the subject, but leave the scouted task to | the gentlemen who stirred the question. The hon. baronet had said, that whatever was brought forward by the ministerial side of the House never failed to make an impression, because it had the countenance of ministers; while, whatever the opposite side attempted to enforce made no impression. But upon whom did the hon. baronet expect to make an impression? Surely not upon the House; no, not even upon the mind of the greatest idiot. After what had been observed on the case of colonel Despard, it would be idle to offer a word more on the subject. What now was the case? An illiterate woman, who cannot even spell, writes a letter, an able letter let it be supposed, pathetically describing the hardships and cruelties sustained by her husband: it also comes out, that this letter was written, not by Mrs. Despard, but by a friend. He would not say that it was written by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Courtenay), for he had seen some of his writings, and would assert, that the letter in question was as far superior to his literary productions, as it was above the former epistolary specimens of Mrs. Despard. The whole of that letter had been completely contradicted; and those who so confidently brought it forward, were so completely brought to shame and ridicule, that he was sure they would not venture to restate it again. He would advise the hon. gentleman for the future to keep his humanity for Smith and Binns, his religion for Newgate, and his jokes for the hackney coachmen.

The House then resolved itself into the committee, in which it was agreed that the bill should remain in force till the 21st of May, 1799. The report was then ordered to be received to-morrow. On which day the bill was read a third time, and passed.

Debate in the Commons on the Income Duty Bill.] The Income Duty Bill was committed on the 17th and 19th of December. In the committee a variety of amendments and modifications, were after long and desultory conversations, agreed to.

Dec. 22. The House having again resolved itself into a committee on the bill,

Mr. H. Thornton said, it was the object of the bill, that, if possible, 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 would pay according to the full amount of profit within the preceding year, or for an average of three years, he should not be at liberty afterwards to vary the election he had made.

Sir F. Baring said, that by not allowing the option annually, many cases of extreme hardship must necessarily arise.

Mr. Alderman Curtis was of opinion, that the alternative was not intended as a boon to commercial men, but as an equitable mode of ascertaining their income, and that no mode could so securely guard against evasion as that of restoring men to their first election. In the other case, persons might easily shape and shuffle their books so as to make false entries and fallacious balances, and thereby defraud the revenue. Already evasion had prevailed, within his own knowledge.

Mr. Tierney reprobated the frequent use of the term " evasion," and thought a variety of cases of hardship might be put, if the average was to be made on three years. Many men felt themselves so hard pressed by the weight of taxes, that they felt themselves honestly and conscientiously justifiable in trying whether, without violating the letter of the law, they might not avoid a part of the burthen.

Mr. Pitt said, if the hon. gentleman was right in supposing that conscientious men would think themselves justifiable in taking every advantage to evade the tax, it was the more incumbent on him to make the letter of the law so strict that its spirit should not be evaded.

Mr. Wilberforce dwelt upon evasion, and the necessity of preventing men who would selfishly enjoy all the comforts of life, without contributing in due proportion to their preservation, from the farther practice of such an illiberal system.

Mr. Tierney said, it was a common saying, that tricks which were fair in love, were also fair in taxation; that was, that every advantage which could, might be taken. He might, therefore, suppose, that many conscientious men would think themselves justified in taking every advantage of this law, not to evade the letter of it, but its heavy effects. He would illustrate this more precisely. A very distinguished person had lately thought it neither a sin nor a shame to evade his pro

question in the time of Charles 1st, and it was upon this point that the great Hampden distinguished himself, and that the civil war afterwards broke out. It was now, beyond all dispute, settled, that the people of this country cannot be taxed in any way but through the consent of their representatives in parliament. Indeed ever since the Revolution taxes had been raised in no other manner; and it had been the policy of parliament to impose taxes in such a way as to afford to each class of the community an option whether they would pay them or not; because they were always imposed on consumption. To this general policy there were but two exceptions, namely, the land tax and the tax upon windows. But it might be said, that a tax upon the absolute necessaries of life left no option, because they must be had: but, even in that case, the quantity was at the discretion of the consumer. And, indeed, the direct and immediate articles of life still remained untaxed; bread, for instance, had no tax; milk was not taxed: vegetables were not taxed. But, to returnwhen parliament had sanctioned the scheme of a minister, and allowed him to have recourse to means of taxation which gave no option, it sanctioned a new system of taxation, which would give away much of the controlling power of 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; and indeed that was, in some respects, a desirable thing: it was a great check upon the executive government; it made them provident of the public money, and made parliament active in examining what were the best modes of raising large sums of money. But, if the principle of this measure, was once established, although the minister this year only called for one-tenth of the income of the people, next year he might call for two-tenths, then for three-tenths, and so on until the whole was taken away, for the principle being once adopted, would not admit of any limitation; and therefore, upon that ground, he thought this a very improper mode of raising money for the service of the state. The principle of the assessed taxes had no resemblance to this; for although it might be said, that the party had no option in the first year, as to what

he should pay under the assessment, yet, in the next year, he had clearly an option. But it was said, that the assessed taxes did not produce as much as was expected, and there were many evasions. That all they produced was not enough, he admitted, but as to evasions, he was of opinion, they might have been prevented by proper regulations. Besides these there were many very great objections to this measure, even as now altered. Suppose a man gives in a fair statement of his income, would that prevent a disclosure of his affairs? By no means, for it depended not upon the truth or falsehood of the account, but the choice of the commission whether the disclosure should be made or not. There were two temptations to shun a disclosure of a man's circumstances: first, because they were bad; secondly, there were many objections to a man's disclosing his good circumstances. [a laugh]. Gentlemen would perhaps alter their tone, if they heard him out. Would it not be a desirable thing to conceal good circumstances in any case? Had it never occurred to the House, that it had a bad effect on a man's children, to know very early in life, that they would become possessed of large fortunes on the death of their parents? And was this observation never applicable to any other branches of a man's family? If it was said, these things were inseparable from the bill, there might then arise two questions; first, whether the bill should not be abandoned altogether? and if that was determined in the negative, then whether a better mode than this might not be adopted? He must now notice the situation into which the commissioners would be thrown by this bill. It would be difficult for them to refuse to order a schedule to be made upon the suggestion of the inspectors; and was it not grievous to a gentleman to reflect, that, notwithstanding he had charged himself to the utmost farthing, with the hope that his affairs might not be exposed, they would be exposed after all? This would tend to crush the independent spirit of the people, and was a measure partaking of the spirit of absolute government. There was a great objection also to this bill, upon the ground that government must necessarily become acquainted with the circumstances of every individual in the kingdom, and consequently know when and where to find all the property in England. This was a thing that was quite improper for any go

vernment to know, for it would be an encouragement to the minister to go on with a scale of ruinous expense, and there was nothing to oppose the desire of the minister whenever he wanted to lay hold of any of this property. The oath set for and prescribed in the bill had a tendency to this dangerous disclosure. There was a clause directing that books should be prepared, and these books might in time come on the table of the minister; and this would of itself make the state of property extremely insecure. This mode was, indeed, not intirely new; but it had never been adopted since the Revolution. He knew that the system of this bill was adopted under the Protectorate; there was then an assessment of income, and every man in the kingdom was made to contribute. It was levied very arbitrarily and unjustly; and nothing ever made the people feel more dejection than that system of taxation; it probably had a great share in bringing about the restoration of Charles 2nd. After that restoration the system was found impracticable, and, as far as regarded the landed interest, it ended in a land tax. There was another objection which he had to urge. This tax exempted all persons whose income was under 60l. a year, and placed in the highest scale of impost a person of 2001. a year. This would rest very hard indeed on the middling class of society, and but slightly on the upper class; when it came to be continued, as most probably it would if agreed to now, it would soon ruin the middling class of society; and when that should be the case did any man believe that the liberty of the country would long continue? This bill would destroy that middling class, and would do it soon; and then we should have only two classes in the community, and a miserable community it would be, of noblemen and peasants. Many country gentlemen thought well of this bill, under an idea that it would be an equal impost upon those who were able to bear it; but in that they were miserably deceived, for it would take away from the farmer the means of making improvements in agriculture, which would affect the labourer or peasant directly. It would diminish the means of the manufacturer to carry on his manufacture, and therefore directly affect all those who subsisted by working at manufactures, and so, without any circuitous progress, it would affect at once all the lower classes of the community, by

diminishing the means of employing them. The next objection he had to this bill was, that it was going against all principle of taxation. This was an opinion he had given to the public twenty years ago. He had stated that opinion upon consideration of the subject of the taxation of the colonies in America. It had been the uniform practice of the parliament of England since the revolution to hold out but one measure of taxation to all descriptions of persons. Suppose we had a different mode of taxation for Yorkshire from any other county, would that be deemed fair and wise? Certainly not. The principle was, that all classes were to be affected alike; and yet that was not the case under this bill, for there was a class of men who were to be found in every part of this country, who were under a different mode from all the rest of the community. He meant commercial men. They were to have a set of surveyors of their own. This might be very convenient to these persons, and, as far as it was convenient to them, he did not object to it; but he saw no reason upon earth why the same sort of regulation should not be extended to all other descriptions of persons. It might be said, that this was a tax upon all places and pensions, and that if it bore very hard, there was a phalanx of that description to take care it should not go too far. To this he would observe, that, with regard to places and pensions, the ministers would always be able to compensate the sufferers in that particular. He laid no great stress, however, on that point; but he did lay great stress on the unconstitutional principle, of making a distinction in the mode in which different classes were to be subjected to an investigation of their means of bearing a duty. The last objection he had to urge was, that the bill did not hold out, that this was not to be a mode of taxation to be adopted in future. It must continue at least for three years, and if this war did not terminate this year, it must continue for four years. It was only expressed, that the operation of the bill should not cease until such a time; but nothing was held forth to the country at what time it should cease. Upon the whole of this case, he thought this bill was dangerous in its very nature; that it encroached in an alarming degree, upon the principles of the constitution; and that if the plan which it involved should save some money to the state, it would be dearly bought.

Mr. Ryder said, he should deem it presumptuous to oppose the opinion of the hon. baronet upon the principle of such a measure as this, unless he was supported by some authority; an authority, how ever, he had, namely, that of the hon. baronet himself. The hon. baronet had, last year, when the assessed taxes were under discussion, strenuously supported the principle of raising the whole supplies within the year. The hon. baronet objected, that the tax now before the House was not optional; but there were many taxes in this country in which there was no option. He had heard, for instance, of a poll-tax; of taxes taking the tenth and the fifteenth of every man's income. What did the hon. baronet think of the tithes, which amounted to nearly five millions a year? What would he say to the whole system of our poor laws? The same observation would apply to all county rates. All of which proved, that uniformly, since the Revolution, a large portion of the taxes paid by the subjects of this country, had not been optional; and it had been a system adopted by another state, which, next to this, was the most considerable in commercial arrangements and good policy, he meant Holland, and from which we had borrowed the tax on collateral succession. The whole of the Assessed-tax bill was not optional. Persons, indeed, might live in houses of less rent than they formerly did, but it was impossible for them to live in houses that paid no tax. If it was admitted, that to raise the tax upon the luxuries was impossible, it followed, of course, that it could only be levied upon the necessaries of life. Was that the mode by which the hon. baronet meant to provide for the middle or the poorest classes? A tax on the necessaries of life must raise the wages of labour. If this was the mode which the hon. baronet meant to suggest, it was evident that any tax, if levied upon articles of consumption, must be heavier than the present one.

Mr. Jones said, we were placed between two evils: we had to dread, on the one hand, the horrible evils of the French revolution; and, on the other, the evils that must necessarily arise from any measure entrenching on the constitution. When he voted for the Triple-assessment bill of last session, he declared it to be a strong measure; but we were then threatened with invasion; that storm was blown over. The cases were therefore different. For

his part, he was willing to support the mode proposed of raising the supplies within the year, but he was also determined to defend the constitution, which the present bill would tend to move from its centre. For this reason, therefore, he must oppose its farther progress; for it would erect an inquisitorial power, not only unknown to the constitution, but totally subversive of it.

Mr. Dent supported the bill, being convinced that, instead of injuring the constitution, it would, on the contrary, have the effect of preserving it.

Mr. J. H. Browne examined the bill, and could by no means admit that the measure was liable to the objections that had been urged against it. How did it tend to invade property? Merely to require a statement of property was surely not an attempt to invade it. The objection, therefore, militated only against the abuse of such a disclosure, against which abuse the bill afforded every requisite guard. It was also argued, that any disclosure, under any circumstances, must prove extremely inconvenient to individuals. But it ought to be recollected, that, by nothing but a sacrifice of private convenience could the calls for the public service be answered, and that the general good must ever result from something that might be individually felt as a hardship. We were called upon, by public duty, to make some great effort, in order to rescue Europe from the oppression under which a great part of it groaned. The present measure appeared to him to be the only one that could enable us to accomplish that great end, and as such it should have his support.

Mr. W. Smith said, there was one great error into which the supporters of the bill had fallen. They charged the opposers of it with inconsistency, because they had acknowledged the necessity of raising a great portion of the supplies within the year. But on what principle did they rest this necessity? It must be either a physical or political necessity; if it were a physical necessity, then he would unreluctantly yield to that necessity; but if it only proceeded on the ground of a political necessity, then the nature of that ne cessity should be duly inquired into. In his opinion, political necessity should be guided by a nice balance of the conveniencies and inconveniencies to which the measure might give rise. If the conveniencies were proved to preponderate over