444 Practicability of discharging the National Debé. 
¢ourse to it. In my opinion, however, 
this is far from being the case. I am 
persuaded that the debt may be dis- 
charged fairly; and that it would be much 
more advantageous to the country.to do 
so, than to get rid of it by means of the 
sponge. It is my present object to 
shew the practicability of paying 7 and 
the importance of the subject must be 
my apology to you and your readers, for 
requesting your attention and opinion on 
the subject. 
About a year ago, a pamphlet of mine 
was published by Mawman, entitled, 
$< Observations on the National Debt, 
with a Plan for Discharging it, &c.” 
That which I then considered as the 
novel and distinguishing feature of my 
plan, was a proposal ‘that the funds 
should contribute towards Ae own dis- 
charge, exactly in the proportion which 
they were found to bear to all the ex- 
isting § property in the country. 
Thus, taking the national debt at four 
hundred millions, €which I shewed would 
at that time be about its amount, reck-. 
oning the interest of money at 5 per 
cent, and supposing the 3 per cents. 
paid off at 60, and all the other stock 
after the same fatio) and taking the ex- 
isting property on the country at 1600 
millions, (which from the returns of the 
ancome-tax, would appear to be about 
the mark) i in this case, the proprietors of 
stock would have to pay from their pro- 
perty in the funds 80 millions, (4th of . 
the whole national debt) or deduct so 
much from their claims on the public, 
and the other proprietors would have to 
pay the remaining 4ths, or 320 millions, 
being £th of their whole property. Some 
of your readers will be alarmed perhaps 
at the magnitude ‘of this sum, but they 
@re to recollect, that if it would require 
oak of their property to pay the principal 
of the nacional debt, 1t takes more than 
ath of their income, more than ith of the 
produce of their property, to pay their 
share of its interest. And that by pay- 
ing off the national dgbt, every one would 
save his share of the expense of gollecte 
jng its interest, which, reckoning their 
direet wages, ig the loss to the: pation 
of the labour of the collectors, is very 
considerable. Ta my proposal for 
qaxing the funds towards discharging 
¢nemselves, 1 was not at that time aware 
that I had been anticipated by the bi- 
shop of Llandaff, who recommended the 
same measure in an “ Addvess to the 
$50 le of England,” published in 1798, 
Hele ordship, haweyer, has not adduced 
[Fune 1, 
any arguments to prove-the equity of his 
proposal, and the Edinburgh reviewers, 
in their third volume, in reviewing 2 
speech of his, intended to have been de- 
livered in parliament, and published in 
4803, in which his lordship again recom= 
mends the same measure, are by no 
means disposed to admit its justice and 
propriety. They observe, “the direct 
taxation of the national creditor, im pro- 
portion to his debt, by refusing him pay- 
ment of a certain part of it, is extremely 
like a palpable breach of faith.” I am. 
persuaded, however, that the arguments 
I have brought forward in my pamphlet 
above-mentioned, in support of this mea- 
sure, will be found abundantly sufficient 
to establish its eguity.* 
In estimating however the amount ne 
the national property from the amount: 
of the income-tax, I did not then take 
into consideration that there is a great 
deal of property which.does not con- 
tribute to that tax; but since every spe- 
cies of property ought to contribute in— 
proportion to its value towards discharg- 
ing a national debt, an estimate for that 
purpose which does not take into ac- 
count all property of whatever descrip, 
tion, must be defective and erroneous, 
Property of the kind just mentioned, 
is such as household furniture, books, 
pictures, &c, &c. and, in short, every thing 
which .does not yield a direct income. 
* I cannot here refrain from noticing the 
disingenuousness of the Monthly Review. In 
their remarks upan my pamphlet, they ob- 
serve, as near as I can recollect, to the fol- 
lowing effect: ‘‘The writer has told us 
what we all knew, that if the national debt 
be paid off, every person ought to contribute 
according to his property towards it.” Now. 
if we look at their review of the bishop’s 
pamphlet, in 1798, we shall find that they, 
like most, or I believe all those who replied 
toit, did not then know that the stockholder | 
ought to contribute from his funded pro- 
perty towards paying the debt. For, in come 
menting upon the bishop’s proposal that they, 
should ete ors the reviewers. observe: 
¢*¢ We will not say how far he is right in ree 
commending the taxing of the funds.” Now. 
I think it is fair to conclude, from the man- 
ner in which this is said, that they were 
then of opinion that the bishop was not right 
in his recommendaticn ; at any rate it is very 
clear that they then Rew little or nothing 
about the matter, but now it seems such a 
flood of new light has burst in upon them, 
that they can see clearly that the bishop was’ 
right, and they affect to believe that every 
body else must have done so too, without ang 
information of mine on the 5 ubjects oe 
The 
