Page images
PDF
EPUB

collection of the House, whether he had uttered any such words as those ascribed to him." The noble lord (said he) affirms, that the representations made by the people will operate on the House. I say they will operate on the ministers. This is the difference between us."

Petitions against the propertytax continuing day after day to be presented to the House, speeches, rather than debates, on the subject were multiplied in corresponding proportion, which were, with very few exceptions, adverse to the tax. The arguments against it were necessarily soon deprived of novelty. In fact, they ran almost entirely in two divisions; those of the distresses of the nation, rendering it incapable of bearing such an impost; and of the violation of public faith in renewing, at a time of peace, a tax which was generally understood as having been laid by parliament only as a war tax. Respecting the latter suggestion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a debate on March 4th, gave the following explanation. The petitioners, he said, were completely misinformed as to the supposed pledge which had been given. On the first introduction of the income-tax by Mr. Pitt, instead of a pledge being given, that it should cease at the conclusion of the war, its produce was actually mortgaged for 56 millions, a sum which it would have taken eight years to pay off. When, on the renewal of the war, a tax on income was again thought necessary, it was no longer had recourse to as a fund on which money might be borrowed, but

as a means for meeting the necessary supplies of the year. When granted during the continuance of the war, "and no longer," no pledge was given that ministers should be precluded from availing themselves of such an impost on the return of peace: they were only bound by those words again to submit the policy of such a measure to the consideration of the House. In 1806, when the tax was raised in its amount, the ministers of that day gave no pledge, that they would never, on any subsequent occasion, but in time of war, have recourse to such a measure. With regard to the course which he had himself pursued, in the last year, on the 20th of February, he had laid before the House a statement of the ways and means, by which he proposed to provide for the service of the year, and among these the property-tax was not included. He had done this, not because he thought that its renewal would be a breach of good faith, but because it appeared to him objectionable in point of policy at that period. The circumstances of the present day were widely different : among the means then proposed, was a large addition to the assessed taxes, and he had certainly heard it questioned, whether that would not be more burthensome than the property-tax, whilst it would not produce half the same amount. On these considerations he had determined upon submitting the renewal of the property tax to the House.

Mr. Ponsonby, in reply, affirmed that the understanding of the House and the country on the

subject

subject was directly opposite to that of the minister. If any thing could be more clearly understood than another, it was the wording of the act of parliament, which said that the tax would expire on the 5th of April in this year, if a definitive treaty of peace should have been signed before then. Did the right hon. gentleman mean to say, that no pledge existed, because a clause had not been inserted in the act, to declare that no such pledge had been given? Such a clause would have been unnecessary, because the act had been too clear on the subject.

In a subsequent debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, that it had been the opinion of Mr. Pitt, and of those who composed the government, that the property-tax should not be rendered permanent. This opinion was expressed in the act itself: but the House was aware, that in the bill which he introduced last year, it was said, that the property-tax should be continued during the war; but the words," and no longer" were omitted. Had they been inserted as usual, it could not be fairly argued, that parliament was conclusively bound by them. He was willing to admit, that the tax was originally intended as a war tax, and as a war tax it was now proposed. It was to defray a part of the expenditure of the war; and if parliament should think fit to pledge it for a specific purpose, such as the payment of twelve millions of the unfunded debt, during the two years it was to last, his majesty's ministers would have no objection to take it upon those terms.

It would neither be compatible with the limits assigned to this part of our work, nor of any historical utility, to record the particulars of the numerous debates which recurred as long as the House was open for the delivery of petitions respecting the property-tax. Of these debates, the principal matter often consisted of accusations and recriminations concerning the manner in which the petitions had been obtained; and as the time for decision approached, the ministers and their adherents increased their efforts to make it appear, that the opposition to the tax was fostered by popular clamour and party manœuvres, and was by no means an indication of the sentiments entertained by the most respectable part of the nation. This attempt received a final defeat by a petition presented on March 18th, by Sir William Curtis, from the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, convened by public advertisement in the Mansion-house. The number of signatures was 22,000, among whom were many persons of the first property and character in the city, a considerable proportion of whom were the original promoters of the property-tax, but who now heartily joined their fellow-citizens in an unqualified reprobation of its continuance. The general unanimity on the subject was clearly shewn by the concurrence of all the city members in support of the petition; whilst an attempted counter-petition, being signed only by 27 names, was prudently suppressed.

This was the day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to perform the task, doubtless

now

now become peculiarly unpleasant to him, of proposing the continuance of the obnoxious tax. In a committee of ways and means, the right hon. gentleman rose to submit this proposition to the House. He said, that as the House had already sanctioned the estimates for a considerable military and naval establishment, it was an obvious consequence, that the necessary means must be afforded for their support. Adverting to the number of petitions presented against the tax in question, he represented it as the result of hasty and partial judgment, and said that the petitioners had only attended to the pressure on themselves, which they were naturally anxious to remove. He then went into an historical view of the origin and purpose of the tax; in which he dwelt with complacency on an assertion he had before made, and which had been a topic of party debate

[ocr errors]

that

that the plan brought forward by Lord Henry Petty, when in the ministry, was so constructed as to render it necessary, in certain events, that the tax should not cease with the war; and quoted that noble lord's assertion, he made no pledge of his own opinion, respecting the permanency of the property-tax in time of peace." He next considered the four alternatives for this tax, proposed by an hon. baronet (Sir James Shaw), all founded upon the principle of borrowing instead of raising money, and stated his objections to that principle. Proceeding to the supposition that the House would entertain the bill in the first instance, he touched upon the means which might be

devised to remove the greater part of the objections against it. Of those it would be superfluous to mention the particulars, as the scheme never took place; but they proved the anxiety of the right hon. gentleman to render the measure palatable by concession and conciliation. He concluded by moving a resolution for the continuance of the tax on landed property, at the rate of 5 per cent., being the first of a string of resolutions intended to be proposed for carrying into effect the different modifications which he had explained to the committee.

In the debate which followed, and which was very impatiently, listened to by the House, quite wearied by the long discussion on the subject, some facts adduced by Mr. William Smith in opposition to the tax appear worthy of recording. He said, that the disquiet experienced by commercial: men, at having their concerns. laid open to the world, would be very little alleviated by any of the expedients or modifications now suggested by the right hon. gentleman. It was probable that a large proportion of the commercial interest must now be liable to heavy losses; and it followed, that many traders must either pay 5 per cent. on a supposed profit, or go to the commissioner and confess his loss: rather than do this, numbers would pay the tax, which would be a tax not on income, but on loss. It appeared, that 11,000 surcharges had been made in the city of London alone, during the last year of these, 3,000 had been set aside on appeal, after a critical examination

:

into the appellants' circumstances. Seven thousand out of the whole number did not appeal; probably thinking it a less evil to submit to the imposition, than to expose the situation of their affairs: but supposing them to have been charged justly, what a pestilential influence must the tax have produced on the morals of the country, when such a body had recourse to the most guilty evasions to avoid the assessment!

Several other speakers followed on each side, of whom Lord Castlereagh was the most diffuse in recapitulating all which had been argued in favour of the measure. At length every other voice was drowned in the cry of Question, and the House divided, when the numbers were, For the continuance of the Property-Tax 201, Against it 238: Majority 37. When the result was announced, a long and loud cheering arose in the House, which was re-echoed by the crowd that filled the lobby and avenues; and the event was felt in general throughout the nation as a relief from an oppressive burden, not perhaps so galling from its mere weight (for heavy burdens must be borne), as from its manner of imposition.

After this great deduction from the expected resources of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House was probably surprised by his notice, on March 20th, that on the next Monday, in the committee of ways and means, he intended to propose the continuance of certain of the assessed taxes, but not of the war duties upon malt. The House, he said, would be aware that after he had been deprived of one of the great

est resources on which he had calculated, he could not be expected to dispense with any of the means which remained: but as, in consequence of that decision, it would be necessary for him to have recourse to the money market, it was of little consequence that to the amount of the loan should be added the calculated produce of the malt duty. From the information derived from persons who were best acquainted with the state of the agricultural interest, he was convinced that the most effectual relief would be afforded to this part of the community by the relinquishment of this tax; and he was therefore willing to rely upon the wisdom of parliament to supply the means which would be required in consequence of such an arrangement.

This announcement by the minister of finance was received with much satisfaction by the House in general, especially by the members particularly attached to the landed interest. Observations were however made upon the supposed motives which had induced the minister to abandon a tax raising two millions, immediately after he had been deprived of five or six millions; and it was suggested that the purpose had been that of regaining a popularity which had been lost by persisting in the attempt to enforce a tax generally odious.

No domestic subject during the present year has more forcibly acted upon the public feelings than that of the state of agriculture, a matter highly important to the general welfare, and in which every part of the united kingdom

kingdom has a private concern. It had long been a topic incidentally touched upon in parliamentary discussions, when, on March 7th, Mr. Western, member for Essex, rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to take into consideration the distressed state of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom. In his introductory speech the hon. member said, "Between two and three years ago agriculture was in a flourishing and prosperous state, and yet, within the short period which has since elapsed, thousands have been already ruined, and destruction seems to impend over the property of all those whose capital is engaged in the cultivation of the soil. From what causes have such events arisen? Are they effects of excessive taxation, of the enormous amount of the national debt? Are they the consequences of our extensive paper circulation, which now appears to have been in a great measure withdrawn? Are they occasioned by the pressure of the tithe, or the severe burthen of the poor rate? I have no hesitation in saying that it is not to one or two, but to a combination of all these causes, that we are to attribute our distresses." The hon. gentleman then entered into a detailed consideration of circumstances connected with the heads above enumerated, which is not capable of abridgment, but which led the way to the following set of resolutions read by him to the House, and which it will be useful to transcribe, as affording a distinct view of the leading ideas entertained by the landed interest in this critical emergency.

1. That the portion of the community whose capitals are engaged in agriculture, as well as those numerous classes whose employment depends thereon, are at present suffering under unexampled distress.

2. That the continuance of such distress is fraught with extreme danger to the most important interests of the country.

3. That the demand for the extended produce of our agriculture is, at this time, insufficient to produce that price which is necessary to cover the heavy charges and burthens upon it.

4. That the demand for barley has been very materially reduced by the excessive duties to which it is subjected in the course of the various operations which adapt it to the use of the consumer.

5. That the continuance of those duties during peace, when the facility of smuggling is so much increased, cannot fail to injure the home manufacture of spirits, which must still farther diminish the demand for barley.

6. That it is therefore necessary to reduce the duties on malt, beer, and spirits.

7. That in order to equalize the supply of grain, and promote its cultivation, it is desirable that an appropriation should be made from the extra produce of abundant harvests to supply the deficiency of seasons less favourable.

8. That the admission of foreign corn to be warehoused, prevents such application of our own occasional abundance, and assigns to foreign agriculture the formation of those stores, which might otherwise be created from the produce of our own.

9. That

« PreviousContinue »