may, he would fay it moft unequivocally and diftin&tly, that he felt not the leaft defire to be approved in any thing he did by any person who was capable of holding fuch opinions, or as long as he continued to hold fuch opinions; for, what was this noble fabric which it was fo glorious to concur in erecting? It was a conftitution, if fuch it could be called, the moft naufeous, the most weak, the most flimfy, the most ludicrous and deformed, that ever difgraced the mind of man; a constitution which never betrayed the leaft trace of wisdom or integrity, but which was wickedly devifed and framed for the catastrophe of that bloody tragedy which it has ever fince caused to be acted. Yet, after feeing how the evils it has produced are still daily growing, and fpreading havock and devaftation into every country which its abettors can invade, whether they be under monarchical or republican governments, the noble Lord afks us, if we fhould have embarked in the war had we forefeen the confequences that have enfued? To that noble Lord he would anfwer-Yes: ten times, and a thousand times would we have acted the fame part, fooner than bend before thofe who fought to crouch the independence of Europe; and above all, to humble the power of this dreaded country, which was the first object their inveterate animofity was anxious to accomplish. He would for himself repeat it a hundred times over, that had he been perfectly affured before hand of all the events which had happened, the fubjugation and pillage of Italy, the conquest of Holland, or even the murder of the king of France, he would have recommended the adoption of the fame fyftem which this country had purfued, and which he should confider as deriving additional urgency from thofe very circumftances. Nay, when he reflected on the ravages committed in the whole civilized community of the world by that wild and wicked domination; by a revolution which no man could think of, much more approach in difcuffion, without horror; when he beheld the face of Europe diftorted in every featere, disfigured with the blood of kings, or the violation of perfonal liberty and perfonal rights, what must be his feelings, what his indignation at the authors of fo many crimes, and fuch a complication of black and hideous mifchief? Was not Italy poiluted, was not Switzerland plundered, facked, enflaved; the fcene of general devastation and of maffacre? These things had all happened in their fucceffion; yet could he have forefeen that fuch would be the iffues of

that

that monstrous revolution, thofe, aye ten times more he would have facrificed to ftem the tide of thofe vicious and false principles, to keep out from the human mind that glare of delufive light, fantastically called philofophy, but which in truth was no other than the inflammable effufion of revolutionary madness. This country had honourably, and, thank God, as yet fuccefsfully refifted that power which fought not only to overwhelm every ftate in its vicinity but our own. And (concluded his Lordship) we fhall continue our exertions; we fhall ardently maintain the struggle-we fhall give to Europe the awful but animating example of a nation combating irreligion, injuftice, oppreffion, tyranny; and not for ourselves alone, but for the world. In this refolution I confefs I firmly remain, and if there can be any room for the gratifi, cation of private vanity amidst such scenes of public diftrefs and calamity, it shall always be my boaft, that in fuch a refo lution I have at firft concurred, and shall still more stedfaftly perfevere.

Lord Holland rofe once more to fay a word or two in explanation. He declared that he little expected to have heard complaint on the fcore of departure from order like that juft urged against him, as he had fo frequently feen the forms of the Houfe infringed (if it were an infringement) in like manner, by the noble Secretary of State himself.

Lord Fauconberg faid, he had first viewed the bill with jealous eye, and therefore gave it a very minute inveftigation; but when he alfo attended to the exigencies of the flate and to the general calamities that hung over Europe, he could not but admire and commend the firm, refolute, and undifmayed conduct of thofe who had framed the measure in queftion, and brought it to its prefent ftate of perfection; a measure of finance which was to convince the enemy that our refources equal our neceffities, and that the fpirit of the nation, far from being repreffed by it, will under its influence be ftimulated to higher enterprize, and raifed to a higher pitch. of force than ever it effayed or attained in any known period of our history. He fhould therefore moft cordially fupport

the bill.

The Duke of Bedford rofe towards the conclufion of the Debate, and begged their Lordships' indulgence, while he ftated his fentiments on a bill which he thought of the laft degree of importance to all the various interefts of the country, and which, in his opinion, it well behoved their Lord

fhips moft deliberately to weigh and confider before they read it a third time. In ftating his fentiments, however, he would endeavour to exprefs them as concifely as poffible.

The bill turned upon two great and leading principles, befides comprehending a large variety of other fubordinate points and confiderations. The first of the two principles was, how far it was wife and expedient to raise a great portion of the fupplies within the year, rather than by the ufual way of loan? It was impoffible to difcufs this principle by arguments drawn from experience or comparative effect, because it was a mere fpeculative question, and therefore could not be treated in the fame manner as that which had flood the teft of trial in repeated inftances ever fince the establithment of the funding fyftem. There was, however, the conftant and uniform practice of our ancestors against it; nay more, there was the practice of the prefent Minifter himself, who had, during five years of expenfive war-for he would. not call it ruinous, or ufe any expreffion that might lead to the difcuffion of fubjects that had been again and again agitated within those walls, and to which he did not that night mean to call their Lordships attention; But, during five years of expenfive war, the prefent minifter had himself followed the ancient plan of raifing the fupplies by loans; and, inafmuch as that amounted to, it was to be taken into confideration, as warranting the inference, that the prefent minifter had hitherto thought that mode of raifing the fupplies preferable to an attempt to raise them within the year. If, then, we were now to adopt the mode recommended by this bill, it would be an admiffion that the author of it had been for that space of time in the wrong, and that the prefent was preferable to that which he had hitherto purfied. No noble Lord, he believed, would fupport it as pofitively good; but would merely argue for it as expedient, and adapted to our prefent circumstances: but yet he thought it would not be difficult to prove that, even comparatively, it was a more injurious mode of railing the fupplies than that which had been fo long purfued. In the outfet of a war, indeed, he admitted that this method might have one good effect-it might make a people cautious how they plunged themselves giddily, and without due confideration, into war. But, whether being actually engaged in war; whether, after having in five years created a debt greater in its amount than the whole of what had been incurred during the hundred years preced

ing, we fhould adopt this mode now? was a queftion of extreme doubt. The fecond principle of the bill for their Lordships difcuffion was, Whether, if the propriety of raifing a great part of the fupplies within the year were admitted, the propofition now offered of raifing those fupplies by a tax on income was the defirable neans? This was a question of material importance in the view in which the measures of the last year were confidered; for, as by raising 7,000,000l. within the year, it was contended that the general principle of raifing the fupplies within the year was recognised, it might hereafter be contended that, by adopting the prefent bill, they recognised the principle of taxing income. In this view it required their Lordships' moft ferious confideration; for nothing could be more injurious to the community, nor more fatal to the state, than to affume this as a principle recognised, and to act upon it. It had been the general practice in taxation, to levy as great a portion as poflible of the fum wanted upon articles of luxury and of confumption; and, fo long as that practice could be continued, it would never be confidered as materially unjust in its operation, though one defcription might for the moment be more immediately touched than others, and although the whole community might not pay towards it in equal proportions, ftill, as it was optional, it could not be deemed fundamentally wrong. If, therefore, it was abandoned; it was a confeffion that we could not go on in the most equitable course of taxation; for on no other ground could that courfe be abandoned, but that the taxes would be fo oppreffive, that people, in order to avoid them, would difufe the articles taxed. This, then, must be confidered as a forced contribution; and as fuch it would be confidered. If the fum could be raised by a tax on confamption, every body must acknowledge that it would be a preferable mode. But if the state of the realm was fuch, that a forced contribution must be the means of fupporting the government, then it became their Lordships to confider well whether the general principle of taxation, which required that every man fhould pay in proportion to the protection he received, which protection was commenfurate with his property, was confulted and acted upon in this bill. In his mind the criterion was extremely falfe and erroneous. In one cafe it would be a tax, as it profelfed to be, upon income; in another it would be a tax upon capital. A temporary tax upon income muft in its nature be in many inftances a tax upon capital. The prefent VOL. I. 1799.

3 P

tax was faid to be for three years. Thus, then, a perfon poffeffed of 1000l. a year, and expending the whole of it, cannot, without confiderable inconvenience to himself, abridge his expenditure to gool. whereas, by taking from his capital 100l. he will diminith his income but 51. a year for each year, and with comparatively a trifling inconvenience, he will be thus enabled to pay his tax. Perfons, on the other hand, who poliefs greater incomes than they annually expend, convert their furplus into capital. In both cafes, therefore, the fax, in truth, takes from their capital and not from their in.come. Yet poffeffing this clear character of being in most inftances a tax upon capital, it would not be difficult to fhew how unequal it would be in its operation; for if the annuitant is obliged to have recourfe to his capital, you take from him a fiftieth part of his property, as the average value of existing annuities cannot be faid to be more than five years purchase. You take from the flock holder little more than a two-hundredth part, and from the land owner only a three-bun dreth part. This may be fufficient to fhew its inequality, but perhaps it will be more clearly illuftrated in the fituation of a perfon having property in the thort annuities, compared with that of another who has invefted the fame fum in the 3 per cents.

Two perfons have invefted the fame fum in the fame fecurity, that is, in the public funds, and confequently with the faith of Government equally pledged to them. The one receives an income for his money of 200l. a year. The other receives about 751. yet relatively both thefe perfons receive the fame value for their money according to the funds they have chofen; for, in the one cafe, the public repay, as it were, the principal, together with intereft upon it, by instalments, because in nine years the whole is to terminate; whereas, in the other cafe, the public pay only the intereft, because the annuity is perpetual. The proportion, continued the Duke, is juft, because the perfon poffeffed of the fhort annuity, may, by investing all the furplus above 751, in ftock, re-create his principal by the time that the annuity ex-pires. It is manifeft, therefore, that all which he receives above 751 a year is part of his capital repaid him, and cannot be confidered as income. Yet upon his 200l. a year he is to pay 201. a year to this tax, while the other is to pay a little more than one pound. In this view it is impoffible to reconcile it with the principles of equity, and innumerable cafes might be quoted in which the hardship of the tax would be felt in the fame unequal way.

If