quence for the public weal? You have saved the country from the horrors of jacobinical anarchy. Your noble spirit has awed the most daring of all foreign enemies. Nevertheless, if those who are best qualified to judge in such a case, are decidedly of opinion that you are not so well qualified to meet the new and redoubled dangers to which England is exposed, or likely soon to be exposed; in short, and to speak plainly, if your habits of life, the terms of your engagements, and the state of your discipline do not qualify you to act with regiments of the line in the open field, and the line of battle against the hardy and experienced veterans of Buonaparté, will not the same generous motives of the public good, the same exalted patriotism that first induced you to embody in your own way, engage you to submit to such modifications and changes as the wisest statesmen, and indeed the legislature of your country may decide, are for the general welfare-But, why should we prove inferior, you say, to regular troops, even in the line of battle? Are not our limbs made in England as well as theirs are? Do the minds of generous Volunteers glow with less ardent courage than those of hired soldiers? The best answer to this, and all such other confident language is, that which I have made before. The most able and experienced judges in these matters are of opinion, that, great, incalculably great, as the services are which you are still able to render your country by your zeal and courage, it is not in the line of battle that you are best able to serve her, and that by your being more numerous than is requisite for the services for which you are adapted, you lock up the sources of a different kind of force that is peculiarly wanted. Far be it from me, Sir, to dispute the courage or even the muscular powers of the Volunteers in general, but, as far, Sir, as I am capable of forming a judgment in these matters, I look upon it that there is much more occasion for passive than for active courage in soldiers who are performing an actual campaign. I will give you all the credit you desire, with respect to the latter kind of courage, but I fear the greater part of you are not so well provided with the courage which consists in suffering. You would, perhaps, dash into actions with as much spirit as the famous forty second regiment; but, if you were broken, would you rally as well? After having fought the first day, would you have the same stomach for the second, and the third, and the fourth days engagements? Can you fight without roast beef, or perhaps any thing better, during the whole day than a piece of ammunition bread? Can you drink

puddle water? Can you sleep, night after night, in rainy weather, under a hedge or in the open field? If you yourself can suffer all this, can and will your neighbour the Aldermian, or the Man-milliner endure it? Will no tender thoughts of home intrude themselves, and will not the distresses of wife and children induce him, in the intervals of actual service, to quit his ranks in order to alleviate them? Be not then, Sir, offended if I repeat to you that the habits, the engagements, and the discipline of Volunteers are not calculated for regular military service. But, in return, they can perform more important duties than if they were so many hardy and weather-beat veterans; duties, which whole regiments of the line could not perform in a proper manner. They can keep the peace of the country; which, upon the interruption of trade, and amidst the confusion of an invasion, would otherwise be overturned, to the more sure destruction of the country than the arms of the enemy could effect. They can insure the regular supply of provisions to the inhabitants in general, and to the army of the country in particular. They can cut off the convoys of the enemy, and make their marauding or other straggling parties prisoners. They can harrass the main hostile army itself, in its marches, by hedge-fighting and, even, in a grand engagement, they can act as irregulars and sharp shooters. They can, moreover, at least, a certain number of them, with the discipline they have attained, direct and command the trained men. Do not then fancy, Sir, that your worth is overlooked by ministry at the present time or your consequence diminished. So far indeed from this, I look upon it, that, when your numbers are diminished, and you shall be proved to consist entirely of persons who take up arms for their country, without any pay or other advantage but that of serving it, there will not be a more respected character in society than that of a Volunteer.-But, says your author, or some one else on his side of the question: this season of actual war and probable invasion is not a time for changing the military system: for, will any prudent man attempt to repair his house in the midst of a hurricane?

My answer is, that, if the military system is bad and dangerous, you may choose whether you will mend it or not, in the time of peace; but, that, in the time of war, you would be mad not to mend it, if it is in your power so to do. My answer is, yes, I will attempt to repair my house, even in a hurricane, if by neglecting so to do, there is danger of the hurricane's sweeping it away, The changes that are proposed are

not only practicable in themselves, but they can be made at this present time, they may be made, not only without danger, but also to our rational security. The man who really endangers his king and country, is not he who tries to surround them with a numerous, well-disciplined, and well-affected army of regular soldiers: but, he who assures the former, without any qualification whatever, that his throne is impregnable whilst it is "defended by the voluntary arms of a free

people." This is a sentence calculated to gain the applause of an ignorant mob, but at the same time to move the contempt of a sensible man. Indeed, nothing but ignorance can excuse it from the guilt of treason. For, what man of sense would venture the safety of his country, in the present state of the military science and discipline, on the united heroism and loyalty even of the conquerors of Poictiers and Agincourt? - I shall say little to calm the pretended fears of your author for the constitution of the country from an increase of the regular army, or to prove that the arguments, on this head, which were good in the reigns of Charles II. and George I., do not hold good in our present circumstances. The grand duty, at all times, is to protect the constitution of the country but, the means for this purpose must be adapted to meet the dangers with which it is threatened. Our grand security is now what it has been heretofore, that these means are in the hands and under the controul of parliament, which yearly votes the supplies, and which yearly passes the mutiny

act.

In the reign of Charles II., as every school-boy knows, the danger to the constitution was from the king himself, who, however, could do nothing effectual without a standing army, and therefore it was right to refuse it to him! Now the danger is from a foreign enemy, of immense military strength, who cannot be opposed without a standing army, and therefore it is necessary to vote it. But, how inconsistent is this absurd jealousy of a professed, of an enthusiastic partisan of the late Mr. Pitt, on the score of a standing army! For, who but he has doubled and tripled the standing army, compared with the former times? Who but he has covered the island with barracks? I am not finding fault with the measure, I am only arraigning the hypocrisy of your favourite writer.-Pressed as I am to conclude this hasty scrawl through the want of time, I cannot do so without pointing out certain other contradictions and inconsistencies in this plausible and self-confident gentleman. He disclaims all personal ill-will in regard to Mr. Windham; and

yet, his pamphlet is interlarded throughout with personal reflections and sncers levelled at him, and even the motives of his public conduct. He declares himself to be of no party, and yet, he not only extols the departed minister as the greatest of all possible characters, but also, bitterly complains that his friends were not taken into the present administration. He urges actual "preten"sions to advise" the people of England with respect to the system of their defence, in opposition to known public characters of the first talents as well as dignity, on the ground that he is actuated" by a disinter"ested zeal;" and yet, he dares not give us his name! For my part, I despise such a pompous declaimer, who, on every topic, proves that disdain of reasoning, which he impudently imputes to the most celebrated reasoner in parliament, whether he be a discarded under minister or any other man, and I hope that you, Sir, will cease to be misled by him.- I am, &c. H. C.-11th May,

1806.

PROPERTY TAX.

SIR; Some of the provisions of the new Act on Income are so extremely severe and oppressive, as to excite almost universal reprobation, and yet we do not hear that any constitutional method has been publicly taken by instructions to members, or otherwise, to endeavour to obtain such modifications of the obnoxious clauses as will render them less deserving of the strongest censure: I believe, though the remark may appear to carry with it something of paradox, that the very rigour and severity of these clauses are such as to prevent those likely to feel their operation from seeking redress: because they, as Englishmen, have been so little used to such measures; they think, and as I have heard more than once, in effect, expressed-they cannot pass. They expect the guardians of their interests, their proper representatives, will see, and will remedy, before they can become law, such enactments as are now proposed -The present ministry are not chargeable with being the authors or inventors of this unheard-of mode of oppressive taxation; it is a part of the "Bed of Roses" bequeathed them by their predecessors. The clauses and principles of the new act are, I understand, in a great measure similar to those of the act of last year; and as they yet may not have found that it has excited much disquiet, because it is only beginning to be acted on, they may probably suppose that the odious grounds of inquisition on which it is founded, are borne with as a thing of course,

and relying more on the reports of those connected with the tax-office, than on a consistency to their own professions and principles, they may suppose that the doubling the amount of the tax and limiting the exemptions, will be the only difficulties they will have to surmount.-But they should be put in mind, if such be their ideas, that the operation of the former act is but beginning to be felt, and where it has been felt, it has been considered as a most crying grievance!! In the parish in which I reside, in consequence of a printed circular paper, issued through the medium of the tax-office to the church-wardens and overseers, public notice was given in the church, whereby all persons who had given in their incomes at less than 601 per annum, were required to attend at the vestry on a day then appointed. Accordingly a considerable number of persons of that description did attend; and were expected, if not obliged to lay open the whole state of their affairs; and before whom? before the churchwardens and over. seers, and seven other inhabitants of their appointment; by whom they were examined, questioned and cross questioned in a way which the members of this inquisition might think justifiable, if not absolutely necessary, from the oath they had taken, but in a way which Englishmen in the days of our Alfred, and of William III. could never dream that their descendants would be obliged to submit to, so long as they should be under the rule of a British prince, and governed by the ancient laws of the realm. Could they imagine, that, before a conquest of this island by a foreign enemy, and the total sub version of all ancient privileges, that its inhabitants should be under the necessity of exposing their concerns to the prying eyes of their neighbours, and have to say what are their exact gains from this concern, and what the gains from that, how much money they have borrowed, or how much they have lent, to give up the name of the borrower, or the name of the lender; for a petty master bricklayer, or joiner, to state what are his own earnings by his weekly labour, and what are his gains by the labour of his journeymen or apprentices, in order, exactly, to ascertain from all sources the amount of his annual income.In the meeting alluded to, questions of this kind were put, and in many cases were answered. ''It is a specimen of what has taken place, or may shortly be expected to take place in every parish in the kingdom and it has excited among us here general odium and abhorfence among the examiners, as well as among the examined. There are, I dare say, few Indeed, wisfied with the proceedwith the proceed

ing the former that they were compelled to a service wich they could not approve, but by which they were obliged to pursue a mode of investigation so truly objectionable, and the latter that they had to submit to it.— It is not the weight of the tax that constitutes the objection to it, but it is the disclosure of circumstances, which ought not to be disclosed at all, that forms the principal cause of complaint. The being obliged to make this disclosure before their neighbours and equals, undoubtedly, increases the grievance. For of all persons who might be pitched on before whom an examination of this nature is likely to produce the most injurious consequences, they are the very persons, and, therefore, the most improper to know of, and judge and meddle in such matters; unless, indeed, the mischief that may thus be occasioned must be put by as a thing of nought; and, unless, the principles of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights; our ancient privileges; our birth-rights as Britons, must give way to the concerns of the taxoffice and to the productiveness of this deservedly unpopular tax.-There remarks apply to the last Property Tax and to those persons where property is given in at less than 601. per annum, by which it may be seen how peculiarly hard that bill is on them: because, by the utmost efforts of their industry, they cannot make good that sum, or because, by unforeseen misfortunes, their income may have been reduced below it; they, alone, are to be liable to bear what is scarcely le-s ridiculous than it is intolerable; they, alone, are to be placed in a situation, where they may have their ears stunned with the coarse jokes, or gross taunting remarks of, perhaps, some new-made church-warden, who has this grand opportunity afforded him of shewing his consequential airs; they, alone, may be doomed to undergo' the inquisitorial, minute examination of a parish overseer, who may just have come from doling out to the poor of his parish, the shillings or half-crowns by which they have to support a wretched life of penury and want, and who, by that means, must be an admirable judge of the gains that should support the livings of the respective claimants. If those objections are allowed to be of any weight against the principles of the old bill they will certainly not lose any part of their force when applied to the new; which, to these objections, has others so strong and so well known as scarcely to need their being pointed out by me in this place. -By what I think is called the scale of exemption, a person whose income is 501. per annum, is, for the first time, to be made liable to the tax; a most greivous hardship

ALFP

1

TURKE

WEE

on that part of the community which may just be said to be above want, and a direct discouragement to labour and industry. By this scale all exemption ends at 1001. per annum; and a person having that income, from any source whatever, the most precarious or uncertain, is liable to contribute the same proportion as those of the highest incomes arising from real property, or other the most permanent sourcess which presses hard, indeed, on the poorer and midding classes, and, if carried into effect, will be felt most severely. But this part of the subject let me not weaken by any observations of mine; I prefer a shorter, less troublesome, and more effectual method. I refer to the arguments which have been urged in parliament, when the different Income Bills have been before it: for objection to the scale being reduced at all, and I only wish the present ministry and all its supporters in parliament to act in this business agreeable to their own principles or recommendations. If this be the case, a confident hope may be entertained, that these objectionable clauses will either be totally repealed or so modified as to be generally considered more conformable to strict justice. May we not rely on that part of the ministry who were in opposition at the time of an Income Tax being just introduced into this country for an adherence to their arguments against the scale being even so low as to begin at Col. and may we not place equal reliance on the judgment and consistency of those who were, at that time, in political connection with the late premier, that they will see the same necessity now, that there was then, that the full operation of the bill should not take place till the amount of income should reach 2001; that they will see likewise, that the scale which he introduced from that sum downwards to 601. is much more equitable and just than the scale now proposed, and that it cannot be departed from without causing a manifest disproportion in contribution between that class of the people who will be affected by it and their more opulent fellow citizens? I have expressed myself with freedom, but it is with the freedom of a friend to what I consider the best interests of my country, and to those who have to administer its weighty affairs in these times of peril and danger. I am their friend, if that person can be so considered, who expects from their exertions, that the country will be extricated ftoni its difficulties, if human wisdom can devise and human power can effect the means; but great as they are, the most Lumble individual may, sometimes, in this fiee

country presume to advise, and as their friend, then may I say this, I hope they will begin nothing, of which they have not well considered the end.- -A NORTHERN FREEHOLDER.April 22, 1806.

PROPERTY TAX.

SIR, It would have given me great satisfaction if you had favoured the public in your last number with your remarks on the Tax on Property, which would have been opportune and might have had a good effect; it is pleasing, however, to find that there is not that necessity there was a few days since for expostulation and remonstrance, as the minister has consented to extend the exemptions so as to make the bill much more palatable; but it appears to me, that there still remains something more to be done to render it strictly accordant to the principles of justice and equity; and I must say, it would be agreeable to me as no doubt it would to most of your readers if you would take up the subject before the bill be finally adopted; and express in your clear and forcible manner the opinion you entertained on what may be considered the remaining objection and on which I presume to offer one or two more hints. I am decidedly of opinion with your correspondent, p. 576, when, in allusion to the scale of exemption in the last year's Property Tax, he remarks "equality of "annual income is far from being a true "standard of ability to bear taxation, and "that the equal pressure imposed on such "very unequal powers of sustaining it

proves its injustice;" and he further remarks, "the ratio of taxation should have a progressive increase commensurate to the "income; or in other words to the ability "of contribution and value of the stake to "be preserved by it." These observations which appear to me to be self-evident apply most strongly to the scale of exemption in the present bill, and it appears as much against reason as against justice that an income of 1501. or even of 2001. should pay the same proportion of tax as incomes of a higher rate. It may be considered a vulgar remark, but it is undoubtedly the opinion of more persons than the mere vulgar, that this could not take place if those who levied the contribution had not themselves incomes of a higher rate.-Let me add a word or two on the subject of secresy, which ought certhinly to be preserved as much as possible in matters of such delicacy as statements of income, but which it appears will be difficult to be kept without material alteration in the bill; for if besides commissioners and their clerks who are fixed, the assessors, church