amendments, one for taking the ftock of private perfons, and the other for inferting in the blank, for the commencement of the operation of the tax, the 17th of July. The houfe then went into a committee on the bill, when, upon the queftion being put, that the tax fhould commence on 17th of April, 1796, Mr. Sheridan oppofed it, and moved the amendment he had mentioned; but it was negatived: after which the original date (17th of April) was agreed to and inferted. The other claufes then paffed the committee.

On the 11th of May the chancellor of the exchequer brought up a claufe, which had been fuggefted by Mr. Sheridan on a former day, that all wines paying duty, and imported into Great Britain after the 17th of April laft, up to the first day of Auguft, fhould pay the fame by inftalments; and he moved that this claufe fhould be added to the bill as a rider; which was agreed to.

The three new tax bills which the minifler brought forward in confequence of his fecond budget, were all paffed into laws without any further alteration, a few days before the conclufion of the feffion.

The obfervations of lord Auckland, as stated in the preceding chapter, provoked in the house of peers a ftill more fevere and extenfive inquiry into the ftate of the finances than the fubject had undergone in the commons. On the 10th of May the earl of Moira, recurring to the comparison inftituted by lord Auckland between the public circumftances in the years 1783-4, and 1795-6, ftated, that from examination he had been confirmed in his original idea, that the noble lord was either erroneous in his data, or falfe in his deductions. In the abfence of his lordship, he was ob.

liged to refer to a copy of the fpeech printed by his authority. There could, he contended, be no fair comparifon drawn between the finances and refources of the country in 1783-4, and the year 1795; the fituation and circumstances of which were widely different. Did any man fuppofe that the peace establishment at the end of the war would be brought within the compafs of fifteen millions? It certainly would not. His lordship, after entering into an elaborate examination of the articles of finance and refources, proceeded to the confideration of the statement made by lord Auckland, with which he had clofed his comparative account. "Amount of revenue (including the land and mait) below the computed expenditure on a peace establifhment of 15 millions- 1783, 2,000,000l.

"Ditto, above the computed expenditure on a fimilar peace establishment, with the addition of increased charges for the debt incurred by the prefent war-1795, 3,400,2cal.

"Comparing the excefs of 1796, with the deficiency of 1783, the difference of refource in favour of the latter period would be 5,400,000l.”

The words below and above, his lordship faid, was what he did not understand. He dwelt with much force upon the importance of parliament continually examining the ftate of the finances, and alked for an explanation of what had appeared to him fo unfatisfactory,

Lord Grenville profeffed the utmoft readinefs at all times to enter into a difcuffion which could only prove the profperity of our finances and the profpect of that profperity. The ftatements, he averred, were founded on indifputable data, and the inferences from them warrant

able

able and juft.

He reverted to the committee formed in 1791, to examine the public accounts; and the report of that committee was, that the amount of the permanent taxes, independent of the land and malt, would be annually thirteen millions and a half; and this had fince been confirmed by facts. In the courfe of the last three years, his lordship faid, the amount of the permanent taxes, independent of the land and malt, amounted on an average to thirteen millions feven hundred and fixty-four thousand a year; the old taxes had, his lordhip ftated, reached the fumat which they were estimated, and in many inftances had exceeded their efti

mates.

The earl of Moira referred to the papers on the table, to prove that the permanent taxes, including land and malt, amounted to eighteen millions and a half. The annual expenditure of the peace establish ment, as ftated by the committee of 1791, was fifteen millions and a half to this was to be added two millions and a half, the intereft of money borrowed in the prefent war up to April 5th, 1795; fo that the excefs was only half a million, and there was no provifion made for the annual million appropriated to the extinction of the national debt, and two hundred thousand pounds above that fum; to which was to be added 800,000l. for the feven millions which the minifter borrowed in his fupplementary budget. There was manifeftly then a deficit of 1,500,000l. and he could prove a daily decrease in the different branches of the revenue, particularly the customs. He thought the minifter had acted prudently in keeping back the 500,000l. from the Eaft India company, and the lottery, which was euimated at 300,000l.

As to the firft, he was not certain the company had yet paid a fhilling, or would be able this year; the fecond bartered the morals of the people for revenue. The statements of lord Moira were combated by lords Hawkesbury and Coventry, and fupported by the marquis of Lansdowne and the earl of Lauderdale, the latter of whom gave notice of a further inveftigation of the fubject, which he had only deferred till the committee of fupply was clofed, that the whole expenditure of the year might be known.

On the 13th of May, in purfuance of this notice, the earl of Lauderdale addreffed the lords in a fpeech of the greateft ability and the niceft financial calculation ever fubmitted to that houfe. The war expenditure of the laft year amounted, his lordship obferved, nearly equal to the whole imports and exports in 1787, viz. to the fum of 31,867,4381. Since the commencement of the war, taxes had been laid upon various articles, on which, for the fake of revenue, the duties had been lowered, amounting to the fum of 1,952,000l. His lord hip mentioned the fatal effects of derangement in finance upon the interior policy of every government; the fhare which it had in the fall of Rome; and its recent effects in the French revolution. Unhappily for this country, the money voted by estimate in the three laft years of the war, had far exceeded what was voted in the fame period in the war with America, France, Spain, and Holland; and the votes of credit and extraordinaries had been carried to a still greater excess. In three years, ending 1780, the war expence was 27,164,000l. In three years, includ ing 1795, the expence voted by eltimate was above 35,514,000l.

The

In 1778, £7,816,807

In 1778, £4,894,192

In 1793, £7.757,060

1794,

11,854,822

The refult of this, his lordfhip obferved, was that the total amount of unestimated expence in the three last years had rifen to an excess of more than twelve millions. The expences of the American war, to the year 1780, amounted to fiftythree millions: but we have now to regret that in the present we have created an addition to our funded debt, of ninety-three millions, and loaded the people with the additional fum of 4,500,000l. annually. Under fuch circumstances he had been aftonished to fee a confoling statement comparing the years 1795-6, and 1783-4. His lordhip contended that thefe calculations were not fairly taken at correfponding periods, but as beft fuited the purposes of delufion. With refpect to the arguments deduced from the increase of exports and imports, he thought from the prefent circumstances of the country, and the reduced ftate of the enemy, that it was only a temporary augmentation. Nor did it prove any thing with regard to the probable fate of the revenue. Their total value in 1795 exceeded that of 1791 by 7,000,000l. yet the revenue had fallen fort in 1795 800,cool. The estimates refpecting

In 1793, 6.5,622,272 1794, 10,485,548 1795, 15,278,910 Total £.31,386,730

the importation of cotton wool, the exports to India, and a comparifon of the permanent taxes, were, his lordship ftated, erroneous. The estimates of the navy debt were, he contended, taken at an unfair point of time (Dec. 1783, and May, 1796). Had the comparifon been made between the navy debt outstanding Dec. 1783, and Dec. 1795, the houfe would have feen, that if at the former period it was 15,500,000l. it amounted at the latter to 13,800,000l. and the probable amount at the end of 1796 would be 13,900,000l. In compar ing the bank advances to the public in the years 1793 and 1796, the estimate, he obferved, had recurred to a private account; had it been confined to the public account, it would have fhewn that the advances on the 12th of September 1795 amounted to 11,800,000l; Dec. 9, 1795, to 12,200,000l; and on the 31 Dec. to 11,600,000l; in every inftance exceeding the advances in 1783; in ftating which, it had not been explained whether the navy bills at that time in poffeffion of the bank were included. If they were, to make the comparison with any degree of fairness, there ought to be a further fum added to the balances

in 1795, equal to the value of navy bills at that time in poffeffion of the bank. The ftatement of the unfunded debt was, his lordship faid, totally unintelligible. It was reprefented as amounting, in January 1794, to 27,000,000l.-May 2d, 1796, as nothing. What then was become of the balance of 1 1,000,000l. due to the bank, which had antecedently been ftated? Had the fame month in 1796 been felected for the comparifon, which had been chofen in 1784, the increafed amount of January 1796, above January 1784, on the articles of navy debt, bank advances, arrears to the army, and the deficiency of the confolidated fund, appear. ed, from the accounts on the table, to exceed by 500,000l. the total of the outstanding unfunded debt, which was after the conclufion of a fix years' war of notorious and reprobated extravagance. With refpect

to the next article which had been dwelt upon, the finking fund, in 1783 the houfe, he obferved, was told there was no finking fund; in 1796 it was stated as amounting to 2,500,000l. If, at either period, a finking fund was talked of as holding out a furplus, it could only tend to deceive. At both periods there was in fact a thing called a finking fund; but, instead of poffeffing any furplus in 1783, there was a loan of 12,000,000l. in 1796 a loan of 25,500,000l.The most important point which had been stated, the comparative amount of revenue above and below the expenditure in 1783 and 1795, derived its importance from the fact which had been advanced, that, were we now to experience the bleifings of peace, there would be an actual furplus of 3,400,000l.

His lordfhip cenfured, in the first place, the form of the propofition held forth for the first time, that the produce of the finking fund is to be deemed a furplus difpofable at the will of parliament, inftead of being confidered as forming a part of the neceffary expenditure. He difagreed alfo with the premises on which the propofition proceeded, as he thought nothing could be more calculated to delude, than to ftate to the country that there was a probability our peace expenditure fhould only amount to 15,000,000l. The committee of 1786 reported that the peace eftablishment, including the finking fund, would be 15,478,000l. and that this would not be got upon till 1791, eight years after the war. In 1791, another committee declared they did not conceive a peace eftablishment could cost less than about 16,000,000l. annually. The average expences from 1786 to 1791, as ftated by the committee, was 16,816,9851. Was it then probable, with the increased half-pay of the army and navy, the barracks, and the numerous profufe new arrangements, that there would not be an additional expenditure of at least 500,000l. annually? His lordship proceeded to controvert the favourable statements made on a former evening by the fecretary of state. Rejecting an appeal to averages, which he contended was a lefs accurate mode of calculation than in eftimating the product of a future year, it would be to fuppofe, that, as the fame caufe exifts, a fimilar diminution might probably take place. His lordthip then produced the following statement of what he conceived the probable amount of the taxes.

Total

His lordship ftated that the lowest eftimate which he could with juftice make of the peace establishment was what it actually proved on an average of five years, 16,816,9851. To this must be added 200,000l. annually voted for the finking fund, and at least 500,000l. additional peace establishment. The annual peace expenditure then being 17,500,000l. and the annual receipt only 15,500,000l. there muft be a deficiency of 2,000,000l. To this too must be added the further deficiency in the taxes, which his lordship entered into a calculation to prove must be 500,000l. Ten millions more would, he ftated, be found neceflary even in the event of a fpeedy peace: and this, if borrowed at the fame intereft with the loans of the year, would create a further deficiency of 600,000l. making in all an alarming deficiency to the amount of 3,119,000l. A very large fum even of the prefent diminished receipt would, he contended, be deficient in the event of a peace; as much of what was raffed arofe from the expences incurred by the war. This he was juftified in believing from the experience that the revenue diminished on withdrawing the expenditure of the American war, far above a million 9

£.12,623,583

32,000

128,000

70,000

120,000

2,558,000

£.15,531,583

annually. Should it now diminish in a fimilar proportion, it would, at the leaft, create a deficiency of 4,600,cool. Should the prefent calamitous conteft, however, be protracted another year, there would be a further burden of nearly 2,000,cool. But in the most favourable mode of confidering the fubject, the conclufion was, he faid, ftill inevitable, that there would be an annual deficiency of nearly two millions. His lordship concluded by moving the first of fifteen refolutions founded upon the calculations he had detailed to the house.

Lord Auckland ftated, that it was not from any difrefpect that he muft decline examining the pofitions juft laid down. The`attempt would be both tedious and unneceffary; he fhould therefore confine himfelf to a defence of the ftatements he had formerly made. The reafon he had not taken the 2d of May 1783, inftead of Jan. 7, 1784, was, that he was comparing our fituation in war with that of the country at the end of 1783, when a general pacification had taken place. Refpecting the India ftock, the period which had been propofed by the noble lord would have made very little diffe

rence