The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATUR

selves with a deficiency of 800,0001., with a prospect of an
increased deficiency at the end of the ensuing year from those
causes to which he had alluded. The Noble Lord had stated
several means of supplying this deficiency. The first resource
to which he referred was a tax upon the succession to real pro-
perty. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had often seen
reference to that subject, but he could not help thinking that
those persons who spoke upon it were greatly mistaken in their
views. There appeared to be a very general opinion that no-
thing but personal property paid legacy duty. There could
not be a greater fallacy. Legacy duty was. paid to a large
amount in the shape of charges upon real property.--(Hear. )
A very large proportion of the legacy du y at present. received
was in fact derived from charges upon land. Another error
was the supposition that all personal property paid legacy duty.
There were many cases in which personal property might be
settled in the same way as landed property itself. If, for
instance, a man who had 500,000/. in the funds, married, and
had his marriage settlement made in the ordinary ray in which
settlements were made tf landed property, that property
devolved upon the person who succeeded to it as exempt from
legacy duty as any real estate whatever. The property which
would be affected by the contemplated alteration was chiefly
personal property of the value of 501., 100/.. or `2OO/. a-year ;
and he asked the House whether in a time of general difficulty
and embarrassment that was a desirable object.—( Hear, hear. )
He might state with a view to show by approximation, which
was all that could be done, what was the proportion of real
and personal property which at present paid the legacy duty ;
he had eve in his possession by which he could show that a
large proportion of the legacy duty had arisen from
charges upon real property as contradistinguished from personal.
He was afraid he had tired the llouse.—( Hear, hear.) It
would he in the recollection of the House that, in 1796, Mr.
Pitt introduced two measures one of which was to make lintled
property, passing by devise, subject to a cuty ; and the other
was to impose a similar taxation upon the legacy of rersonal
property. In that Act, it was proposed to except settled pro-
perty, That Act was rejected, but the Act for imposing legacy
duty on personal property was passed. In 1805, Mr. Pitt,
not deterred by this rejection, again proposed a legacy duty on
charges upon land ; and the proportion of the burl n of this
sax, borne by charges on land to that borne by personal pro-'
perty might be calculated from the fact, that in the six years
preceding 1805, the duty paid on personal property alone was
5,100,0001. ; but, in the six years following, the amount de-
rived bore the duty on both personal and landed, was
8,860,0001. Now, deducting the former from the letter sum
would leave 3,760,000/. as the amount paid by the land
He thought it right to show, in the first instance, that those
who declared that this present legal duty did rot apply to land
were in error, and he hoped that he had satisfactorily shown
that there was good reason for not resorting to those means
of deriving an amount of rerenuo. But, if not, he could fortify
himself with the opinion of the Hon. Member for Po. tsmouth,
who stated in explicit language that it would not be expedient.
—( Hear, hear.) A proposition was made on the subject in
1810 by the Hon. Member for Teignmouth, expressly to the
s tine effect as that made by the Noble Lord ; and what did the
lion. Member for Portsmouth say on that oceision ? He said
that "Nothing was so delusive as to suppose that because a
legacy duty attached •to personal property, nothing was
on the descent of real property." And he went
on to say that a great pert of it was paid by j ere
sons considered free from all. liability to the duty. lie
was glad,that these opinions fortified his own, though he
might adduce others, but so far from Firer. ty not paying,
the charges Pie.estates by tamps and other means was consider-
able. '1 he last point noticed by the Noble Lord, was a recom-
mendation to increase the assessed taxes. Those gentlemen
who supported this resource, spoke as if the assested taxes feil
truly on the higher classes. If any gentleman had been
Chancellor of the ExChequer he would be aware that commu-
nications were constantly received, showirg that those taxes
pressed severely on the less wealthy. It the Noble L .rd
thought they could raise two millions by the assessed taxes,
ne was in error, or he must lay it on the light and windows of
the poor. Then, with respect to the house tax, a large portion
of the houses of this country was exempted from the tax;
about two-thirds of the houses were exempted altogether. The
house tax, too, was only a species of proper ty tex, operating on
one kind of property alone, and they might, by placing a heavy
charge on amens house, attack his means through his habtta ion.
The great weight of the tax, however, must fall upon the
poorer classes of the communily. He would read to the
House the words made use of by Sir John Key, when Lord
Mayor of London, in relation to the house and window tax.
That was an authority to which the Noble Lord ought to bow.
—(Cheers and laughter.) Surely the representative of the
City would al'ow some weight in the authotity of the Lord
Mayor.—( A laugh.) It VMS, moreover, the opinion of a man
not opposed to the Noble Lord, but one who had been con-
nected with Noble Lord, both in City and in general politics,
and who was as much entitled to admiration in the one

situation as he was in the other.—(Cheers and laughter. )
Sir John Key said that the City of London objected to the
house and window tax as a tax unjust in principle—(Cheers
prom the Ministerial benches)—as a tax that in its operation
was oppressive and inquisitorial—(Ministerial cheers)—and
vexations in its imposition and collection—(renewed Minis-
terial cheers)—and that no modification could make it a fair
sod equitable tax. Having told the House what it was not,
sir John Key proceeded to inform them what it was, aed he
iescribed the house tax to I.e a property tax, but not an equal
property tax ; a property. tax pressing upon one description of
property only ; an unfair tax, a tax pressing unjustly upon
he industry of the country.—(Cheers.) It was an income
ax in its most odious form—( Continued Ministerial cheers)—
because it touched not the. great masses of wealth, but pressed
solely upon industry. The old income tax, said S.r John
Ks., which had been so execrated, was a heavenly tax in
eomparison to it.—( Loud cheering and laughter from the
Ministerial benches.) '1 he Noble Lord surely could not have
consulted his constituents Lefere making his speech this even-
ing, or rather he had consulted his constituents socabulary,
and applied to the property tax, which they called a heavenly
ax, those terms which they had applied to the very tax which
'he Noble Lord would propose to substitute for it.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He was ashamed of himself for
Having so long tresspasseJ upon the time of the House.
but after the speech of the Noble Lard, ho had felt it would be
impossible for hitwto abstain from addressing them in vindica-
tion of the financial measures of the Government, He hoped
he had satisfied :he HMO that the occasion was one which
called for exertion to overcome the financial difficulties of the
country—that there was nothing in the present crisis calculated
to produce feelings of gloom if they met itlike men, but that they
were called upon to make an energetic exertion to repair the
ilLances of the country, so as to place them once more on a just and
proper footing. He would trust to their readiness to make good
the want of income of the country when they found that the
country required it. Time had been allowed for ascertaining
the opinion of the country, and he hoped to find that the feel-
ing which was entertained upon that measure, when it was first
proposed to the House, had been confirmed ; and although they
would not, like the Lord Mayor of London, sty that it is a
heavenly tax, they would, he was sure, be ready to submit to
;t, as the best means of repairing the finances, and enabling
them to give relief to the trade, the manufactures, and com-
merce of the country ; and however he might differ in politics
with the Noble Lord, the Noble Lord had no less admitted it to
be one of the many evils existing in the country.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that he had listened with great atten-
tion to the Right Hon Gentleman, and he regretted to say
that he had not succeed in convincing him that the prop, sition
of the Government was the best means cf making up the pre-
sent deficiency in the revenue. Although the Right Hon.
Gentleman was confirmed in his opinion by that expressed by a
Lord Mayor of London some 15 years ago, he (Mr. Williams)
must say that that confirmation was not at all to his (Mr. Wil-
liams's) satisfaction.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
across the table that the opinion he had referred to was ex.
pressed not more than ten yeaani ago.
Mr. WILLIAMS said it had not at all removed his objec-
tion to the Right Hon. Gentleman's propoition. He (Mr.
Williams) was exceedingly pleased to find that the Noble
Lord the Member for London, in his resolution, had
adopted one proposition which he (Mr. W.) had expressed
his intention of proposing to the House, viz., to subject all
description of property, which was now not liable to the legacy
and probate duty, as other property. The Noble Lord had
made an addition to his proposition with respect to assessed
taxes, and although he (Mr. Williams) considered the window
tax as most objectionable. still he thought it was much better
than that most unjust, unequal, and inquisitorial income tax,
as it was proposed by her Majesty's Government. Notwith-
standing the opinion expressed by the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman, he (Mr. Williams) must say, that the tax, as it was pro-
posed, was most unjust and most unequal. It was true, the
Right Hon. Gentleman had justified that inequality, by the
equality existing in levying other taxes. But he (Mr. Wil-
hams) had often complained in that House of that inequality,
and of its great injustice. He had often shown in that House
how this inequality existed. He was glad that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made that admission, and he had hoped the
Right Hon. Gentleman's attention would be called to what
he himself admitted to be an injustice, and thence to a general
revision of the taxation of the country. There were
one or two cases which gave great • dissatisfaction to the
country. With regard to the proposition of the .Noble
Lord, he must say, that he did not think the Noble Lord had
made out a very good ease. In the first place, he (Mr. Wil-
liams) much preferred the timber duties proposed by her Ma.
jesty's Government to those suggested by the Noble Lord.
Her Majesty's Government had dealt fairly with respect to that
very important article. He knew of no article in that country
more important than timber; not only was it a very useful article
in building, but, if the duty was lower, it would enable them to
build their ships cheaper, and thus enable them better to com-
pete with the foreign shipowner. If they increased their ship
ping, they 'Very greatly added to the employment of capital. It
3130 greatly added to the employment of seamen. He believed
that nothing was so well calculated as a protection against
foreign countries as the manning of ships in the mercantile ser-
vice. He must say that, with regard to the article of coffee,
which was the next item in the Noble Lord's resolution, that
he thought the Government had dealt most liberally with it,
but he thought they had made too groat a difference between
colonial and foreign coffee. He thought their proposal would
have been much better if the difference which existed now be-
tweon colonial and foreign coffee—viz., 6d. or 9d., and Js. 3d.,
had been continued. He thought that a differential duty of
fifty per cent. was an ample arid more than sufficient protection
to the colonies. He did think that every encoutagement
should be given to the consumption of coffee, considering the
present position of China. He thought that a duty of sixpence
a pound on foreign coffee would gi eatly increase the consump-
tion, and not at all diminish the revenue. With regard to the
proposition with respect to sugar, he had already often expressed
ats opinion. He could hope to see the treaty entered into with
'oreign countries where sugar was grown for the abolition of
slavery. If they could accomplish this with the Brazils, Spain
would soon adopt the same course. With regard to the other
troposition of the Noble Lord, he had said often before in that
House, that he was decidedly in favour of a free trade in corn.
Rut if any duty was proposed, he thought that a fixed duty,
such as the Noble Lord had before proposed, or one still less,
would be infinitely better than the measure of her Majesty's
Government, which had yesterday passed that House. But
with regal d to the reduction proposed, he had before stated that
he considered the present measure a eons;derable amendment
on the old law • but still he thought that as much income would
have been produced by an Bs. duty, and th It in the course of
a year more, while at the same time the price would be less to
he consumer. With regard to the taxes which hof been alio-
ished since the war, he must say that any tax that would fall on
persons poss.asing property would be much more preferab.e
ihan to have the assessed taxes restored. He euesi-

.lered that the industrious classes were already moat
unjustly burdened, and he, therefore, said that any
:axes that would again r.ffect them ia a peculiar manner ought
to be certainly avoided. After reading the res•dution of the
Noble Lord, he must say that he was not at all prepo sensed in
favour of the proposi ion, as set forth in these resolutions.
ilut the Noble Lord had made consideraMe addit ons to hi,
. .

views in his speech, which had alteted his ( Mr. Williams's)
upi.don etogether vt ith regard to the profe,sed mode
making up the deficiency in the revenue cf
the country. In consequence of this he had given no-
t to of his (Mr. Williaa s s) pro;:ositions' which he still con-
sidered better than those of the Noble Lord. (Hear, hear.)
I'he first propasition was with respect to real property, or pro-
perty of every description, not liable to the payment of the
Came amount of duty as was then paid upon personal property
to the legacy and probate duty. The No le Lord had not
named what he (Mr. Williams) consi 'ered a most unjust dis-
tinction. Take, for instance, a man who lefLhis children 30/
If that property consisted of furniture, that furniture had to
be valued, and if that turnitme was valued at .01.
these children had to pay the legacy and pr bate duty
_(Cries of
.." Hear, hear")--if a rich Nobleman, worth
100,0001. a year, he paid neither taxes nor duty. The Ri3ht
Hon. Baronet shook his head; now, he would ask him if the

Duke of Cleveland, the Duke of Norfolk, or the Marquis of
Hertford, who had just come into such immense estates, when
these Noblemen paid any duty whatever upon their estate/.
He (Mr. W.) was not aware that they were at all liable to any
tax ; but if they were he was sure the Right Hon. Baronet
would readily furnish the House with the information. Was
he not right, then, in asking if such a state of things was not
most unjust? Ho did not wish the rich man to pay more than
the poor man in proportion to the amount of his property ; he
only wanted all parties to be equal. lie thought it was idle to
argue a principle so self-evident, if he could not anti4ate that
arty argument founded on rs•avin could be advanced' against
them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the
amount of taxes in the year 1825. He (Mr. W.) wished the
Right Elonourable Gentleman had come to a later period,
for there as as a vast difference in the value of property
then and now. If he calculated the amount of pro
perty as in 1625, and what it was now, he would
have a much larger revenue than he would have had in 1825.
He hat heard persons who were well acquainted with this sub-
ject, and they had estimated the increase of property at from
two millions to two millions and a half. Tt.e next part of his
propasition referred to all annuities, pensions, divhiends, and
salaries, and provided that they should be liable to a certaiti iin-
positton of taxation. For all salaries up to 250/. or 3001. a-
year, he proposed a tax of W. in the pound, or two and a half
per cent. several gentlemen had stated to him that there was
great objection to this proposal. If he did riot consider that the
proposal was founded in justice, he would never have p'oposed
it. He would state shortly to the H cruse his reason for im-
posing this tax. When they looked to the present state of the
country, with the exception of those two great interests, the
landowners and the NVest India Proprietors, who
were protected by. monopoly created by legislation
in that House with the exception of those two
classes, a very class in this country was thi n in
a state of suffering. The merchant, the manufacturer, the
shipowner, and the labourer, all were in a state of great depres-
sion aid luffering. That he believed no one could question. If
they compared these classes to the same classes of six years
ano, they would find that six years ago they were able to pay
twice as much taxes as they could now. Seeing then that this
chess was in this state of suffering and distress, it weuld be
unjust to add a greater weight to taxation to that which already
pressed them down, not only so heavily, but so unjustly.
Another reason why he made this proposition vess the value
of money now and same years ago. During the war the
salaries of public men were very much increased. They must
also consider the fall in wages, and yet out of these wages the
taxes principally came. He referred to a most able work
written by the Right Hon. the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment en this subject, who was a very high authority. He
(Mr. Williams) had read a great many works, and he
never read any in which the view of the writer were ex-
pressed with more ability, lse would say, with more justice.
The Right Hon. Gentleman stated that the difference in the
value of money now and in 1813, which was the last year of
the war, was at least 30 per cant. Now there was net an indi-
vidual eho had ever expressed an opiaion on the subject, who
did not hear opt the Right Ilona Baronet in this. But if he
01r. Williams) were to express an opinion, he should think that
the Right Hon. Gentleman hail rather under-stair d the fact
than otherwise. The amount of taxes in 1813 was 81,000,000/ ,
arid the value of gold w,,s 51.65. 2,1, the ounce. At the present
time the taxes were about 58 millions, while the value of gold
was ni. I7s. 100. In 1812 the price of wheat was 1225. 61.,
now the price was 625., so that they had to pay the same
amount of taxes upon salaries, while they could get two qu'ar-
ters of W' eat when they could have but one in 1812. In 1813
according to the contracts at Greenwich Hospital, the price
of beef was 9d. a pound; he did not know what the contract
was at the present time, but a very large quantity was con-
sumed, and he thought he should not be far from the truth
when he said it w s not more than 6d. per pound, so that they
had a pound and a half of beef now to one pound in 1813.
The present condition of every one who would have to pay the
tax would make the burden upon him a great deal heavier than
in 1834. He (Mr. Williams) never knew a man pay who
had trot the means to do so. Hume in his " Essay on Credit,"
said, that under the Circumstances of heavy debt in which this
country was placed, the revenue must be raised from a con-
tinued tax on annuities, or what was the same thing, from the
mortgage of those annuities. They must come to this in the
end ; the Right Hon. Gentleman said that a long time ago,
and he (Mr. \V.) must say that it did the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman great credit, thathe had foreseen it. He agreed with the
Right lion. Gentleman in one point, and that %%as that e ha' ever
amount of expenditure this House might vote, it was bound to
place the meant, of rai-ing it in the hands of Government, and
that in a manner very differently from all that had been done of
late.—(Hear, hear.) Now if his (Mr. NI illiaras's) plans were
carried out, it would secure to the Government a sum of from
4 000,000/. to 4,500,000/., which would be amply sufficient for
the exigencies of the country. He would make one more
observation only before he sat down, and that was that too
much dependence should not be placed upon the Bank of Erg-
land. He knew that the. Bank was very willing to accommo-
date the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but stilt it might be
unable to afford the required accommodation. On the sth
of January of this year, the Government had not above
3,60a,000/. to pay debt of 9,000,0001. ; and if, when appli-
cation was made for more advances, thirteen Directors
had said, 6‘ No," in what state would the Government
have been ? He would press this matter on the atten-
tion of the Right Hon. Baronet, as tieing a subject well
wet thy of his consideratien. And again he would remind the
Right Hon. Baronet, that in the course of a few years the Bank
would apply for a new charter, and then it would be well tor
the Right Hon. Baronet to be able to meet them, without being
under any apprehension, or any dread, but on a fair footing of
• independence. He thanked the House for the attention with
which he had been heard, and he begged to give notice, that
after the Noble Lord's motion was disposed of, he should move
the following resolution—" That it is the opinion of this Com-
mittee, that, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty,
and for the reducing, as much as may be practicable, the duty
new payable on malt, sugar, and tea, there shall be charged an-
nually the several rates and duties following, that is to say ;
for and in respect of every annuity, pension, stipend, dividend,
or sa'ary, p.iyab e nut of the public revenue of the United King=
dem of the annual amount of 150/. to 300/., for every twenty
shillings. sixpence; of 3001 to 5001., fur every twenty shilling-,
one shilling of 5001. to 750/. for every twenty shillings,
on shilling and sixpence ; of 750/. to 1,0001., for every
twenty shillings, two shillings; of 1,0001. to 1,500/., for
every twenty shillings, three shillings ; of 1,500/. and up-
wards, for every twenty shillings, four shillings, on the rains
thereof. For and in respect of all lands, tenements, heredita-
, merits, heritages, and real property of every description, there
shall be charged to every person on coming into possession
thereof, by inheritance or bequest, a duty equal in amount to
the probate and legacy duty now payable on personal property."
Sir R. INGLIS said that„after the excellent speech of his
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did
not rise for the purpose of following the Hon. Member through
his sreech ; but he rose simply for the purpose of submitting to
ha Right Hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, one
alteration which he took the opportunity of suggesting now for
his approval. The Right Hon. Baronet had pledged the ex-
istence of his Government upon the success of this great finan-
cial measure, but though he stated that, he expressed, at the
same time, his willingness to listen to any co ernunicatic ns re-
lating to the details of the measure. The Right Hon. Bart. began
by stating that he could expect no sacrifices on the part of those
whose incomes did not exceed 1501. per annum. Admitting,
therefore, that those whose incomes were below that sum, were
not in a position to bear the tax, which ought to be levied on
others, be begged to submit to the Right Hon. Gentleman,
that an equal advantage should be given to those whose incomes
should exceed 150/., that was to say, that those whose income
was 2001. should pay the tax only on the surplus 501. He be-
lieved there was no modification of the Right Hon. BM onet's plan
which would so much tend to make his measure generally re-
ceived, as this—the alteration would make very little difference
in the amount expected to be received by his Right lion,
Friend, but to the person whose income was only 1501., it
would be a great and thankfully received boon. I'here was
• another suggestion which he begged to make before he sat
down ; he believed that the country generally would receive
with more satisfaction a property tax of 4 or 5 per cent., than
to be compelled to submit to all the machinery of the income
tax. He begged to recommed these suggestions to the eon-
! sideration of the Right Hon. Baronet, because he be'ieved
they would greatly tend to lighten the burdens of the tax where
they would press heaviest.

Mr. P. M. STEWART said he considered that this
threatened tax was a most inquisitorial, odious, and unneces-
sary imposition upon the people of this country, but if they '
were to be subjected to it, he agreed with the Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Oxford, that they should endeavour to mak3
it as little burdensome as possible, and in that spirit he (Mr.
S.) approved of the suggestion of his Hon. Friend that the
150/. ought to be made the unit in calculating the amount of
the tax.—( Hear, hear.) To the last suggestion of his Hon.
Friend he (Mr. Stewart) would make no remark, because he
was going now to make desperate war against the proposition.
The Right lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
said that he, as a financier, helped in 1816 in the hopeless un-
dertaking to continue for two years that tax, and he said that
he was quite sure if she property tax had been continued for
two years, after the close of the war, our finances would have
been in a much more flourishing state now than they were.
He (Mr. Stewart) said that in looking back in the defeat of
the proposition of Mr. Vansittart to continue a tax which
it was the duty of the Government in honour to withdraw, no
one could look but with sympathy on those who caused the de-
fect of the revenue. He would just make ore quotation, to
show the opinion that was entertained of that tax, by a man
who might be called a high authority. Mr. raring, now Lord
.Ashburton, thus spoke, after an eloquent and powerful speech,
showing the impolicy of continuing that tax after the war:—
" Since there is a debt of 820,060,0001., it is of little conse-
quence whether twelve more be added ; but it is of the great-
est importance that the people should be liberated from this
mitt unjust, unnecessary, and odious imposition." Thr,se
were the words of Mr. Baring in 1816, and he (Mr. Stewart)
presumed that he might put them in opposition to the opinions
of the Right Hon. Gentleman. New, the Right. Hon. Gen-
tleman said, and he (Mr. Stewart) agreed with him, that
they (lid right in boldly looking their circumstances in
the face; but the Right Hon usable Gentleman said that it
was not merely the deficiency of 2,500,0001., for which they
had to provide ; but they bad to cure the evils of a se: ies of de-
ficieneles for five or six yeses past. He (Mr. Stewart) must
say that he agreed with the Noble Lord, the Member for
London, that there had been a gloomy view taken of those
matters, and that these deficiencies bad been magnified and
mystified, because he did assert that the deficiency which they
had to deal with now, as a financial country in high credit. was
simply the deficiency of 2,E00,000i. To what an extent vas
it magnified in the first instance ! The Right Hon Baronet,
the first night of the financial measure, made a touching intro-
duction reletive to our affairs in Affghanistan, and he then
mixed up with the question—he ( Mr. Stewart) must say he
thought very improperly—the difficulties of Indian finance.
He had no access to official documents which could throw any
light upon his knowledge of Indian finance, but from the last
account, written by Mr. Porter, which came down to the year
1840, it appeared that there was a large surplus in the re-
venue of the four Presidencies of India. He took it, tnen, that
there was a considerable surplus at the present time in that
quarter. With respect to China, affairs were not settled there,
but in the accounts of the revenue, made up to the sth inst.,
there was a flourishing surplus of six hundred thousand punds,
of which certainly upwards of three hundred thousand came
out of the six mil ion of d011,r3 paid for the ransom of Canton.
It 1,6111 impossible to convince those who were acquainted with
the history of the income tax that it- was anything but a war
tax to all intents and purposes, and nothing less than a war
could justify a tax so inqui.itorial, and tl.e machinery by
which it was levied. The Bill of 1806 had ten clauses, a
Bill which Mr. Ponsonby had declared to be incompatible
with the principle of the personal liberty of the subject. It
was in 1798 that the first proposal for such a tax was made,
and in 1806 Sir Henry Petty, now the Marquis of Lansdowne,
again introduced the subject. But what a ere the circumstances
of the country at both of those per loc; compared with the present?
Mr. Pitt, in introducing the tax, said that if it were necessary
to obtain a supply requisite for the vigorous prosecution of the
contest in which they were then engaged, it was evident it
must be obtains d by a sudden tax immediately productive.
The sum required by Mr. Pitt on that occasion was ten mil-
lions of money within the year, whereas the deficiency required
to be made upon the present occasion -vas only '2,500,000/. In
1798, when Mr. Pitt required to raise these ten millions of
money, the Navy Estimates amounted to 13,642,0001., andithe
Army Estimates to 8,840,0001. In 1806 when Sir Henry Petty
made his proposition for an income tax, a loan of between
eighteen and twenty milli, ns of money had been effected, and
the Estimates for the Navy were 15,281,C001., and the
Army Estimates 18,200,0001. How deferent were the
circumstances of those periods from th 3 circumstances of
the present. With respect to the imyrosements in the tariff
proposed by the Right Hon. Bartnet, though some of them