upon that head. He went into a detail of the revenue in 1796 and 1797, from which the committee is to derive nothing but a very desponding inference. For the future powers of this country are, according to his deductions, to be very feeble. He is not, however, bound to abide by these sentiments; and as he says he will take a view of the subject, and mature his judgment for the discussion of it in future, I hope a minute attention to it will alter his opinion. He has told us that the accounts are not yet before us. In this his vigilance has been eluded, for the documents necessary for the purpose are now upon your table, and by which, if he condescends to peruse them, he will find that the report of the committee of finance, and which holds out to us a prospect so flattering, is entirely justified. The honourable gentleman dwelt for some time on the produce of the wine duty, and that of the Scotch distillery, and infers that they will not answer the estimate; in which inference he is too rapid, for neither of which has hitherto found its level. These points I merely touch incidentally, not meaning to argue them now, that being foreign to the leading purpose of this night's discussion, and of which there is to be a detailed discussion hereafter.

The next point to which the honourable gentleman refers, is the subject of the advance from the bank to government. Upon this the honourable gentleman has indulged in a species of eloquence, which is almost as new to him, as is his congratulation on the prosperity of this country. He says that this resembles the system which was adopted in France, and leads to the despotism which, under the name of liberty, is carried on there. What similarity there is between the limited and voluntary advances of the bank, to an amount which would be shortly repaid, and the depreciated millions and milliards of the French government, I leave to him, and to those who are now convinced with him of the rapacity of that system, and who have so lately thought it prudent to declaim against the French system, to discover. He says that this is a dangerous connection between the government and the bank; and he states the sum of three millions to be of an enormous amount

for the bank to advance to government. He had forgot, not to say he never knew, for to a gentleman of so much research, that would be an extravagant supposition; but be seems to have forgotten, that the advances of the bank to government have never been less during the present war, than they are now proposed to be, under the very special nature and extraordinary circumstances of the present war. I ask, then, what does the honourable gentleman mean by saying that this is a dangerous connection between government and the bank? Does he mean to say that the restriction on the bank ought no longer to continue? If he does not, I maintain that it is no dangerous connection whatever, since it will be of no inconvenience to the public while the restriction continues, for the public security is precisely the same as if this advance was not made by the bank at all.

But it seems the honourable gentleman could not face his constituents; that they would ask him, where he was when such a measure was proposed? [Where my tongue was, said Mr. Tierney.] It is not very material, Sir, which, as I should suppose where the honourable gentleman is, there his tongue must be also. He says that the measure is of such an alarming nature, that the sense of the House ought to be taken upon it at once; he says that I have a great desire to impose upon the House, and that I distrust my case. I have heard, Sir, that great eagerness for the dispatch of business is sometimes evidence that the party bringing it forward has some distrust of it; but that I should propose a plan that would give him time to prepare a speech, is an instance of distrust, which, considering the extent of his iningenuity, I could hardly have expected to be accused of. I cannot help thinking, that it is a little extraordinary he should first tell me that the measure I propose is unprecedented, and then tell me I am to blame for offering to the House time to come to a decision upon it, instead of calling for a decision immediately.

The honourable gentleman then tells us that this is a plan which cannot be effectual in the hands of His Majesty's present ministers, for that they are not qualified to carry it into effect.

That there may be, and are, in his opinion, others better qualified, I have no doubt, and I have as little doubt that he would be ready to propose them if it depended upon him; but if his objections go against the man, it is hardly fair, upon that ground, to call upon the House to reject the measure. It seems I am not the person to make any proposals of this kind to the House. Why am I not the man? The question is, not who proposes the measure, but whether the measure ought to be adopted? But when the honourable gentleman comes to argue the question in that sense, and when he comes to lay before you the unexampled profusion of which he says I am the profligate author, I hope he will condescend to take in view the extent of the service for which we have had to provide, its extraordinary nature and character, as well as the great expense with which it has been attended, without forgetting the dearness of all the articles of provision, and various other things, at which it is not necessary at this moment to glance; but above all, at the extraordinary efforts, and corresponding expense.

But there is another part of the speech of the honourable gentleman, which contains an important objection to my continuing in the official situation in which I now stand, because, he says, while I remain in that situation, this country cannot have peace. If he thinks so, that is a good reason for his moving an address to remove me. Supposing this House to agree to that motion, there is no reason, I presume, why this House should not take care of the interests of the public, and still more why, supposing them to have no objection to the measure now before them, they should not agree to it. But there is a reason for apprehending that this country cannot have peace while I and my colleagues continue in office. Why cannot this country have peace while we continue in office? Because, in truth, we have not the confidence of the enemy. Sir, we cannot have the confidence of the enemy. The confidence of the enemy! No, Sir, that is im possible! We are not entering into the spirit of their rules, we are not disposed to promote their principles; we do not wish to imitate their system; we do not think it practical in England,

however it may be made the subject of applause by those who favour it in their hearts, and, for the purpose of opposing England's true interest, the occasional theme of vindictive declamation, while it is wished that their principles should be adopted: which principles have been admired, and occasionally extolled. since the commencement of the revolution, by those who have opposed us. If the only claim to the support of the honourable gentleman in the prosecution of the war is, to deserve the confidence of the enemy; if it is necessary to admire the French revolution, which has been the root of all the evils of the present contest; if it is necessary to have asserted the justice of the enemy's cause; if the exertions of the war are to be entrusted to those who have, from the commencement of the contest, thwarted its prosecution, then, indeed, I am glad that we have not the vote of the honourable gentleman in our favour.

But the honourable gentleman says again, that there is no confidence in us in any part of Europe, and he proves it by shewing that all our allies have deserted us, and kept none of their engagements. This argument, if true, might go a good way towards shewing that we ought to have no confidence in them : but until he shews some instances of our want of good faith, I apprehend it does not prove that they have no confidence in us, and proves pretty nearly as much, as the argument that it is necessary that I ought to possess the confidence of His Majesty's enemies in France.

I think I am entitled now, in my turn, since the honourable gentleman has opposed the whole system of the plan which I have proposed, and especially as he is so much, and as it were exclusively, the friend of his country, to ask him, whether he has a better, or any in its stead? for he has stated none. Perhaps be has not had time to digest a proper plan; if he has any in contemplation, he cannot fairly object to the proposal which I make now, since he is to have time to prepare his own, which I trust will be much better. But the honourable gentleman says, that if this plan should have been brought forward at all, it should have been brought forward much sooner. He acknowledges that

in cases of great danger, great efforts ought to be made. Now, I think that in our former situation we were not in so much danger as we are at present, if we do not make great resistance; and therefore it appears to me to be more sensible to make great efforts in time when they are necessary, than to make them when the circumstances of the time do not call for them, especially when by your financial operations, you are likely to bring the contest to a happy termination. But the honourable gentleman says, that this plan is to shew that we are at the end of our resources. If he thought so, he might have spared himself the trouble of pronouncing a panegyric upon these resources in the course of his speech this night. The honourable gentleman says, that this plan shews to the world that we are at the end of our funding-system. The manner in which persons possessed of capital in different parts of the country have acted, in investing their property in your funds, is no proof that monied men think so; but proves, on the contrary, the confidence they have in your resources, and proves also, that wealth is generally diffused all over the country. This wealth is manifested in the improvement of your agriculture, in your buildings, in your canals, in your inclosures; all these, I say, prove that you possess at this moment the confidence of monied men, that there is at this moment more wealth than there was at any former period in this country.

The resolution was agreed to, and a day was fixed for taking the several propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into further consideration.

December 14. 1797.

Os a motion for the second reading of the bill for increasing the as sessed taxes, a long and animated discussion took place.