Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Jones, took a part, there was a general call for the question; which on being put, was carried in the affirmative, that the preamble should be read, and stand part of the bill.

On the first clause, that the assessed taxes be repealed, and other duties imposed in lieu thereof,

Mr. Tierney said, he should oppose this clause, because he considered it as a great breach of faith, inasmuch as it repeated the assessed taxes, which were pledged to a certain extent to pay off the loan of fifteen millions raised for the service of last year. Those who lent their money in that loan did it upon the faith, that it would be paid off in a given time by the operation of the asse-sed taxes.

Mr. Pitt said, he was happy to have it in his power to relieve the honourable gentleman from any difficulties he might feel upon this subject. In the first place, if there was in reality any foundation for this objection, it could not apply to this clause, because it merely repealed the assessed taxes, and imposed other duties in their room, which other duties the house had undoubtedly the right of disposing of in any manner they pleased.

These observations led to some explanation from Mr. Tierney and Mr. Pitt, and to a few short remarks from sir Wm. Young.

The clause then received some verbal amendments, and was agreed to.

When the clause for taxing ia an equal manner all persons possessed of lands, tenements, and hereditaments of life and temporary estates, and every kind of income arising from personal property, and from trades, professions, offices, employments and vocations, was read,

Mr. Wigley rose, and urged that he was averse to the clause, because the principle on which it proceeded was, that let income arise from what source it would, whether it was permanent or not, the persons. possessing it paid equally. If this was merely a tax for one year, he should not have felt himself bound to object to it in so strong a manner, but would have considered it merely as an immediate contribution. The evil, he admitted, would have been less, because its duration would have been limited; but, when he clearly saw it was intended to continue some time, or rather become a permanent revenue, he could by no means assent to it.

After a debate of considerable length, in which Mr. Dent, the solicitor and the attorney-general, Mr. Tierney, lord Hawkesbury, sir John Anderson, Mr. Robert Thornton, Mr. W. Smith, sir G. P. Turner, and Mr. Wigley, bore a part, the chairman put the question on inserting the words "office, stipend, pension," which was carried. The question on the scale of charge, and other parts of the first clausse, were afterwards put and carried.

On the 22d of December, the house went again into a committee upon the income tax. In that part of the trade clause which gave the trader an option of returning the income of the year, or an average of the three years, Mr. H. Thornten said it was the object of the bill, if possible, that a man who had a fluctuating income should pay to the exigencies of the state in the same proportion as the person who enjoyed a stated income. To prevent evasion he proposed, that when a person had once made his election, whether he should pay according to the full amount of profit within the I 2

pre

preceding year, or for an average of three years, he should not be at liberty afterwards to vary the election he had made.

Mr, Alderman Cambe said, that be certainly must object to that alteration, for it went to an entire departure from that principle of alleviation which he always thought that clause contained. To his mind, the greatest objection to the bill was, that uncertain and temporary income was taxed to the same amount as permanent income, and the precariousness of the income of traders was greater than that of any other class of men. He thought, therefore, the option at first given to traders of selecting the income of the last preceding year, or on the average of three years, was meant by the framers of the bill to correct, in some measure, the inequality of its operation with respect to those who must endure much hardship by it. He hoped, there fore, that the committee would permit that to remain as it stood, viz. that the option should be annual.

Mr. Thornton and the chancellor of the exchequer explained. This was not the idea, but only that an option was given to a trader, &c. to decide whether the average of three years, or the last preceding year, was the best criterion of his income; but this option was not annually to be made, but to be fixed at the commencement.

The chancellor of the exchequer proposed to adopt the words from the bill of last year, that the retail shop-keepers should deduct two thirds of their rent; the remaining third it might be supposed that they would pay for their own accommodation; which was adopted.

The schedule being gone through,

the chancellor of the exchequer said, that, having already opened to the house the general nature of the new clauses which it was his intention to offer, he should not now enter into any detailed explanation of them, particularly as the clauses seemed to meet the general concurrence of the committee. There was one material clause, however, which had been deferred, and which he had not yet explained; he meant the clause for granting certain modifications in the cases of children. It was his intention to move, that the modification to be granted in these instances should be carried beyond the modification allowed last year under the bill for the assessed taxes. In that act no allowance was made for children under the number of four. From four the scale rose to eight, and from eight to ten. He thought, that, in the present case, it would be preferable to grant an allowance for each child, descending so low as one. The presumption which this deduction proceeded on was, that children did make a very considerable addition to the expense of a family, and by so much diminished taxable income. It was clear, at the same time, that the expense of children was greater in the proportion to small incomes than in the higher classes of income. Upon this principle the scale of modification was regulated. He should propose, therefore, that from the lowest rate of income comprehended in this bill, 60l. per annum, up to 4001. the allowance should be five per cent, for each child; from 4007. up to 1000, he should grant four per cent; from 1000l. to 5000/ three per cent. and, not to swell the modifications with any unnecessary distinctions, two per cent. for ail above 5000. The report was then

ordered

ordered to be taken into further consideration on Thursday.

On the 27th of December the committee of the house was resumed, to take into consideration the report of the income bill.

Sir William Pulteney said, he had always been of opinion that the war should be carried on with the greatest vigour and effect, and that the utmo energy ought to be displayed to save, not only this country, but Europe; but, however desirous he was of supporting the war, yet, with regard to the present bill, there were many things in it which re. quired to be distinctly understood and maturely considered. It appeared to him that the liberty of any country consisted in three points; security of life, security of personal freedom, security of property. These were the three great points in which the liberty of a nation consisted. Under the first, namely, the security of life, when be considered the power of grand juries, who, in all cases, had this point before them, except those of a military nature; and when he considered the many excellent regulations that subsisted with regard to treason, he was ready to say there was no complaint to be urged upon the first point of national liberty. With regard to the second point, namely, personal liberty, certain it was, that while the habeas-corpus act remained suspended, that was in some measure abridged, but for a temporary and particular purpose that might be submitted to. But, with regard to the third branch of national liberty, namely, security of property, he questioned whether any part would continue if the bill now before the house passed into a law; and it was upon this ground that he hoped for the attention of the house. After giving the history

of taxation in England, he proceeded: Bread, for instance, had no tax; milk was not taxed; vegetables were not taxed. This mode of taxation had been found to be a great protector to the property of the country; but, when parliament had sanctioned the scheme of a minister, and allowed him to have recourse to means of taxation which gave no option to any body, it gave sanction to a new system oftaxation, and which would give away much of the controuling power over taxes. It might be said, that it was extremely difficult to find out articles of consumption upon which taxes could be imposed. He was ready to acknowledge the truth of that assertion; but he was very far from wishing to abandon. the system on that account. It was a great check upon executive government; it made them careful and provident of the public money, and made parliament active in examining what were the best modes of raising large sums of money. After enlarging on this objection against the tax on income, he concluded with stating this bill as dangerous in its very nature to the principles of the constitution of England, and that it attacked its vitals.

Mr. Ryder said, as far as it was regular to advert to what had occurred on a former debate, he conceived that the opposition of the honourable member was, that the measure tended to establish a spe cies of inquisition in the country. Every objection against this bill, as to its not being optional, was applicable to the bill passed last year. He certainly did not pretend to be deeply read in the financial history of the country; but it must occur to gentlemen that poll-taxes, tenths, fifteenths, and subsidies, were le

1 3

vicd

a

vied in former times, and that the same objection would apply to all those taxes; but this might be said to refer to a period when the science of finance was not properly understood. There was one tax which was coeval with the existence of the Christian religion in this country: he meant tithes, which raised from three to five millions year, and which were not optional. And he would observe further also, that they were more liable to one of the objections of the honourable baronet, that of not making a sufficient distinction between high and low, for they made not any distinction in that particular. What would the honourable baronet say to the whole system of the poor laws of this country, which were upwards of three millions a year, not a shilling of which was optional on the party on whom it was imposed? Look at the taxes imposed since the present century. The land-tax was not optional; it made no distinction of classes; it made no difference between the poorest and the richest landholder. There were many other taxes which were not optional. A tax which had been adopted after the example of Holland, which next to this country had been the best governed in its finances, the tax upon collateral succession, was not optional. A man might, to be sure, live upon bread and water-cresses; but it would be mockery to say, that it was at his option whether to pay taxes or not, because it was impossible to support existence in that manner. Upon the whole, the consideration of this question had impressed upon his mind. that it was the only mode that could be adopted with perfect equity, and with a probable hope of reaching that great end which

all had in view. He defended the bill in all its regulations.

In the course of a long debate, which it would be tedious to detail, the following gentlemen were for the bill, viz. Mr. H. Browne, lord Hawkesbury, sir James Pulteney, and Mr. H. Thornton. The following were against the bill, viz. Mr. Jones, Mr. Dent, Mr. Wm. Smith, sir Francis Baring, and Mr. Martin. Several amendments were read and agreed to.

M. Pitt said, that, from the lateness of the hour, and from the nicety of several points which still remained to be discussed, it was his opinion that the further consideration of the report should be postponed.

The chancellor of the exchequer moved, on the 31st of December, that the income bill should be read a third time.

Mr. Nicholls said, he could not allow the bill to pass without giving it his negative. If it was fair that the scale should rise from 100l. a year to 20cl. it was equally fair that the scale should rise from 2001. upwards.

Mr. Abbot said, there were some things in the bill in its original shape which occasioned some hesitation in his mind, but, in the course of the alterations it had undergone, his objections were removed. It seemed now to be the decided opinion of the people of this country, that a great part of the supplies should be raised within the year. Last year considerable progress had been made in the application of it by the assessed tax bill; and, with regard to disclosure of income, in Scotland all transactions respecting real property, and many with regard to personal property, were publicly registered. In

Ireland,

Ireland, the same practice prevailed in case of real property. In the counties of York and Middlesex it existed to a considerable extent.

The attorney and the solicitor general both defended the bill; and Mr. Elliot and Mr. Tyrwhitt supported the measure as highly creditable to the spirit of the country, and as the most effectual that could be adopted to confound the hopes of the enemy.

The question was called for, and the house divided-Ayes 93; Noes 2.

The chancellor of the exchequer then proposed a variety of clauses, by way of riders to the bill.

On the second of January Mr. John Smith, accompanied by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Ryder, and Mr. Long, and a great number of members from the house of commons, brought up the income bill from the house of commons. The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

The order of the day for the third reading of the income duty bill, (Jan. 8) being read, and the question put, the earl of Suffolk urged, that in one point of view he rather approved of the principle on which the bill had been brought forward, inasmuch as it would have the effect of preventing the nation from rashly embarking in expensive wars, by showing them the consequences; and, on this ground, it would be well for the country if the measure had been proposed at the commencement of the war.

The bill in itself he thought a measure of intolerable oppression. From landed property it professed to draw a tenth, but instead of that it drew at least a fifth. When the house considered the effect of certain taxes lately imposed upon landed property, his calculation of 20

per cent, would be easily made out. He referred, in the first instance, to the duty upon salt, which, in certain parts of the country, took at least four per cent. from the proceeds of land; that made 14 per cent. The charge of bailiffs, stewards, and other peculiar expenses which gentlemen of landed property necessarily incurred, was at least three per cent. more. By a particular provision of the bill, farms occupied by the owners were charged in an extraordinary proportion, the effect of which, if calculated, would, in addition to what he had already stated, increase the deduction to at least 20 per cent. Besides all this, there were the operations of the poor rates, which pressed with accumulated force in certain parts of the country, particularly in places where there were commons, which generally abɔ d. ed with paupers.

The earl of Liverpool said, the noble earl laid much stress upon the effects of the additional salt duties. They certainly bore with considerable weight on those parts of the coun try where cheese was manufactured; but it was equally notorious, that the maker repaid himself by the advanced price of his cheese. Tithes had nothing to do with the present question, and the poor-rates were equally a distinct consideration. A similar argument would apply in other cases where the produce of land became peculiarly lable to the effect of taxation. He recommend- ed to the noble earl's recollection, the large sums that were raised in the reigns of king William and queen Anne, through the medium of landel property, respecting which the then proprietors made no particular complaint, though they fell severely upon the land-holder. By the provisions of the bill, the