74 
bank of England, on the same being 
duly proved to be his majesty’s pro- 
perty. This clause having been 
sufiered to pass without opposition, 
no observations were made upon it 
in the house, and therefore it is im* 
possible for us to guess upon what 
principle, if opposed, it could have 
been defended. [is majesty is one 
of the three estates of paritament, 
and no reason ean be given why 
his property should not be taxed by 
the house of commons, that would 
not apply equally to exempt the 
property of members ef the house 
of lords. No exemption or abate. 
ment had been allowed to any of his 
majesty’s subjects, but in cases, 
where, if the tax had been collect- 
ed, the persons liable to it must 
have been forced to apply for paro- 
ehiat aid for their subsistence. . Such, 
at least, was the principle which 
during these discussions, had been 
Jaid down broadly by his majesty’s 
government; and,,except in this in- 
stance, acted upon with no small 
sigour and impartiality. ‘The loss 
to the public, by the exemption of 
his majesty’s private fortune, from 
the operation of the tax, was pro- 
bably inconsiderable ; but, in times 
like these, when sacrifices of such 
enormous magnitude were required 
from the people, it was indecent 
and impolitic, to introduce. a dis- 
tinction between his majesty and his 
subjects, which seemed to imply, . 
however falscly and uutruly, that 
he was desirous to withdraw from 
the pressure of those burthens, to 
which hey submitted with such for- 
titude and resignation. 
The pig-iron tax, which the chan- 
cellor of the exchequer had taken 
at s€.500,000 a year, met, with 
great opposition in the house, as a 
_ tax ailecting a raw material, which 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 
1806. 
was afterwards wrought up, 4nd. 
manufactured in articles, where 
the burthen of the tax would be out 
of all proportion to the benefit des 
rived from it to’ the exchequer. 
Mr. Wilberforce calculated, that the 
tax would produce not more than 
£.200,000 a year to government, 
whilé it would cost a million to the 
public. Objection was also made 
to it, as a heavy and injudictous tax 
on machinery, on agriculture, oa 
coals, and on various manufactures, 
where iron was consumed in great 
quantity, and where no proper sub- 
stitute for it could be devised. 
There is no doubt, that the repre- 
sentations of iron masters and others, 
on this occasion, stating the ruin- 
ous cousequences of this tax to their 
manufacture, were grossly exagge- 
rated, but such was the impression 
they made on the public mind, that 
after having bgen left with a majo. 
rity of only teu on a question for 
the commitment of the bill, minis« 
ters were induced to give it up. 
‘The tax which the chancellor of the 
exchequer proposed in lieu of it, 
was one on private brewers, which 
excited against him a still more vio- 
lent outcry in the country. It was 
in vain that he dropped the most 
obnoxious clausé in the bill, as ori- 
ginally introduced ; 
against it, 
compelled to abandon it entirely. 
Bafiied in these two measures for 
raising the interest of the loan, he 
had recourse atfiength to the ex- 
pedient of adding ten per cent to 
the assessed taxes, which was sub- 
mitted to without opposition. 
Though the readiness shewn by mi- 
nisters on these occasions, to give 
way to public opinion, was so far 
i-3 
the prejudices 
weré so strong among — 
the country gentlemen, that he was — 
to their credit, the necessity to which — 
‘they | 
