sider 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 hon. gentleman's had ascertained to be prevalent? The hon. gentleman speaks, too, of the surveyor's power to extract from the books of public bodies. Here the hon. 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 inspec tion of his books. Does not the hon. 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 gentlemen 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 hon. gentleman, on this branch, suppose that it is necessary to correct the inequalities which distinguish the mode in which all taxes are imposed. If such be the sentiment of the hon. 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 more fully. The hon. gentleman says, that if two persons have each 500l. per annum, one of which derives his income from land, the other from industry, they ought not to be both taxed equally at 50l. 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 hon. 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 thou sand years. But on what foundation does this principle, which the hon. 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 an hon. 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 equally 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 hon. 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 hon. 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, is a sentiment which nobody will dispute. It should be remembered, how ever, 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 500l. 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 cent. If he lays out his capital in trade, and adds to it his own industry, he gets from 10 to 15 per cent. Now, if you leave the proportion undisturbed, what is it that forms the encouragement to lay out money in trade and manufactures, but the improved produce derived from industry? This is the incentive which enflames enterprise, and stimulates ingenuity. Allow that order, under which your commerce and your arts have risen to such an unexampled height of prosperity to remain undisturbed, and you preserve that incentive, that encouragement, and that reward, on which industry depends. I much doubt, indeed, whether any table which the hon. gentleman could form from all the new political lights which he ever received, could lay the foundation more secure or more permanent for arts, commerce, and every kind of exertion, than that on which they have grown so great, and flourished so long. There is another argument of great authority, which gentlemen employ; an argument which for some time past, I have seen much insisted upon in some of the newspapers-that this was a tithe, and that all tithes are unfavourable alike to industry. The argument has no application to the present case. The tenth, which this bill imposes, is a tenth of the clear profits after the expenses of labour have been deducted. The more I have thought upon this particular subject and upon taxation in general, the more am I convinced not only of the futility, but the danger of any attempt, by the distribution of im posts, to make any difference in that order which the nature of society has already established. It is necessary to observe the arrangements which have been already formed, and to accommodate the proportion of taxes to the classes of property which have already been marked. To proceed beyond this, is to dissolve all es. tablished principles, and to overthrow the fabric of society which time and the progress of accumulation have reared. Ano⚫ ther curious inference may be drawn from the observations made against the hardships incurred by persons possessed of life estates, of temporary ones, and of those who receive the rewards of laborious employments. It happens singularly enough, that the public offices held under government, uniting in their nature profits derived from labour and temporary estates, are included in the operation of the bill. Now, Sir, these gentlemen who oppose it, have proposed on former occasions, as a great resource for the national expendi ture, that all those offices should be made to contribute largely to the public serviceI do not mean sinecures, for they wished to suppress them. The calculations furnished this night are not more exact than those of the hon. baronet on that occasion; the references certainly were not those of the board of agriculture; but the hon. baronet had made the prodigious discovery, that if all the public offices were placed on a reduced establishment, and others suppressed, the sum of ten millions would be saved to the public. I was highly pleased with the project, and sincerely wished for the execution of it; but I was always unfortunately stopped in every attempt I made to go on with it, by finding that the entire expenses of the public offices only amounted to onetenth of the prodigious saving which was so confidently held out. The hon. baronet's attention has been taken up with agricultural studies and military tactics, or he might have known, that a committee appointed for the express purpose, had made a very different calculation. We have already had a committee of finance, which has discharged the important duties attached to it in the most satisfactory manner-a committee which, except that the hon. baronet was not a member of it, is perfectly to the mind of every gentleman in this House, and many of its sug. gestions for economy and regulation have been carried into effect with great advantage. From this digression, however, into which I have been carried by the subject of offices, I now return. It is objected still, that it is unjust that the man who has an annuity or an income, the fruit of his labour, should pay in the proportion of a man who has the same revenue from fixed property. This objec tion is altogether a fallacy. A permanent estate, which is represented as never dying, and, as it were, the property ofa man after his death, contributes on every exi gency which may occur; the income from labour and industry is extinguished; it contributes but once! it is no longer the property of the same person: while the other, which is considered as the same property, is subject to renewed demands. This reasoning may be thought refined; but the answer is justly applicable in the case where the reason, why fixed property should contribute more, is founded on its supposed permanency, in opposition to the fleeting character of the other, How then is it possible to discriminate between the various kinds of property; or to enter into the details which could alone enable you to apply any scale of exemption, without an investigation more oppressive, a disclosure more extensive, than any thing which the bill permits? How much safer is it to submit to those inequalities which are the lot of man, and which it is not the business, nor is it in the power, of schemes of finance to correct! Could we even indulge the wish to correct these inequalities, which arise out of the very nature of society, is this the legislative re medy? Let us then forbear to attempt what is perhaps beyond the power of human legislation to correct. It is an enterprize that would hurry us far beyond our depth, and lead to consequences far more extensive than we can foresee, and might produce an overthrow of all establish ments, and all regular order, which it is impossible to contemplate without appre hension. The principle of argument that goes to remedy this supposed evil, belongs to the school of dangerous innovation which we ought not for a moment to indulge, The consequence of this tax then will be, that whoever contributes a tenth of his income under this bill, will have a tenth I was stating with how little favour the hon. gentleman and his friends formerly considered annuities for life in the case of laborious offices; let us now see how their old opinions tally with their new, namely this branch of income was most obnoxious to taxation, now it is to be most favoured. The hon. gentleman does not think that a great increase of taxes on consumption would be more advantageous than a general tax on all income. Is the inequality or the hardship greater now than it was, or than it would be, should taxes of consumption be increased? If not, then the hon. gentleman is only quarrelling with this tax, because it is not so unequal as the former mode of contribution had been. This plan, which is more general, more comprehensive, which embraces a great deal of property which formerly eluded taxation, and by consequence, distributes the burthen more fairly, is considered inadmissible. But I am told, that a large sum within the year cannot be raised by increasing the existing taxes on consumption. What is the consequence? Does not the hon. gentle man compel us to resort to the more expensive expedient of raising money by loans, instead of adopting a plan more ex tensive in its effect, while it provides for the redemption of what it is necessary to borrow, without that load of permanent taxes, which the funding system renders indispensable? But, it is said that a tax on capital is preferable. Was it not proved, however, that from the state of landed property, not more than one-third of it is now in the hands of persons who could be called upon to contribute, so that two-thirds would be placed wholly out of reach for any purpose of present exertion? What is the great object of the measure before the House? Is it not to raise within the year, from what constitutes the means of individuals within the year, such a proportion as is deemed necessary for the exigencies of the state, and the magnitude of the present crisis? Do you wish to avoid burthening the pub-less to spend, to save, or to accumulate. lic with a loan? What advantage would you derive from it, however, if individuals mortgage their estates? Would not the aggregate of private loans encumber the mass of national wealth as much as if the nation contracted the obligation? The object then is, to make the annual means of individuals applicable to a supply within the year. At the end of the war those who shall have contributed will be no poorer; they will only be to the extent of it less increased in riches than they would have been. The advantages of it are in a particular manner in favour of those on whom it will fall, instead of accumulating taxes on consumption, as it will bring all income to contribute more equally, and include a great deal of that which, in the hands of those who spend less than their income, escapes contribution altogether. Laying aside the proud idea of the vigour, permanence, and renewing energy which this measure secures, there is one case which, with a view to that class who are really willing to save for the benefit of those for whom they are bound to provide, makes some modification. It is in favour of those who have recourse to that easy, certain, and advantageous mode of providing for their families by insuring their lives. In this bill, as in the assessed taxes, a deduction is allowed for what is paid on this account. Such is the general view of the merits of this important question. It is one which has engaged much of my seri-sentations, and had an evident tendency ous attention, and I am far from presum to prejudice the public mind against the ing that it has already attained the per deliberations of parliament. It became fection of which it is capable. The ine. the House, therefore, seriously to consiqualities objected to it are not peculiar to der whether it was not high time to meet ite nature; they arise from our social the evil of which he complained, and to state itself, and the correction of that or prevent the misrepresentation of gentleder we cannot, as we ought not, attempt men's speeches. For his own part, he to alter. It would be a presumptuous at entertained little doubt that the object of tempt to derange the order of society, some of the parliamentary reports to which would terminate in producing con- which he referred, was, to aim a blow at fusion, havock, and destruction, and with the constitution, by means of an attack on a derangement of property, terminate in that House and its members. If it was the overthrow of civilized life. merely the case of an individual who had been thus injured, or of himself in particular, he would not press this matter upon their consideration; but he had thought for years past that there existed a studied design to misrepresent, and even to vilify the members and their proceedings. He had been told, when in the country, that he had both spoken and voted differently from what he had done, and he had heard persons in the country again and again express themselves with astonishment at the speeches and votes of individual members, to which they had been led by the misrepresentations which had gone forth in the public papers. Some of those vehicles had contented themselves with merely stating, that some honourable member had made a very able or eloquent speech, whilst the speech of another, in opposition to it, had been given at great length. The evident design of this was to bias the public mind against their constituents. An evil of such magnitude should be remedied some way or other. He could not but be anxious, not only that his own character, but that of every honourable gentleman should be represented fairly. He was far from objecting, that subject which had been much in his thoughts; it was a subject which nearly concerned the character and dignity of the House, and of every individual member. Whether the matter he was about to bring forward would lead to any motion, must depend in a great measure on the reception which the House would give to the remarks he wished to throw out. It was a standing order of the House that strangers should be excluded from the gallery, but this order had not been rigo rously enforced, and some how or other, statements had been made in the public newspapers, said to be the report of what passed within that House, but in various instances which had come within his knowledge, they had contained misrepre The question being put, "That the said YEAs Lord Hawkesbury Mr. Simeon Nors Mr. M. A. Taylor :} 183 } 17 Mr. William Smith List of the Minority. Baring, sir F. Burdett, sir F. Brogden, J. Combe, H. C. Grey, C. Hobhouse, B. Hussey, W. Denison, W. J. Jekyll, J. Nicolls, J. TELLERS. Smith, W. Mr. Wilberforce's Complaint of Misrepresentation of the Speeches of Members.] Dec. 20. Mr. Wilberforce said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to a every thing transacted within that House should be fairly represented; but if it was found impossible to have this account fairly given, it would then become matter for serious consideration whether the House should not say, either that what passed there should be fairly stated or not at all. He was undetermined whether he should make any motion on the subject, but he should consider of it, and whether an increasing evil did not call for a special remedy. He was induced to state this matter in consequence of a remark lately made by an hon. member, that on Tuesday last there were not above 36 members met at four o'clock to carry through the new tax upon income, and from thence it was inferred that those who were for the bill were not very anxious in its support. He knew what effects such statements were likely to produce. He thought it therefore important to the character of parliament that it should be known, that the reverse of this statement was the fact, and that it was because gentlemen were zealous in favour of this measure of finance, that they were not present before four o'clock; gentlemen generally coming early when they meant to go away early; but, when they expected a late night, it was usual for them to dine first, and finish the business of the day before they came down to the House. It was for the House to consider what steps should be taken to remedy the evil of which he complained. Debate in the Commons on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.] Dec. 21. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for continuing the Habeas Corpus Suspension act, Mr. Courtenay said:-Every member must venerate a law which has contributed so much to the prosperity and happiness of Great Britain. This great bulwark of British liberty ought to be touched with a delicate hand, and nothing but the most obvious necessity should be pleaded in excuse for its suspension. I cannot, therefore, give my assent to a measure, the object of which is to deprive the people, for a still longer period, of one of the greatest blessings handed down to them by their ancestors, which, while it is allowed to operate, affords personal protection to every individual. "We must admire," says Ferguson," as the key stone of civil liberty, the statute which forces the secrets of every prison to be revealed, the cause of every commitment to be declared, and the person of the accused to be produced, that he may claim his enlargement or his trial within a limited time. No wiser form was ever opposed to the abuses of power." It is upon an institution like this that those statesmen who wish to subvert liberty will naturally commence their attacks. It has often been assailed, and, as the same philosophical writer well observes, that," it requires a fabric no less than the whole political constitution of Great Britain, a spirit no less than the turbulent and refractory zeal of this fortunate people to secure its effects." I am much afraid that this turbulent spirit no longer exists: if it had, the chancellor of the exchequer would not have been so successful in this measure. But let us look at the effects which the suspension of this act has produced. Not less than 70 or 80 persons were arrested last year. Has there not been time to bring them to a trial? To have arraigned and convicted these persons would, in my opinion, have been the best reason that could be urged for continuing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. Two terms have, however, elapsed without any attempt being made to try one of the persons who have been confined in consequence of the extraordinary powers given to the executive government. What reason can be assigned for continuing this power any longer in the hands of ministers. Have any insurrections taken place in any quarter of the country? On the contrary, I believe the right hon. gentleman cannot point out any period since the revolution, when more loyalty was displayed than at present. It will not be pretended that we have now any thing to fear from invasion. The fleets of the enemy have been destroyed, and we have not less than between 2 and 300,000 men in arms. Under all these circumstances, why continue to suspend an act upon which the liberty of the subject depends? There is another reason why I think the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act ought to cease. The persons imprisoned under the act, which it is now proposed you should continue, are most cruelly used. Having heard a great many reports respecting their situation, I resolved to go and see them, and inquire into the fact. An hon. friend of mine (sir F. Burdett) was rather cavalierly treated when he hinted at the situation in which these unfortunate men were placed, |