§ The house having resolved itself into a committee on the Loan Interest bill,
Lord Aucklandsaid, that the general purport of the bill was necessary towards the due execution of the great finance measure brought forward by the late government. That measure had provided an extraordinary annual supply of 32 millions, during an indefinite continuance of the present war, and had assigned, for the liquidation of that supply, certain proportions of the war duties in a revolving series of 14 years; and also certain excesses of the sinking fund. This important object would be attained with a strict regard to the public faith, and without any new taxes or new burthens for the first 3 years, nor for any subsequent years, except to a small and imperceptible amount. But the new ministers had made a change in the bill as handed over to them by their predecessors, and to that change he wished to call their lordship's attention. Their lordships would recollect, that in the year 1797 recourse was first had, by the pre-eminent minister of that day, to the principle of raising a considerable portion of the war-supplies within the year. That principle was pursued in the convoy-duties, the treble-assessed taxes, and the income tax. In 1802, on the return of peace, Mr. Addington (now lord Sidmouth) found the income tax charged with 56 millions, and an unfunded debt of 40 millions. The noble lord took the bold resolution to fund the whole 96 millions, and to provide permanent taxes to pay the interest. It was a resolution dictated by a judicious, provident, and energetic policy. When the war broke out again in the following year, the noble lord reverted to Mr. Pitt's system of raising a large proportion of the war-expenditure 519 within the year, and accordingly proposed the property-tax, and various war-duties on excise and customs. Subsequent additions had been made to those several modes of supply, and particularly in the last session, when the late chancellor of the exchequer had raised the property-tax from 6¼ to 10 per cent. In the result, the whole annual produce of the war-taxes is now estimated at 21 millions; of which 11½ are furnished by the property-tax, and 9½ by the excise and customs. Lord Grenville's ministry, in adjusting their plan of finance, had determined at all events not to burthen the country with the property-tax beyond the duration of the war, and had therefore pledged only the war-duties of customs and excise for the liquidation of such war-loans as might remain unredeemed on the return of peace. This eventual restriction had been censured and resisted by their opponents as unnecessary and unwise. But what was the line now adopted? Those who contended that the whole consideration Should have been left open and unfettered to the return of peace, have still further restricted the pledge in question, and have confined it to the war duties of excise. In objecting to this restriction, he (lord Auckland) did not mean to argue that the pledge was insufficient, though certainly it was a violation of the engagements made with the contractors for the loan. But he strongly censured the selection made, and thought it the worst that could have been adopted. The war duties of excise, so far as they affect the malt, cannot be continued after the war without injury to the landed property; so far as tobacco, spirits, and tea, are concerned, those duties cannot exist after the return of peace, with safety to fair trade and to the revenue. The war duties on customs, which were at all events set free by the change made in the bill, consisted of duties on imports and exports, and on the tonnage of shipping. He could not hesitate to assert, that some of those duties were the least exceptionable of any of the war duties, to be continued on the return of peace. It appeared, however, in the votes of the house of commons, that a petition against the finance measure had been presented by certain persons, on the part of what they called "the shipping interest;" and that petition was understood to have occasioned the selection to which he objected; He had reason to believe that the petition was signed by very few of the respectable men who possess the shipping property of the British empire; but at any rate it was founded in 520 a total misconception or misrepresentation of the subject. The tonnage duty in question and its produce wore so inconsiderable, that they could not have any perceptible effect, even if exclusively levied on British ships; but, in fact, the duty is imposed on the ships of all nations, and, therefore, so far as it may operate, the competition was left where it was found. The petitioners are equally inaccurate in asserting that injury had resulted to them from the encouragement given to the trade of neutral nations. It would be an untruth on their part to say that any encouragement had been given by the late government to neutral trade, beyond what the law of nations, as declared by the court of admiralty, had allowed; or beyond what is necessary to the export of our manufactures, the interests of which would otherwise be sacrificed, without doing any good to what is called "the shipping interest." Parliament had h[...]eard much of this same "shipping interest," and through the same agency, in the last session. And it had been made the watch-word against the American intercourse bill, the effects of which bill, he was prepared to prove, had been peculiarly beneficial to British shipping. He had no doubt, that if amidst the debates on that bill, the late ministry had, then been removed, the whole nation would have been stunned with the same senseless and unjust cry about the "shipping interest," which is raised at the present day respecting a more serious subject. The words "shipping interest," and "the protestant church," vibrate forcibly on a British ear. He reprobated the misuse of such senseless appeals, and was not afraid to reprobate them, because no individual in either house of parliament had shewn himself more openly, more zealously, or more uniformly, attentive to the interests of British navigation, or to the more essential of all public objects, the safety of the church of England. He must lament the political depravity of those who raised such cries, and the folly of those who were misled by them. Little minds have in all ages availed themselves of these occasional perversions of popular opinion; great minds have always been apt to disregard and undervalue them. War-whoops of this description had been made the chief engines in the dissolution of the French monarchy; and the mere word "aristocrat" had brought to the guillotine thousands and tens of thousands of the nobility and magistracy. His lordship concluded his speech with stating several details 521 of the flourishing state of commerce and revenue as exhibited in the printed accounts which he had laid before the house. Through the whole struggle of the last fourteen years, our progressive means had kept pace with our progressive expenditure: and the finance measure as prepared by his noble friend (lord Grenville), and as explained with such eloquence by the late chancellor of the exchequer, had taught the country to place a well-founded confidence in its own energies, and to look without dismay to the difficulties and dangers of the war, to whatever length it may be carried, by our powerful and implacable enemy.
The Duke of Montrosethought it necessary to say but a very few words upon the subject. He had nothing to do with any cry that had been raised against the late ministers, and he should therefore confine himself to the amendment in the bill to which the noble lord objected. It was well known to those acquainted with the subject, that during a period of war a great quantity of tonnage was employed by government, and that on a peace taking place all this tonnage being thrown out of this employ, there was for 2 or 3 years a greater quantity of tonnage than could find a market. It was therefore of great importance to release the tonnage at a period of peace from the war duty, and it was with this view that it had been taken out of the pledge as originally contained in the bill. The security left to the public creditor was amply sufficient in the duties which remained pledged, and therefore he did not see that there was any well founded objection to the alteration in the bill.
Lord Sidmouthwent over the financial plans of his own administration, of the administration which succeeded, and the principal points of the plan of the late ministers, of which he highly approved. He also approved of the conduct of the present ministers, with respect to the disposition which they shewed to carry into effect the plan of the late ministers. With respect to the alteration which had been made in the present bill, he thought it had better not have been made, but as it only nominally altered the nature of the security pledged to the public creditor, leaving in fact an amply sufficient security, he thought there was no material objection to it.
Lord Kinnairdcommented strongly upon the absence of ministers on the discussion of a question of considerable importance on a former evening, and upon the continued 522 absence of a noble duke, who from his situation must be peculiarly qualified to give the house information upon a subject like the present.
§ Lord Mulgravedefended the alteration in the bill, and commented upon the pernicious effects of the system of Necker in France. He did not mean to apply this to the plan of the late ministers, but it was necessary in point of principle, that these things should be adverted to. The public creditor was amply secured under the bill as it now stood.
§ Lord Grenvillesaid, be differed from the noble lord on the cross-bench (Sidmouth), with respect to the disposition of the present ministry to carry into effect the financial plan of the late ministers. He, on the contrary, thought they had shewn a disposition to frustrate, and as far as possible, render it nugatory. The present measure, it should be recollected, was only a very small part of that plan; and he much feared that they would not have to discuss the remaining parts in that house. Much had been said and written, to prove that the late ministers might have easily raised taxes to provide for loans; and it had been charged against them, that they had only brought forward taxes which their predecessors had rejected. Some of those, however, who made such charges must know, that Mr. Pitt, in 1805, found it impassible to raise more than 400,000l. by new taxes, without resorting to 10 per cent. on the assessed taxes. In like manner, the late ministers found themselves equally incapable, in 1806, of raising more than 400,000l. by new taxes, without also resorting to 10 per cent. on the assessed taxes. It was, however, evident, that the assessed taxes could not be carried any further; and, under this difficulty, the late ministers had to consider of a plan by which the war might be carried on with all the energies of the country, and without imposing any additional burdens, or, at least, if they were, that they should be of trifling amount. The only effective plan which could, under such circumstances, be resorted to, they found to be a revolving series, that was to say, that so large a sinking fund should be created, by means of pledging the war taxes, for the extinction of the new debt incurred, that the debt should be extinguished before the whole of the war taxes should be thus pledged; thus leaving the portion of the war taxes first pledged at liberty to be again applied to a like purpose, and thus affording the means, of carrying on the war for an indefinite pe 523 riod. This system had met with the approbation of parliament and the public, and on the contract being made for the last loan, which was one of the most advantageous contracts for the country ever entered into, some person near him having observed upon the favourable nature of the terms of the loan for the country, the person who was then signing the contract declared that it was the consequence of the financial plan then before parliament. Thus the whole amount of the war taxes were pledged to the public creditor. It never before had been thought of to take away a specific pledge from the public creditor. It did not become him to speak of the plan, in the forming of which he, as one of his majesty's late ministers, had a share, but the present ministers found that they could not bring forward any one better. Not being able to form a better plan, they must, however, do something; they must, they thought, make some alteration, and thus had arisen the alteration in the bill, which was a direct violation of public faith; and not content with altering the nature of the security, they placed it on those taxes which were justly considered to be the very worst which could be so pledged, and which had been so considered in another place by gentlemen now in administration. He was perfectly aware that the security which remained, namely, 6,000,000l. was amply sufficient to pay 1,200,000l.; but still he contended, that the alteration was a violation of public faith, inasmuch as the whole of the taxes included in the original plan were the specific security to the public creditor. His noble friend on the other side (lord Mulgrave) had spoken of the plans of Necker, and the ruinous consequences which they produced in France. 'The plan of Necker was simply this, he borrowed money without making provision for the payment of the interest, and then added the interest to the loan of the next year, and so on successively. Such a system must necessarily lead to ruin, and he wished to dwell particularly upon this system of borrowing money one year and adding the interest to the loan of the next, because he bad reason to believe that a plan was in contemplation to propose to parliament, the object of which was this very system, namely, to borrow money one year and add the interest to the loan of the next. He conjured noble lords on the other side not to give ear to such a plan, if any such should be proposed to them, as it must inevitably produce the most ruinous and the most deplorable con 524 sequences. To impute improper motives to any ministers, or to any legislators, he knew was irregular; but he must take leave to say, that if his majesty's present ministers had determined upon the ruin of the new system of finance, they could not have adopted measures more effectual for that purpose than they had already pursued. He did not wish to alter the bill now before the house; their lordships knew why he did not: it would involve a question of privilege between the two houses, as it was a money bill; but he protested against the amendment introduced into it by the present ministers; and he did the same thing against the system which, he knew, was preparing upon finance. He protested too against the clamour which was raised by persons denominating themselves the shipping interest of this country, against the American intercourse bill, which was, in truth, a bill to save the West-Indies from famine, and to save us from breaking the law passed for that purpose. He protested no less against the conduct of those who circulated alarms concerning dangers which they knew did not exist. They knew, said his lordship, that the measure lately proposed to parliament did not endanger the established church of this country; they knew there was no danger in that measure, at the very time they were so busily employed in raising a clamour against it. I know they knew it; for this reason, because there is hardly one of his majesty's present ministers who has not come forward with promises to make concessions to the Roman catholics—
The Earl of Westmoreland roseto order. He submitted that the noble baron had transgressed the rules of order, in alluding to what was not before their lordships in any shape whatever.
§ Lord Grenville .My lords, the bill before your lordships is a bill for providing for a supply to support the public service, and the government of this country; and if the noble lord who calls me to order, knew properly the order of debate in parliament, he would be aware, that, upon the discussion of such a measure, every thing that has a bearing on the conduct of those who compose the king's government, is the subject of debate, if necessary; that a member of parliament may always bring any part of that government before the house of which he is a member, on the discussion of a question of supply.
The Earl of Westmoreland .I submit to your lordships, if it be irregular in a member 525 of this house to say that any person in his majesty's confidence circulates opinions which he knows to be untrue?
§ Lord Grenville .I hope the noble earl will not forget that he concurred in a measure, when he was lord lieutenant of Ireland, when the Irish. parliament was advised by him, to consider the state of the Irish catholics.
The Earl of Westmoreland .The noble baron is perfectly welcome to allude to any part of my conduct, and I am ready to defend it; but I do not see what application it has to the matter now before the house.
§ Lord Grenville .My lords, I know the right which belongs to a member of parliament; and nothing shall deter me from its exercise on occasions that call for it. I know that I have a right in this house to canvass the conduct of every part of the government, on a question of supply. I know I have a right to allude to the clamours which may have an effect on the public. My observations on what passed in Ireland was for the purpose of vindicating myself from the imputation of having said what I know would have been unparliamentary; I mean alledging of a member of parliament, that he had circulated opinions which he knew were not true. That I did not say: I had said, among other things, that to agree to the amendment which has been in this bill was, in my opinion, highly impolitic; and I then observed, that endeavours had been made to circulate unfounded clamours; but I think it impossible for any of his majesty's present ministers to countenance such clamours, because there is hardly one of them who has not been a party to a proposition which was made in parliament, for much greater concessions to the Roman catholics than that which was lately proposed, and upon which such endeavours have been made to excite a clamour; to create a false and unfounded alarm of danger to the country, and especially to the established church. I say, again, that his majesty's present ministers must be convinced of the fact, that no danger could arise to this country from the measure which was proposed in favour of the Roman catholics; because there is hardly one of them who has not in parliament assented to a measure of much more extensive concession to the Roman catholics; and more especially the noble earl, who has thought it proper to call me to order; for the measure he proposed to be adopted in Ireland was much more in favour of the Roman catholics than the measure lately proposed. I 526 say farther, that the system of finance which I suspect to be about to be adopted by his majesty's present ministers, but, above all, the clamour which is about to be introduced into this country on the subject I have alluded to, may, if not repressed, lead to the miseries which we have witnessed in France.
§ Lord Harrowbyobserved, that he had never known an instance where the terms agreed to by a chancellor of the exchequer, in his private room, were held to be binding on parliament and the king.
Lord.Grenvilleinformed the noble lord that resolutions had been passed by the house of commons previous to the negotiation of the loan.
§ Lord Harrowbystill maintained that there did not exist sufficient ground for him to alter his opinion on the subject. Was not the faith of the public pledged for 20 years? The great and comprehensive mind of his noble friend, might enable him to have a view of things which were not cognizable to persons who possessed a more moderate share of understanding; but, from all the details of the circumstances relative to the loan, and from the application of the war taxes, it appeared clearly to him, that the measure was too extensive in its nature and effects, to be considered binding on parliament. According to this plan the sinking fund would be lowered, when other funds were raised by the general prosperity of the country. He insisted that it was imprudent to state what we should do at a time when it was impossible for us now to ascertain what contingencies might possibly arise.
§ Lord Grenvillemaintained that every possible care was taken to provide against every contingency. The public faith, in fact, was more than kept with the public creditor, whilst, at the same time, the plan was such that it secured the public, as far as any general and comprehensive system possibly could do, on the different changes in the price of the funds.
§ Lord Hawkesburysaid, that although he felt serious objections to this financial measure, yet he should not object to the bill's going through parliament for the present year, trusting that it would still remain open to the future and deliberate examination of parliament, and that the opinions which other persons might be inclined to offer on the subject, would meet with due attention. From the collision of such sentiments, he trusted that they would be better able to form an opinion as to the measures most proper to be adopted. He denied that there 527 was any breach of faith with the public creditor, although the duties upon exports and imports, and upon tonnage, were excluded from those war taxes mortgaged for 20 years. The most that could be advanced was, that the contractor had a diminished security, but that remaining security was amply sufficient. He also denied, that the faith of parliament was, in any measure, pledged to abide at all events by any proposal entered into between the chancellor of the exchequer, and the contractors of the loan, so as to preclude all examination and discussion in that house of parliament. He considered that it was, in itself, a step, rash and improvident, that the duties upon tonnage, and upon exports and imports, should be mortgaged and pledged to the loan contractors. The duty upon tonnage, in particular, was originally and professedly imposed by the late Mr. Pitt, as a mere temporary war tax, in order to pay for the expenses of convoys. The ship-owners had therefore felt themselves aggrieved, when they found this war tax was to be continued after the conclusion of peace. For his own part, he approved of the system of our navigation laws, to which we were indebted for much our naval superiority; and he considered it therefore unwise to submit to a relaxation of that system. He denied what had fallen from the noble lord (Grenville), that the opposition to the late ministers' measures respecting the Roman catholics had arisen from clamour; on the contrary, he believed this opposition to be the result of sound good sense; and that a great majority of the people of this country had disapproved of the measures adopted, and in contemplation, by that noble lord and his colleagues, for making farther and farther concessions to the Roman catholics.
The Earl of Lauderdaledeclared that he had never heard within the walls of that house an assertion which tended more to sap the foundation of the credit of the country, than that which had just been made, by the noble secretary of state. Was it an assertion to be gravely listened to at this period of the world, and under the present momentous circumstances, that the public should not give credit to the resolutions of the house of commons until the assent of the house of lords had been obtained? Was this the rule of conduct that was observed by Mr. Pitt, on his negotiation for a loan with the house of Boyd and Co.? Did not parliament then think that they were in some measure bound even by the pledge of the minister? And 528 could noble lords who had come into office, at least under an implied pledge, could they be the first to recommend the breach of a pledge which had been made by his majesty's ministers? There was another circumstance to which he begged the attention of their lordships; some allusion had been made to the excitement of popular clamour; but he would ask the house, in what part of the country that clamour was most excited? Let noble lords look to Northampton; let them look to the election advertisement of the chancellor of the exchequer, and let them then say whether, at the time of the riots in the year 1780, more diligence or more zeal was then used by lord George Gordon to excite popular clamour, than had been made, use of on the occasion to which he alluded. He considered, in fact, that the act that gave sanction to such an outcry, without daring to avow its object, was most highly culpable. If, on the other hand, the circumstances which occasioned the late ministers to go out of office, were taken fully and seriously into consideration, he was firmly convinced that every liberal-minded man would most unequivocally declare that those facts were most highly honourable to his majesty's late ministers. For the part of the country with which he was most particularly connected he could answer (and they were a thinking set of people), that the great majority of them applauded the liberality of intention, and the firm and dignified constitutional conduct of his majesty's late ministers.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshirefelt it necessary to make an observation on the allusion that had been made respecting the conduct of a noble friend of his whilst lord lieutenant of Ireland, under whom he had acted at that time. It was true that his noble friend, in his speech to the Irish parliament, recommended the granting of certain privileges to the catholics; but these privileges were not intended to be extended farther, than was specified in the bill afterwards passed. Beyond this act, passed in 1793, it was not intended to go one single step.
§ Lord Grenvilleremarked, that he was sorry to notice a difference between the present statement of the noble earl, and the speech which his noble friend had delivered from the throne in Ireland. In that speech it was stated, that the advantages given to the catholics of Ireland would be extended to Great Britain. This, therefore, was a promise beyond that act.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshire ,in explanation, said, his meaning was, that no greater 529 privileges than those contained in the act of 1793, should be extended to any of the catholics.
§ Earl Spencerfelt it incumbent on him to contradict the assertion of a noble lord on the other side, who stated, that no measures had been resorted to by the present ministers to influence the public mind, on pretence of supporting the protestant religion. He could assure the house, from personal knowledge of the fact, that, in the town of Northampton, at the late election, the most inflammatory hand-bills, tending to excite the most dangerous riots in that town, had been universally circulated, which began with the words "Popery! or no Popery!" He never witnessed a more barefaced attempt to create disturbances; and the attempt had the desired effect; for the ignorant and illiterate people, having their prejudices and passions once put into motion, knew not where to stop; and this town, which only a few months before had been remarkable for the tranquillity and good order that prevailed in it, was now one continued scene of contention; and private families, who had long associated with each other in the utmost harmony and friendship, were now thrown into a state of party hostility and rancour. He could state several other facts upon this subject; but as he supposed the merits of the late and present administration would be discussed on some future occasion, he should, until then, reserve what he had to say.
Lord Hollandcontended that tile conversation was, perfectly regular, as on a money bill it was always permitted to discuss general topics. The financial system of his noble friend, was a grand feature in the history of the country. If the ministers chose to raise an unfounded clamour among the mob, it was in parliament that they would stand and justify themselves; and this bill afforded the opportunity. It was relevant also to enter upon general topics, as the amendment, it would appear from what had been stated by the noble lord on the other side, was only the harbinger to the total destruction of the system. Though he, and those with whom he acted, had differed from his noble friend (Grenville) on some important points, they had not attempted, when in opposition, to take advantage of the mistaken feelings of the mob. He remembered, when the country was in a calamitous situation, when the scarcity had disposed people to acts of violence What would have been the situation of the 530 country if they had then encouraged the cry against forestallers and regraters, as the present ministers had stirred up and inflamed the cry of no popery? The whole country might have been thrown into the utmost confusion. But though ministers had raised that senseless clamour out of doors, he was glad to perceive that they had not dared to attempt it in that house. With regard to the catholic bill, many of the present ministers had agreed to go further in favour of the catholics; the only red ground of objection to the bill therefore seemed to be this, that the late ministers were not willing that the protestant dissenters should be in a worse situation than the Roman catholics. As far, therefore, as the cry of "no popery" was concerned, nobody surely could accuse them of being enemies to the protestant establishment, who had not proposed to go so great a length in favour of the catholics, as had been done by many of the present ministers. He wished a noble person had been present under whose administration proposals had been made to the officers of the Irish brigade to enter our service, promising them the same rank as the English officers, except the appointments on the staff. He maintained that the cry of "no popery" had been raised and encouraged by persons in high situations, and even by protestant clergymen, whose religion might have taught them more liberality. And yet ministers said that the whole was the effect of popular feeling left to itself! They then boasted of having the people with them, but they certainly were not the sensible part of them. But when they talked of the mob, they ought to recollect that nearly a third part of the population of the empire were catholics. And one of the great mischiefs with which this conduct was attended was, that it separated the British, from the Irish populace. If such a storm as this was raised; if you held out the principle that the protestants and catholics could so little coalesce, that they could not serve together in your fleets and armies, it would be in reality a disunion between England and Ireland, and one which no legislative measure could remove. To produce this disunion, however, was certainly the tendency of the conduct of ministers. The noble lord then came to the clamour about the shipping interest, which was followed up with the same spirit as the clamour of no popery. The assertions on the other side would go to maintain that the late ministers were enemies not only to the shipping interest, but even 531 to the fleets of the nation. He contended, however, that the late ministers were the true friends of the navy, by encouraging all those interests which formed its foundation, instead of favouring, in a particular and partial manner, the shipping interest, which formed but a very small part of them. But the clamours of ministers might perhaps be intended, in some measure, for electioneering purposes. When some person talked to Wilkes about taking the sense of his constituents, Wilkes replied, that he would give him all the sense of his constituents, if he would give him (Wilkes) all their nonsense. Ministers were, therefore, perhaps, applying to the nonsense of the people; but while these things were going on, it became the house to consider the situation in which the country stood. Notwithstanding the superiority over the other countries of Europe with which we were disposed to flatter ourselves, he could safely affirm that there was no country in Europe, catholic or protestant, that was not astonished at our conduct in not availing ourselves of our catholic population. Our navy had increased, not in consequence of the restrictions imposed, but in spite of them, and because, on the whole, we had fewer restrictions than what had prevailed in other countries.—Then we had the opinion of ministers as to the new system of finance. Their objection to it was, that it was too vast, and embraced too great a number of years. But, however, they had acted on this plan for this year, which they were under no necessity of doing if it was a bad one, since so many better plans, in their opinion, had been proposed by some of themselves. If the plan was a bad one, it ought not to be continued for a year, if it was a wise one, then its embracing a number of years, in the manner actually done, was no objection. The amendment must have been introduced for one of two objects, either to overthrow the plan, or to gratify the ship-owners. If the latter was the object, why did they not for this purpose repeal the late West India act? This was in fact governed by the same principles as the rest of their conduct. The object was to secure popular clamour in their favour by any means. In the present situation of the country it was the duty of every member of parliament to watch the conduct of a government of this description with the utmost jealousy and distrust. After they had got into the 'elysian fields,' as it had been called, he thought they might have abandoned such conduct. But they still per 532 sisted and were the only persons who had employed, in an open and undisguised manner, a threat of dissolution to influence a decision of the house of commons. He could not avoid saying, that considering the situation in which the country stood, it was unfortunate, indeed, that the affairs of the nation should be in such hands.—The bill was then committed, and ordered to be reported the next day.