a war tax only, or on
the ground that it was equally wasteful and mischievous to keep up so
large a peace-establishment, especially if it might be used to bolster
up despotism abroad. It was also unfortunate that Castlereagh, ignoring
the heroic efforts made by the people of England for more than twenty
years, should have deprecated "an ignorant impatience to be relieved
from the pressure of taxation". Still, it is remarkable that friends of
the people and the ultra-liberal corporation of London, as it then was,
should have concentrated their indignant protests against the financial
policy of the government, not on the corn laws, or any other indirect
tax, but on the income tax.

Public confidence in the economic wisdom of the ministers was further
weakened by the gratuitous abandonment of the malt tax, apparently in a
fit of petulance, on the ground, explicitly stated, that, if another war
tax must be raised, two or three millions more or less would make little
difference. By a temporary suspension of the sinking fund, a deficit
might be converted into a surplus; Vansittart, however, neglected to
take advantage of this simple expedient, and raised L11,500,000 by loan.
His waning reputation was almost shattered by this absurd proceeding.
Finally, the excessive and irregular expenditure upon the civil list
provoked a searching inquiry into its abuses, prefaced by a scathing
attack from Brougham upon the character of the prince regent. His
character was, in fact, indefensible, and had justly forfeited the
respect of the nation. He was a debauchee and gambler, a disobedient
son, a cruel husband, a heartless father, an ungrateful and treacherous
friend, and a burden to the ministries which had to act in his name and
palliate his misdoings. That of Liverpool carried a measure for the
better regulation of the civil list, upon which, swollen as it was by
the wrongful appropriation of other public funds, many official
salaries had been charged hitherto. For these parliament now made a
separate provision. The house of commons, which properly grudged the
prince regent the means of reckless luxury and self-indulgence, was
unanimous in voting L60,000 for outfit and L60,000 a year to the
Princess Charlotte on her marriage, on May 2, to Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg, looking forward to a reign under which virtue and a sense
of public duty would again be the attributes of royalty. In this
session, too, it conferred a boon upon Ireland