HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, July 5.

[MINUTES.]-The Lords' amendments to the bill for raising an additional number of men for the protection of England and Scotland were read and agreed to.-Capt. Harvey presented a petition from certain fishermen in some towns on the river Medway, praying leave to be heard by Counsel. Agreed to. Bill for making provisions for the wives and families of the Militia serving in Ireland read a first time.- Bill for amending the act to secure the collection of the revenue arising from malt in Ireland, and for the prevention of frauds among distillers read a first time.--Report of the amendments to the bill for granting to his Majesty certain duties on malt exported to Ireland, brought up and agreed to.-The five millions Exchequer Bills bill was read a second time.

[EAST INDIA DOCK-BILL.]--On the motion for bringing up the report of the East India dock bill,

Sir William Pulteney objected to it; he disapproved of many of the provisions of the bill, which he said had been brought in in a clandestine manner, and contrary to the forms of the House.

Sir F. Baring defended the bill; he said it was not brought in to promote the interest of individuals, but with a view of producing great public advantage; it would benefit the public revenue; it would afford protection to trade, and would prevent plunder; and, as a proof of the merits of the bill, there was but one solitary petition against it, from a single individual.

Mr. Calcraft said, if this bill was calculated to benefit the public revenue, he would be the last man to oppose it. If these docks were intended for general benefit, why were they not in a situation in which all East India ships could derive benefit from them? It was impossible that many of the large East Indiamen could get into these docks without breaking bulk, and getting rid of a part of their cargo. He was sure that there were situations within the port of London, in which docks might have been made to accommodate all the East India shipping.

Sir T. Metcalf entered at length into the grounds upon which the bill had been brought forward, and contended, that if the East India Company, if all the persons concerned in this trade, if all the persons who were best acquainted with the subject, were

satisfied with the benefits that would result from this bill, he hoped it would outweigh the opposition of the two hon. members who had opposed it, however reputable they might be.

The report was then brought up, after which Mr. Calcraft proposed an amend ment, the object of which was, that Indiamen that were obliged to break bulk in Long Reach should not be obliged to pay the dock duties on the whole of their tonnage. This amendment was rejected without a division.

[INCOME TAX.]-The order of the day being moved for the House to go into Committee, fro forma, on the income tax bill,

Mr. Alderman Coombe spoke against the Speaker's leaving the chair; his reasons for which were, that his constituents thought it a most unjust and oppressive tax; and had instructed him to oppose it in that House, and by those instructions he thought himself bound to act.

The Lord Mayor said, that in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. colleague, he begged the attention of the House to a few observations he had to make. He should always feel himself extremely happy in being able to coincide in opinion with his constituents on all public measures. He believed the income tax was generally reprobated by his constituents, and they had very recently declared their opinion on that head in the most public manner; but he could not avoid consi dering himself as acting in that House as a representative of the whole country, as well as the city of London, and as such, whilst he should look at all the proceedings of administration with a jealous eye, he thought the circumstances of the times such, that in the present instance the bill should go to a Committee, and that there every one should endeavour to modify it as much as in his power, in order to make its operation as light as possible, by provisions founded on impartiality and justice; placing the burthen. where it was best able to be borne. Therefore, he should vote for the Speaker leaving

the chair.

Colonel Bastard said, he did not mean to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair, but he wished to know how far the bill was intended to affect landed property?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he did not conceive, if the answer he should give to the hon. gent. who spoke last should be unfavourable to his

opinion, that he should therefore oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. If he understood the question of the hon. gent. it was this, "Whether, under any circumstances, landed property can be charged more than five per cent." In all circumstances where the owner of land lets it out, only five per cent. is payable, that is, is, in the pound. Where the owner of land holds the same in his own hands, and is, in fact, his own tenant, then he is to pay is.gd. that is is. as landlord and 9d. as tenant. He then adverted to what had been said by Mr. Alderman Coombe. It was not for him, he said, to comment on what had fallen from the worthy Alderman relative to following the instructions of his constituents, but he could not but see with pleasure the gesture of the right hon. gent. in the chair, expressive of his surprise at hearing such a doctrine. He fully coincided in opinion with the worthy Chief Magistrate of the city of London, that, when returned to that House, every individual member sat then as the representative of the whole country; and it was the particular and bounden duty of every one, while sitting there, to attend to and watch over the general interests of the whole community. The hon. Alderman (Coombe) had said, that this was neither more nor less than the old income tax revived. This he denied to be the case. In saying this, he did not mean to insinuate any thing against the old tax, for it was one he had always highly approved; and when he stood forward for its repeal, he had decidedly delivered his opinion in favour of the principle of the tax, and that it was what ought to be acted upon again, if future circumstances should arise to require it. The difference between that measure and this is, the present tax is to be applied to the same purposes, and hinges on the same principle as the other, but the mode of collecting it was better, because it was calculated to avoid any disclosure of the circumstances or property of the parties paying the tax. By the mode of charging land and money at interest, no disclosure whatever took place. In a commercial country it was unquestionably most desirable, that no disclosure of circumstances should be made, further than was absolutely necessary to secure the payment of the tax, and a plan would shortly be submitted to Parliament on this head, which he hoped would meet with general approbation. Another advantage was, that the execution was infinitely more easy and simple to the commissioners than it was before, as persons now will not

be in a situation in which they will have to decide between their interest and their duty. Another circumstance, highly in favour of the present measure, was, the mode of levying the tax on money borrowed on mortage, bond, &c. In the present case, the debtor is to pay the whole of the tax, and deduct it out of the sum borrowed, when called on to pay the same by his creditor; so that nineteen shillings in the pound would, in all cases, be a legal tender, and it will be attended with the advantage of concealing the circumstances of the debtor's case. These, he said, were some of the leading features of the bill. He wished that the House, if it consented to go into a Committee, would permit him to offer some clauses which he meant to offer, and which he hoped would operate as modifications. He was afraid that, when they were brought forward, the measure would be found pregnant with difficulties, but it was the duty of the House uot to shrink from difficulties, however great and numerous they might be; but, on the contrary, to join cordially by their united efforts, to make it as palatable and perfect as possible. He was certain that it never was, or could be, the wish of the citizens of London, not to pay their fair and equal proportion of the public burthens; and however unpopular, at the moment, the idea of an income tax may be amongst them, if they are to be taxed in this way, in common with the rest of the kingdom, he hoped and expected the hon. alderman would give the committee the advantage of his assistance, and instead of standing on the principle of opposition to the bill, turn his mind to every point which might tend to make it as equal and unobjec tionable as possible. After consenting to raise eight millions within the year, for the public service, it was necessary that the means of doing so should be as speedily as possible provided. The measure he now submitted to the House was such as he thought would draw fair and equal contributions, by taxing income and other species of property as nearly on a par as may be.

Colonel Bastard expressed himself perfectly satisfied with what had been said by the right hon. gentleman, and hoped every body would be made to pay alike.

Mr. Gregor said, that the mode of laying the tax seemed to him to be a tax on land of is. 9d.

The Attorney General said, it was a misapprehension of the hon. gentleman as to the mode of laying the tax; that it was not a tax of 18, od. upon land, but a

tax of two incomes; 1s, in the pound on that of the landlord, and 9d. in the pound

on that of the tenant.

Sir R. Buxton said, that as to the objection against d. in the pound, to be paid by the tenant, he saw no reason in it. He conceived the tenant to stand in the same relation as a commercial man, who lays out his money to make advantage of it, and as such he ought to be taxed. He was surprised commercial gent. should object to this tax, when the landed men do not, and at a moment when we were fighting for every thing that can be dear to us. If he were to look to it as a permanent tax, he might perhaps view it with a more jealous and scrutinizing eye; but as a temporary measure, and to continue only during the war, he thought it a very proper one.

Lord A Hamilton wished the proportion for Scotland had been settled according to the terms of the act of union.

Sir F. Baring said, that the objection of commercial gentlemen to the tax was, that it was not in their power to form a just idea of their income.

Dr. Laurence expressed his approbation of the principle of the tax. It had been twice endeavoured to raise a considerable portion of the supplies within the year; once by a direct tax on property, for which the assessed taxes afforded a visible criterion; next by a tax on income. When the measure was brought forward in the second shape, nothing could be objected to it but the difficulty of carrying it into execution. If the present tax should be rendered more palatable than that which had been repealed, he should regard the passing it into a law as one of the greatest possible blessings to the country.

Mr. Kinnaird said, that he did not rightly understand the reason why this bill had been stated not to impose a land tax; for, in his opinion, it could be styled nothing else than a tax on all manner of property and professions. He thought that, in such matters, members ought not to be so circumscribed by the opinions of their constituents. He said, that he conceived it to be impossible to imagine that the present tax, as a tax on income, could be less oppressive in its operation than the former

one.

Mr. W. Smith said, that, for his part, he felt just as little inclination to oppose any measures adopted by government for the public good, as any man whatever; and he was convinced that some tax or other was absolutely necessary to raise a large

sum within the year. It did not become any member to clog the operations of government by starting any trivial objections at such an important æra; but, at the same time, it would not be proper to overlook any possible arguments against the proposed measures. He opposed the present tax from principles, which, in the abstract, were extremely narrow. If every man in the state was to be taxed, in order to contribute equally to the present exigencies, the present method was not the proper one to be adopted; for, it was not consistent with the usage of the House, except in one instance. For though the title of the bill expressed that it was a tax on property, it was, in fact, a tax of five per cent. on income; a tax which would undoubtedly bear heavily on all ranks of society. There were two species of property embraced by this bill: the one was the produce of labour and active indus try; and the other, that kind of property, which was enjoyed by the rich without labour. It generally happened in such a tax, that the species of property acquired by industry was liable to be taxed with the greatest uncertainty. In his apprehension, a person who contributes by his personal industry toward the welfare of the state, ought not to be burthened equally with a person who does nothing. The disproportion was really enormous, and it was impossible for any man cordially to say, that he thought such a tax equal. It was also highly objectionable with respect to the disclosure of the incomes of professional men for whatsoever might be the convenience arising from that disclosure in other cases, it must certainly fall peculiarly hard on that class of individuals; and he thought that even on that account it ought not to pass. He should not, however, have ventured to make such a declaration, did he imagine it would be the means of impeding the revenue. The raising of money, however, was not the only object properly in view; we ought to adopt those modes which most aptly tended to keep the peo ple in good humour, and exact those taxes which would make the nearest approach towards equality and impartiality; for though such might not be the most convenient to the state, he was certain they would be the most agreeable and convenient to the people. He spoke not merely his own sentiments on this occasion, for he had consulted various authors upon the subject. He had found that scarcely one writer gave sentiments favourable to a tax

A

on property. Hume was of opinion, that though such taxes are liable to less expense or trouble in the collection, yet they are the most unequal. Mr. Adam Smith says, that in every state it has been a maxim of every wise government to avoid the disclosure of the property of individuals; and that author has repeated this opinion over and over, in various parts of his work; making only one exception of a small aris tocratical state in Switzerland, where such a mode was followed without any detrimental consequences, owing to its having no trade. It was far otherwise in commer. cial states, and that same author seemed to hint, that in his opinion, times of necessity may occur, when the free states of Holland or England may be compelled to such a proceeding as that adopted by the states in Switzerland, to which he had alluded. Spanish author who wrote about 100 years ago, in speaking of the affairs of Spain at that time, says, that in regard to the contribution then thought necessary to be exacted from merchants and traders, great tenderness was shewn in such delicate matters, lest injury might arise from exposure of their real circumstances. He should be glad to know, therefore, whether a British House of Commons at this day, would be less disposed to favour commerce than the Spanish grandees were a century ago. Instead of allowing any man's income to be taxed by petty officers, the Spanish government desired the i habitants to meet and assess themselves. Different, indeed, was the case now in question, and a material alteration was necessary in the bill as it now stood. He was convinced in his conscience, that the merchants of London would rather pay a tax to double the amount of that proposed, than submit to the disclosure proposed by this bill. These sentiments were fully warranted upon the authority of Adam Smith, frequently quoted in this House upon great commercial subjects, when it suited the convenience of particular members, who declined that authority when unfavourable to their pur

pose.

Lord Hawkesbury said, he had not intended to have troubled the House upon this subject; but as the hon. gent. was the only member who stated his reasons against the principles of the bill, he should say a few words as to the nature of those objections. The grounds of those objections appeared to be two, in which he agreed with him; namely, that no tax which could be imposed would be found perfectly equal: 2dly, that when that is the case, VOL. IV.

we should endeavour to make them as equal as possible. The hon. member, however, after having laid down those principles, appeared to have lost sight of them. He had by no means proved, that this tax was more unequal than any other he could devise. The hon. member approved of raising a considerable part of the supplies within the year; but this by no means went to affect the other principle of laying on small taxes. The plan to be adopted must be that which the circum stances of the country suggest; in some circumstances of the country, it might be quite the same thing, whether the people be called upon to pay one million in one year, or ten millions in the space of ten years. But whether this tax be more unequal than a tax upon consumption, he had to observe, that knowing it all along to be the object of Government in laying on taxes on consumption, that they might bear equally upon different classes of the community, he conceived that one of those methods was quite as impartial as the other. In such cases it had been found expedient to tax one or two articles, while others were left unaffected. This might be subject to many complaints of partiality from individuals. In the present, however, the tax was not laid on one or two articles, which would bear as equally as possible on all classes of the community. He would, however, admit, that the class of articles might be fully as unequal in its effects, yet he would call on that hon. gent. to prove that it is more unequal than any other which could be devised in the present situation of the country. The objections made against the bill, therefore, appeared to him not founded as against either its principles or application, but because it did not go nearer to that which might be stiled perfection. The hon. member had alluded to its pressure upon the laborious and industrious classes; this, however, was a principle never acknowledged by the legislature of this country. It was one inconsistent with the old train of taxation on society; it was not acknowledged in the land tax, nor in any parish or poor rate; these have been all along laid on the land; but comparing all the rates of taxation, as they respectively bore on the different classes of society, and admitting the full statement of each, he could not think, that under all circumstances, they bore more severely on one class than on another. He fully admitted, that equality in the burthens of taxation was the duty of Government, and the present mode he was con* C

vinced was in perfect conformity to the principle.

Mr. Hilliard was perfectly in favour of the present bill, and was convinced that a principal part of the odium of the former tax arose from the manner in which many of the principal clauses were framed.

Mr. Erskine was of opinion that our particular situation must suggest the measures of our conduct; and, though far from wishing to see an income tax re-established, as an ordinary mode of taxation, unless in times of very great difficulty indeed, yet he was ready to say, he thought this was not the time for debating such matters. The country was in a great and awful crisis; but he did not say this with a view to dismay the national feeling. The enemy had but two modes by which to accomplish their most sanguine expectation for the invasion of this country: the one by pouring in their population. If they do so, he was convinced they would have their schemes thwarted; if they be allowed to invade us at all, it must be owing to our not evincing sufficient spirit. Even ten thousand people firmly resolving to defend their country, would give a feature of national spirit sufficient to convince the ene my of the rashness of his views, and the invulnerability of this country. He apprehended that another hope of the enemy was to exhaust our finances, by allowing us to go on with the funding system to carry on the war, which the enemy imagined would terminate in exciting discontents amongst the people of this country, and consequently excite disunion.

He

therefore thought that the rich should make up their minds to suffer great privations at this moment; as the more we disappoint the hopes of those who wish to disunite the people of this country, the stronger will be our means of defence. He by no means assented to the principle of this bill as a permanent mode of taxation, but merely as a means of providing against present danger; and he trusted the country would cheerfully acquiesce, and bury all differences of opinion on the subject. His own income, he said, was not worth two years purchase; it was earned, he would say, by the most arduous exertions of mind and person; but these considerations weighed nothing in his mind against the fairness of the impost; and his wish was, to shew the enemy that we disdained private considerations, and paltry disputes, whether one man should pay two or three guineas more than another when his country was at stake. This was, in his mind, the arduous moment for the

rich to come forward, and shew an example; and the more unanimous the country appeared, the better for the security of the nation. No man was more sincerely disposed than he was to peace; and his principle was, to be cautious of entering into a quarrel: but that being inevitable, let our enemy be convinced that we were prepared to prosecute it with ability, energy, and effect.

Mr. Weston was decidedly against the principle of the income tax, as peculiarly oppressive upon the commercial interest, and contrary to the usual and constitutional principles of taxation in this country. He concluded by moving, "That the Speaker do leave the chair."

Sir Thomas Metcalf said, that it had been almost universally acknowledged, that the income tax prima facie, was the best in prin ciple that ever had been devised; and the reason why it was not productive to the full extent originally proposed, was the dishonesty of many of the parties upon whom it was imposed, and not from any miscalculation of its just extent. As a war tax, he highly approved of it; and thought that its revival would be a security to the country. Whether a tax upon funded, landed, or professional income, he thought it a sequel of the late income tax, and therefore ap proved it; and with respect to disclosures, if instead of looking to the income of the present year, that of the last year was resorted to, he was inclined to believe it would be ten times more productive than formerly.

The Speaker then left the chair, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the object of this Committee was to conjoin the provisions of the income and property tax bills in one bill; then to have the bill so conjoined reprinted and distributed amongst the members. For this purpose he hoped the bill would be printed by Friday, so as to allow time enough to prepare members for its full discussion on Monday; but if not printed by that day, as he expected, then to be taken into consideration on Tuesday. However, on this point he should be prepared to inform the House next day; and if he should not then feel it necessary to make any motion, it would be understood that the discussion was to take place on Monday.

The House was then resumed, and the report ordered to be taken into considera tion on Monday.