es
and condition in life." This is exactly what every man does not do.
The family of the rich man does not by any means consume more salt than
the family of the poor man in proportion to their respective incomes.
Pulteney knocked Walpole's argument all to pieces in a speech of
remarkable force and ingenuity even for him. There was something
honestly pathetic in his appeal on behalf of the poor man, whom the
duty on salt would touch most nearly. The tax, he said, would be at
least one shilling a head for every man or woman able to work; to a man
with a family it would average four shillings and sixpence a year.
Such a yearly sum "may be looked upon as a trifle by a gentleman of a
large estate and easy circumstances, but a poor man feels sometimes
severely the want of a shilling; many a poor man has for want of a
shilling been obliged to pawn the only whole coat he had to his back,
and has never been able to redeem it again. Even a farthing to a poor
man is a considerable sum; what shifts do the frugal among them make to
save even a farthing!"

Had all Pulteney's speech been animated by this spirit he would have
made out an unanswerable case. The objection to a salt tax in England
then was not so great as in India at a later period; but the principle
of the tax was undoubtedly bad, while the general principle of
Walpole's finance was undoubtedly good. The question, however, was not
argued out by Pulteney or any other speaker on his side upon such a
ground as the hardship to the poor man. The tyranny of an excise
system, of any excise system, its unconstitutional, despotic, and
inquisitorial nature--this was the chief ground of attack. Sir {314}
William Wyndham sounded the alarm which was soon to be followed by a
tremendous echo. He declared the proposed tax "not only destructive to
the trade, but inconsistent with the liberties of this nation." The
very number of the officers who would have to be appointed to collect
this one tax, who would be named by the Crown and scattered all over
the country, would have immense influence on the elections; and this
fact alone would give a power into the hands of the Crown greater than
was consistent with the liberties of the people, and "of the most
dangerous consequence to our happy constitution." The Bill passed the
House of Commons, and was read a first time in the House of Lords on
March 22d. The second reading was moved on March 27th, and a long
debate took place. N