GENERAL HISTORY. 



[23 



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 Avill operate on the House. 

 I say they will operate on the 

 ministers. This is the difference 

 between us." 



Petitions against the property- 

 tax 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 argu- 

 ments 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 inca- 

 pable 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 pe- 

 titioners, he said, were completely 

 misinformed as to the supposed 

 pledge which had been given. 

 On the tirst introduction of the 

 income-tax by Mr. Pitt, insteatl 

 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 in- 

 come was again thought neces- 

 sary, it was no longer had re- 

 course to as, a fund on which 

 money might be borrowed, but 



as a means for meeting the ne- 

 cessary supplies of the year. 

 When granted during the conti- 

 nuance of the war, " and no 

 longer," no pledge was given 

 that ministers should be pre- 

 cluded 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 subse- 

 quent occasion, but in time of 

 war, have recourse to such a 

 measure. With regard to the 

 course which he had himself pur- 

 sued, in the last year, on the 

 <20th of February, he had laid be- 

 fore the House a statement of the 

 \\'aY9 and means, by which he 

 proposed to provide for the ser- 

 vice of the year, and among these 

 the property-tax was not included. 

 He had done this, not because he 

 thouglit that its renewal would 

 be a breach of good faith, but 

 because it appeared to him ob- 

 jectionable in point of policy at that 

 period. The circumstances of the 

 present day were widely different : 

 among the rneaus then proposed, 

 was a large addition to the as- 

 sessed taxes, and he had certainly 

 heard it questioned, whether that 

 would not be more bxuthensome 

 than the property-tax, whilst it 

 would not produce half the same 

 amount. On these considerations 

 he had determined upon sub- 

 mitting the renewal of the pro- 

 perty-tax to the House. 



Air. Ponsonhy, in reply, affirmed 

 that the understanding of the 

 House and the country on the 



subject 



