n review certain very productive
taxes, as those on tea, tobacco, foreign spirits, French wines, &c, the
rate of which, he thought, might safely be lowered without any permanent
detriment to the revenue. In conclusion, he said, that his wish was to
give ministers a power which they could not exercise effectually without
a committee. The alterations which he had in view, might produce a
deficiency of revenue in the first stages of their operations, but
ministers, supported by a committee fairly and impartially selected,
might ask of parliament a vote of credit for all that would be necessary
to fill up that deficiency with a much greater certainty of obtaining
it, than they would have by acting upon their Own responsibility. The
chancellor of the exchequer said, that there could be only one opinion
as to the principle on which the motion was founded; namely, the
expediency of raising the money required for the public service, in the
way least injurious to the sources of public wealth; but he could not
accede to the motion founded on this truism, consistently with the
interests of the country, or the character of his majesty's government.
The wish to relieve the public burthens was not the only guide to be
followed in a question like this; regard was likewise due to the faith
and honour of the country. Some of the taxes might be open to the
objections urged against them; but such as they were we had mortgaged
them to the public creditor; and it I was an imperative duty, not so
to modify them as to shake the basis of his security, and weaken
the strength of public credit. Great inconvenience would arise from
consigning to the consideration of a committee all the various topics
to which the honourable member had referred; and from calling upon the
members of it to pronounce on the amount of our taxation; to decide how
far it admitted of repeal or modification; and to declare how far, in
their opinion, ultimate compensation might be made for any loss which
might accrue from such loss or modification. The motion was supported by
Lord Althorp, Sir Henry Parnell, and Messrs. Bankes and Warburton, who
argued that it was difficult to conceive why the committee should be
refused after the appointment of the late finance committee. If that
committee had proceeded with its labours another year, it would have
been occupied with the very matters which it was now proposed to submit
to consideration. Lord Althorp said that, in his opinion