£4] ANNUAL REGISTER, lftl(). 



subject was diiectly opposite to 

 that of the minister. If any thing' 

 couhl be move cleaily unficistood 

 than another, it was the wording 

 of the act of parliament, which 

 said tlvat the tax woiikl expire on 

 the 5th of April in this year, if a 

 detiuitive treaty of peace should 

 iiave been signed before then. 

 Did the right hon. gentleman 

 mean to say, that no pledge ex- 

 isted, because a clause had not 

 been inserted in the act, to de- 

 clare that no such pledge had 

 been given r Such a clause would 

 hiive been unnecessary, Ijecause 

 the act liad been too clear on tlio 

 subject. 



In a subsequent debate, the 

 Chancel Ivr of the Excheijiier ad- 

 mitted, tliat it had been the opi- 

 nion of Mr. I'itt, and of those 

 who composed tiie government, 

 that the property-tax sliould not 

 be rendered permanent. This 

 oi)inion was expressed in the act 

 itself: but the House was aware, 

 that in the liill which he intro- 

 duced last year, it was said, that 

 the property-tax should be con- 

 tini)ed during the w;ir ; Init the 

 words, '■' and no longer" were 

 omitted. Had they been inserted 

 as usual, it conld not be fairly 

 argued, that parliament was con- 

 clusi\ely bound by them. He 

 ■vvas willing to admit, that the tax 

 was originally iwtcndcd 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 

 ftt to pledge it for a specific pur- 

 pose, such as the payment of 

 twehe millions of the unfunded 

 debt, during the two years it was 

 to last, his majesty's ministers 

 wo\ild have no objection to take 

 it upon those term?, 



It would neither be compatible 

 with the limits assigned to this 

 part of our work, nor of any his- 

 torical utility, to record the par- 

 ticulars of the numenms debates 

 wiiich recurred as long as the 

 House was open for the delivei y 

 of petitions respecting the pro- 

 perty-tax. Of tliese debates, the 

 principal matter often consisted 

 of accusations and recriminations 

 co)icerning the manner in which 

 the j)etitions had been obtained ; 

 and as the time for decision ap- 

 proacheil, the ministers and their 

 adherents increased their efforts 

 to make it appear, that the oppo- 

 sition to tlie tax \\ as fostered by 

 popular clamour and party ma- 

 noeuvres, and was by no means 

 an indication of the sentiments 

 entertained l>y the most respec- 

 table part of the nation. This 

 attempt received a fuial defeat by 

 a i)etition presented on March 

 ISth, by Sulf'Uliam Curtis, from 

 the mei chants, l)ankers, and trad- 

 ers of the city of London, con- 

 \ened by public advertisement in 

 the Mansion-house. The number 

 of signatures was 22,00(1, among 

 ^vhom were many persons of the 

 first property and chaiact6r in 

 the city, a considerable propor- 

 tion of whom were the original 

 promoters of the property-tax, 

 l3ut who now heartily joined their 

 fellow-citizens in an uncpialified 

 }ei)robation of its continuance. 

 The general unanimity on the 

 subject was clearly shewn by the 

 concurrence of all the city mem- 

 bers in support of the petition ; 

 whilst an attempted counter-pe- 

 tition, being signed only by 27 

 names, was prudently suppressed. 



This was the day on which the 

 ChanceUor of the Exchequer was 

 to perform the ta.sk, doubtless 



now 



