech of the hon. gentleman, however, called upon so many members to explain the points upon which he has commented, that I have been under the necessity to give way to them. I now rise, thus early in the debate, and I feel some satisfaction in reflecting that the adjournment which has taken place gives me an opportunity of presenting myself when the attention of the house was awake, because, had I proceeded last night, I might have found the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) wearied and exhausted, and disposed, perhaps, to give me a hint to sit down before I had finished my argument. I have listened to the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perceval); a speech of great talent, great ingenuity, and considerable vehemence. The sentiments which it contains seemed to be so much in unison with the feelings of those around him, that I flatter myself that the approbation with which it has been received may contribute to shorten the debate, and to supersede the necessity of making long speeches from that side of the