tax; as far as the public opinion accorded with the right honourable gentleman's views, so far he seemed inclined to treat it with respect; but he totally laid out of his consideration those sentiments which accompanied those declarations. Though, in some instances, the people had expressed their disapprobation of this tax, in its present state, without any of the alterations and modifications which it would be necessary to make, yet they never went the length of the right honourable gentleman, and said, that no supplies ought at all to be raised; on the contrary, in the case of the borough of Southwark, they had expressed the strongest sense of the necessity of making great and vigorous exertions for the public defence. Could this be a subject of doubt, after all the papers relative to the rupture of the negotiation had been laid before the House, and above all, since they had seen the late proclamation of the Directory? Indeed, he should feel ashamed if it could now become matter of argument.

If then it might be assumed, as an indisputable proposition, that great and vigorous exertions were necessary at the present arduous crisis, the next point for consideration was, whether a large part of the supplies of the year ought to be raised by the mode now proposed, within the year; or whether the whole should be raised by the old system of funding? This was the real question for consideration: but, instead of discussing it, the gentlemen on the other side had exerted all their abilities to prove that we ought to make no efforts at all. They had never given any answer to the only important question, viz. if great exertions were necessary, how were they to be made? Instead of this, they had only said, that a proposal to depart from the funding system came with a very bad grace from him, who had funded so much. This could not be considered as a very strong argument; and he should have thought, that the gentlemen, after so long an absence from their parliamentary duty, would have discovered some more efficacious mode of reasoning, than to say, "Do not adopt a good measure, because you ought to have adopted it sooner." Surely the House had a right to expect, from a great and experienced statesman, something

more than a declaration, that if any means could be devised to raise a large proportion of the supplies within the year, and if these means were in their nature unobjectionable, he should not oppose them. This could not be considered as a very great instance of condescension. However, the principal objection of the right honourable gentleman seemed to be, that those extraordinary means ought not to be resorted to now, when a great and obvious necessity existed, because we had not employed them when no such necessity did exist.

But gentlemen seemed to consider, that, by adopting the present mode of raising a part of the supply, the system of funding was to be given up, and the present substituted in its room. If gentlemen had been present in their places when this measure was first proposed, they would have known that the funding system was not given up; on the contrary, he had proposed that the larger part of the supplies of the year should be raised by way of loan. It was thought advisable, as the funds had been so much increased, to ease them, by procuring a large part of the supplies in a different mode; therefore so far from giving up the system of funding, the present plan was intended to relieve it. That this object, if it could be attained, would be most desirable, could not be questioned, even by those who disliked the present tax.

Having said thus much, he did not think it necessary to argue this point more at length upon the present occasion. The point that called particularly for the consideration of the House was this assuming that it was necessary to raise a large sum within the year, was the present plan the most expedient, and the most likely to be effectual? In considering this subject, the two honourable gentlemen on the other side had argued very differently. The first called it a tax upon property; the other, a general tax upon income. The latter was nearer the truth, but neither of them was correct. With respect to the honourable gentleman who called this a tax upon property, it was astonishing that he should be so ill informed of what passed in that House, even though he was absent, as to state as arguments

against this plan, the very topics which he (Mr. Pitt) had urged in order to obviate some objections which had been made to it. The honourable gentleman had contended, that a tax upon property, supposing it possible that the amount of the property could be ascertained, would not be a proper measure. In this opinion, however, the honourable gentleman differed from those declarations out of doors against this tax, upon which so much reliance had been placed on the other side of the House. However, the honourable gentleman had pushed this argument to a greater length than he had done. He (Mr.Pitt) had said, that if the amount of every man's property could be ascertained, it would be a most desirable thing to make the people contribute to the public exigence in proportion to their wealth. But there existed no means of ascertaining the property of individuals, except such as were of a nature that could not be resorted to. Instead, therefore, of a tax upon property, this was what he had stated it to be, a tax upon general expenditure. In opening it to the House, he had anticipated an objection which he thought would be made, viz. that this tax applied only to such income as was in expenditure. This was an inconvenience which it was impossible to avoid, without having recourse to such a scrutiny of property as must, in every point of view, be highly objectionable. That the present plan was in its nature imperfect he was ready to admit, and had stated it to be so when he first introduced the subject; but he thought it the best and most general criterion that could be found. The question then was, whether this plan was so very imperfect, and so objectionable in principle, that it ought immediately to be rejected; or whether, after proper alteration and modification, it might not be of the greatest public benefit? The right honourable gentleman opposite to him had not considered this with his usual accuracy; for, because this tax was calculated at seven millions, and that it was not to exceed a tenth part of a person's income, he had calculated the whole income of the country at only seventy millions; but the inaccuracy of this calculation must be obvious to the right honourable gentleman, when he recollected, that though

this tax never took more than one-tenth of the income, yet, in many cases it took only the 120th part, and in some cases took nothing. At all events, this observation was inapplicable, because he had never spoken of the general income of the country, but only so much of it as was in expenditure. Without dilating more upon this part of the subject, he should say a few words upon what he considered as the leading objections to the

measure.

The right honourable gentleman had made a division of the different kinds of property, which appeared to him to be incorrect, inasmuch at it omitted one great source of income. The right honourable gentleman's division was, income arising from landed estates, from commercial pursuits, and from property in the funds. As to the income derived from professional exertions, the right honourable gentleman had very properly classed it under the head of commercial gains. But he had omitted one great source of income, viz. that which was received as the reward of labour; and of the latter class many were exempted by the criterion now proposed. The right honourable gentleman had contended, that this would operate as a tax upon funded property, which always had been, and must ever be, considered as inviolate. But the measure now proposed by no means tended to affect property in the funds. No description of income, whether arising from landed estates, commercial pursuits, or funded property, was meant to be exempted from the operation, because it was meant to attach upon expenditure in general. Where was the injustice of this? "Why," says the right honourable gentleman, "by taxing the expenditure of a man whose income is derived from the funds, you do in fact tax his property in the funds." If this was a valid objection, it ought not only to induce the House to reject this measure, but to repeal every tax that ever was laid on; because it was impossible to suggest a tax which would not be paid by people having money in the funds. Every tax imposed upon consumption, of course must be defrayed by people having property in the funds; but it was absurd to say that was a tax upon the funds. If this

objection was never made to taxes which were in their nature perpetual, it appeared to him singular that it should now, for the first time, be made to a tax which was merely temporary.

The next objection of the right honourable gentleman was, that a tax upon commercial income was not just; for, said he, a man's landed property is his own, but the income he derives from commerce is partly derived from his industry. This was not a time to enter into a minute discussion of these arguments, but surely the right honourable gentleman did not mean to contend that commercial gains were not a fair object of taxation. Those gains were derived under the protection of the laws of the country, and consequently ought to contribute proportionably to support them. He did not, however, mean to contend that many distinctions ought not to be made, and in the committee modifications would undoubtedly be proposed. As to persons who employed great capitals, in proportion to their annual gains, they would be less affected than persons of landed property; but all that could be inferred from this was, that it was a recommendation of the criterion. Perhaps this criterion, as far as it affected the lower classes, did not make distinctions enough. It would be recollected, that the particular reason he assigned for making this tax lower upon houses than upon the other articles was, that it should not fall too heavily upon that species of income arising from rctail trade. The right honourable gentleman had next censured the mode of appeal given in this case. Some alterations might also be made upon this subject; but still he thought that mode of correcting the operation of the tax might be useful. The right honourable gentleman himself had admitted, that it might with propriety be applied to landed property; and, on the other hand, he (Mr. Pitt) was willing to admit, that as far as it related to the lower class of retail dealers some modification was necessary. These were the general objections which had been made to the plan, and he should now leave them to the consideration of the House, with the observations he had made upon them.

He was aware that there were many who thought that, rather than take this visible criterion of ascertaining property, it would