bill went through the committee to get the blanks filled up without undergoing any discussion in that stage, and that it was in tended to submit it at a future period to the detailed examination of a committee. But granting that the present was, in a fair view of the subject, the proper stage for the discussion of points of detail, let us see what are the objections which, in the honourable gentleman's estimation, are so fatal to the measure. To the main objection, which he urged so repeatedly, and with so much acrimony, it may easily be answered, that the honourable gentleman assumes what is not in the bill. It seemed to be taken up merely to afford him an opportunity of embellishing his discourse with the violent invective and offensive epithet by which it was distinguished. I allude to what was stated respecting the character and duties of the surveyor to be appointed under the bill. I will not recapitulate the odious description which the honourable gentleman applied to the persons who were to act in this capacity. What is the purpose—what is the tendency of such invective? What can be the effect of this reproachful language, thus indiscriminately applied, but to bring into discredit those officers under the revenue, without which it could not be collected, and without which public business must be at a stand? The honourable gntleman says, that the surveyor is at liberty to surcharge to any amount, and pending the appeal to which this surcharge gives rise, the tax will continue to be levied on the whole of the demand, including the surcharge. What is the remedy which the honourable gentleman discovers for this? He tell us, in alluding to a remark of an honourable baronet,* that the discussion of the appeal might be rendered so intricate as to consume six, or even twelve months. This objection the honourable gentleman urges triumphantly, at the very time too that he states it to be the mode which a person surcharged will adopt for his relief, at the very moment when he is compelled to acquiesce in the payment of a surcharge, from which he takes care that it shall be impossible for the commissioners of appeal to relieve hin! Such an argument is the consequence which is

Sir Francis Baring,

stated. In fact, however, it so happens, that no such grievance can exist. The surveyor's surcharge is not acted upon in the first instance, unless confirmed by the commissioners. The surveyor has no discretion whatever to add to the charge on which the contributor shall be compelled to pay. The objections of the honourable gentleman, instead of operating against the bill in toto, demonstrate the necessity of going into the committee, that the bill may obtain a full consideration, and a fair discussion.

As to the general declamation upon the character and function of the surveyor, whom some gentlemen are pleased to consider in the odious light of a spy, it is a matter for the committee to adjust the powers and the duties with which he shall be entrusted. Is this, however, any argument for the immediate rejection of the bill? Does the honourable gentleman really think that no precaution whatever ought to be taken to avoid those scandalous evasions which there is but too much reason to expect may be attempted? But it is maintained by the honourable gentleman, that no evasions have taken place to defeat the operation of the assessed tax bill which passed last session. He is peculiarly fortunate in the instances which have occurred to him, with respect to the patriotism of his friends; but he has rated their zeal beyond the mark. It is rather singular that he has not taken the opportunity of extolling their liberality in subscribing to the voluntary contributions. The observations made by the friends of government are, however, of a very different kind. His must have been a chosen circle, yet others were as large as the honourable gentleman's, before the new lights broke in upon him. But notwithstanding the assertion, I must say, that great and notorious instances of the concealment of property have occurred, the check provided by the legislature has been found insufficient to produce any adequate end, and the declarations which have been given in, have, on various occasions, eluded the expected operation of the act. Is it not then a mat ter of great concernment-is it not a subject worthy of grave deliberation, to consider what means may be devised to render

the measure proposed as efficient as possible to the public service? The surveyor is not to be a person on whose discretion any assessment is to depend: he is to assist the commissioners with information, and to discharge that duty which his oath prescribes, of preventing evasion where it might be within his knowledge that it was attempted. It is said, in proof of the importance of the surveyor's office, that they have great influence with the commissioners in other matters where the revenue is concerned; but, when the character of the commissioners is taken into view, this remark will prove that, instead of that profligate, worthless class, which the honourable gentleman describes, they are men who recommended themselves by the propriety of their conduct and the performance of their duty. But, says the honourable gentleman, the surveyor is the only man whom we consider as likely to be bound by his oath. Yet is there no distinction between the cases? Is the temptation to perjure the same? Has the man who is sworn to the performance of his duty the same reason to disregard it, which the man has who is endeavouring to avoid the payment of money to the state? What, then, is required? A particular statement of income, to guard against the evasion which was practised when a general statement was only required. What is it but the means of correcting those frauds which every man's observation but the honourable gentleman's had ascertained to be prevalent? The honourable gentleman speaks, too, of the surveyor's power to extract from the books of public bodies. Here the honourable gentleman, from not attending to the bill itself, is entirely mistaken. The surveyor has no such power; he is to make extracts from, and to have access to, the public books, to which at present even any person may easily procure access for any purpose, even of mere curiosity. Might not any body now procure information how much any mercantile house possesses in the three per cents.? The surveyor, then, is authorized to suggest doubts, to collect information; but he has no right whatever to ask questions of the party surcharged, or to have any inspection of his books. Does not the honourable gentleman, however, perceive that all these

points are proper subjects for consideration in a committee, where it is perfectly competent to move any alteration which gen- · tlemen may think necessary?

As to the criterion of the general tax, it has likewise been objected to the details, that the application is unequal in respect to the nature of income, its duration, &c. Although I do not intend to enter so much into the discussion of the provisions of the bill, I am anxious to remove those erroneous conceptions which are entertained upon this subject. Here I cannot help remarking, that the arguments of the honourable gentleman, on this branch, suppose that it is necessary to correct the inequalities which distinguish the mode in which all taxes are imposedIf such be the sentiment of the honourable gentleman, his objection goes a great deal farther than the bill before the house. The inequalities of which he complains arise out of the nature of society, and the distribution of its rank, and the classification of its property. If he attempts to remedy what he in this considers as urgent, he will attempt something which has never yet been done by any system of taxation, something which springs from theories of legislation, neither founded in wisdom nor justified by experience. I proceed to explain my meaning inore fully. The honourable gentleman says, that if two persons have each 5007. per annum, one of which derives his income from land, the other from industry, they ought not to be both taxed equally at 50%. He assumes, that each having 450l. a year left, the impost is unequal. What does the new tax do? Are they not left in relation to each other precisely as they were before? The tax creates no new inequality. The justice or injustice remain precisely as they were. To complain of this inequality is to complain of the distribution of property; it is to complain of the constitution of society. To attempt to remedy it, would be to follow the example of that daring rabble of legislators in another country, from whom the honourable gentleman borrowed some of his political principles, and which, though he now reprobates, he still seems inclined to follow up. To think of taxing these two species of incomes in a different ratio, would be to attempt

what the nature of society will not admit; what has never been practised in the course of four thousand years. But on what foundation does this principle, which the honourable gentleman has broached, rest? Where is the clear inequality on which he so vehemently insists? Is the industry of the artist, the manufacturer, the mechanic, less the creature of the protection of law, less involved in the great contest in which we are engaged, less likely to be overthrown in any disasters of the state, than the income which arises from land? I heard, with satisfaction, the argument of the honourable baronet* behind me, though I cannot, perhaps, go along with him to the extent to which he carried it; of this, certainly I am sure, that if all classes in this country are not strictly equal sharers in the advantages which the constitution of this country affords, there are none who ought not to contribute in proportion to their means for the public defence in a quarrel, in which the comforts and the happiness of all are so deeply involved, unless when the compassion of the legislature forbears to extend the scale of taxation to those who are in the lowest class of income. The principle of the honourable gentleman then is entirely unfounded. In imputing to him that extravagant principle, which strikes at the whole distribution of property in society, I am sure I do nothing which his own arguments do not justify; nor do I think I am mistaken in stating those principles, for the honourable gentleman was particularly careful to repeat his monstrous propositions over and over again, in proportion as he saw that they were disgusting to the feelings of the house. That industry ought to be encouraged and promoted, it a sentiment which nobody will dispute. It should be remembered, however, that this, among many others, is a case in which virtue is its own reward. What, then, is the true state of the argument? An income of 5001. from land may be equal to about 15,000l. so that a man is contented to take three per cent. for his capital. In the funds, according to circumstances, and in the different funds, a man may have five, or even six per cént. If he lays out his capital in trade,

* Sir William Young.