was assiduously cultivated out of doors by the opposition, who effectually succeeded in producing an unexampled ferment that seriously threatened the safety of the administration. The debates which had taken place on the salt duties, and some vague reports about the duties on wine and tobacco, led to a general impression that the ministers intended either to put an excise upon these articles, or to introduce a general excise into the country. Walpole had carefully avoided during the discussions making any admission on the subject; but the tone in which he vindicated the principle of the duty on salt was assumed as evidence of a design to extend it still farther. The very word "excise" became a signal for convulsion, and was held in as much abhorrence as the name of the pretender.

There undoubtedly existed some excuses for this popular prejudice; but they were founded, as the apologies for all such prejudices are, in ignorance and passion. Excise duties had become odious to the country from the grinding rapacity with which they had been formerly collected- —a rapacity which had grown out of particular circumstances, and which belonged to the abuse and not to the true use of such imposts, but which having been traditionally interwoven with the general notion of an excise levy could not be easily separated from it by the application of argument alone. It required time and practical demonstration of its utility to reconcile the people to a mode of raising a revenue, which they had hitherto regarded as peculiarly oppressive and tyrannical.

The first excise duties collected in England were imposed by parliament, during the civil wars in 1641, upon ale, beer, cyder, perry, and other home-made liquors intended for sale. The attempt to enforce them produced serious riots, and it was only by promising to abolish them at the end of the war that the people could be induced to submit. When the war was over, however, parliament, instead of fulfilling its pledge, imposed fresh excise duties upon other articles, intending to go still farther, according to Pym, as "the people got used to it, by little

1733.

ORIGIN OF THE EXCISE.

185

and little." But the increasing discontent, aggravated by the faithlessness of the legislature, led to the repeal of all those duties at the restoration, except the excise upon' beer, ale, cyder, and perry, which produced about 666,3831. This revenue was then divided into two portions; the one called the temporary, because it was granted only for the life of the king, and the other called the hereditary excise, because it was granted to Charles II. as an equivalent for the court of wards and other rights of the crown which had excited the jealousy of parliament, and which his majesty consented to relinquish in exchange for these levies. As the only security the king possessed for the sure fulfilment of the bargain was the honour of parliament, the commons, to prove their good faith, made the laws for the collection of the excise so severe, that in many respects they took an inquisitorial and despotic form, which was perhaps not unjustly regarded as an infringement on private property and personal liberty. A variety of penalties and other punishments followed in the wake of these injurious enactments, and embraced such a multitude of persons as to render the clamour against them almost universal.* The horror of these oppressions was revived by the rumours that prevailed respecting Walpole's intention to resort to a similar system of finance upon an extensive scale, even before he had openly declared his plans, or, indeed, before he had thoroughly matured them.

Such was the state of the public mind when the parlia-1733. ment was summoned early in the following January. His majesty dimly shadowed forth the fiscal reforms of Walpole, by specially drawing attention to the estimates, and recommending, 66 as a consideration worthy the commons of Great Britain, that in all their deliberations, as well upon raising the annual supplies, as the distribution of the annual revenues, they pursue such measures as would most conduce to the present and future ease of those they represented." His majesty also significantly alluded to the recent clamours, admonishing both houses

*Tindal Coxe. "The Craftsman."

66

upon the necessity of giving "all possible despatch to the public business, and that nothing could give more weight and credit to all their resolutions than to avoid unreasonable heats and animosities, and not to suffer themselves to be diverted by any specious pretences from steadfastly pursuing the true interest of their country." These passages were boldly seized upon by the opposition, who regarded them as omens of the coming tempest. Sir John Barnard, member for London, declared that he did not know what was meant by "unreasonable heats and animosities," and that if any man were vain enough to endeavour to impose on the house by “ specious pretences," there were men of understanding and integrity sufficient to expose him. Now," he continued, "there seems to be a great jealousy without doors, as if something were intended to be done in this session of parliament that may be destructive to our liberties, and detrimental to our trade. From whence this jealousy has arisen, I do not know; but it is certain that there is such a jealousy among all sorts of people, and in all corners of the nation; and therefore we ought to take the first opportunity to quiet the minds of the people, and to assure them that they may depend upon the honour and integrity of the members of this house." He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the words, "and such as shall be consistent with the trade, interest, and liberty of the nation" be added to the address. Shippen followed, dwelt upon the uneasiness of the public mind, said that it was so general that it could not be ascribed to any one set of men, but that the whole people of England seemed to be united in the spirit of jealousy and opposition, and concluded by moving the further addition to the address of the words, "and such as shall be consistent with the honour and justice of parliament." Walpole, to the manifest astonishment of the house, seconded the motion. It was to him, he said, a matter of absolute indifference whether they added the words or not, as it was not to be presumed that any thing was in contemplation inconsistent with the trade

1733.

DEBATE ON THE ESTIMATES.

66

187

or liberties of the nation or the honour of parliament. "If the people," observed the minister, are hampered or injured in their trade, they must feel it, and they will feel it, before they begin to complain; in such case it is the duty of this house, not only to hear their complaints, but, if possible, to find out a remedy. But the people may be taught to complain; they may be made to feel imaginary ills, and by such practices they are often induced to make complaints before they feel any uneasiness." The amendments were carried, and the angry temper of the opposition was temporarily calmed ; but several skirmishes took place before the great battle was fought. In the mean while other topics intervened, which claim attention in the first instance.

On the motion relative to the army estimates, which was similar to that of the previous year, another attempt was made to procure a reduction, but with no better success. Horace Walpole declared that the number of troops proposed was absolutely necessary, and would continue to be necessary as long as the present family was on the throne. Shippen replied that the subject had taken a new turn; that, in former debates, the continuance of the army for one year was all that was contended for, but now it appeared the army was to be perpetual.

66

This," he exclaimed, “I will not believe can come from his majesty. His majesty knows how much the nation is loaded with debts and taxes, and how inconsistent it is with our constitution to keep up a standing army in time of peace." These observations having excited some strong animadversions, Shippen observed that he was "peculiarly unfortunate; for that in a former parliament he had incurred the severe censure of the house for asserting that the late monarch was unacquainted with the constitution; and he now gave high offence by asserting that his present majesty was not unacquainted with the constitution." The motion

was carried by a majority of 68.

The depredations committed by Spain upon British merchants occasioned a spirited debate, which ended

with a motion for an address to his majesty, requiring to know what satisfaction had been made for those wrongs. But his majesty had nothing to communicate on the subject (as Walpole fairly warned the house), and could only state in reply, that the meetings between the commissaries of the two crowns had been delayed by unforeseen accidents. The fact was, that no progress whatever had been made in the negotiations concerning these vexatious disputes. The king of Spain had issued an order, evasively worded, to prohibit the unjust seizure of English merchant ships, and the king of England had pledged himself that no English ships of war should, under any pretext, convoy or protect vessels carrying on an unlawful trade. But beyond this nothing was done towards defining mutual rights, or establishing a competent tribunal to decide the doubtful questions that were constantly arising in the American seas.

The next subject which occupied the attention of parliament was a bill for securing and encouraging the trade of the sugar colonies in America. The policy of this measure was very equivocal, and its ultimate effect betrayed the danger of legislating between two colonial dependencies for the sole benefit of one. It appeared that a valuable commerce was carried on between the British colonies in North America and the French West Indies, the former exchanging corn, lumber, and cattle, for the rums, sugars, and molasses of the latter, to the direct prejudice of the British West Indies. In order to put a stop to this trade, heavy duties were placed upon all such foreign produce imported into America; and the French not only lost a valuable market, but were forced to procure lumber and provisions from Canada, at that time an obscure and barren province, but which rapidly rose into importance by the commerce which was thus drawn to her distant shores. This was the first instance in which the British parliament levied a tax upon America; but so exclusively was it designed as a trade regulation, without the most remote intention of raising a revenue from America through its operation,