often, besides, but a small part of such income. The power, the patronage, the credit, and the consideration that attended them, were valued much higher than the mere salary annexed to them; and they were consequently sought after with more avidity than situations of a different description that were estimated at a much higher sum. They were, therefore, by no means on a level with other sorts of income.-The tax had been justified by a comparison with other taxes. It had been compared with the poll-tax: this comparison was surely not very happy; for if it bore any relation to that tax, it ought most certainly to convince us, that the idea of it should never be entertained; for had not that tax been reprobated by our most approved writers? It had also been compared with the poor-rates; but this also was far from being a popular tax. The present tax was also compared to tithes; but there there was often room for commutation. When a person buys a farm, he knows the amount of the poorrates and of the tithes which he shall have to pay; and therefore his case differs from the present, where there is no option. He saw another objection to it, in the discretion which the present measure gave to government. Ministers were left to fix the standard; and he saw no reason for their fixing on the standard they had adopted. the inconveniencies, then the necessity might be fairly pleaded. But if, on the contrary, however it might be attended with many inconveniencies, it plainly appeared, that in its principle it was unjust, that in its execution it was oppressive. He was at a loss to see how he should be justified in admitting the plea of such a political necessity. To these, his objections, the approvers of the bill would oppose a directly contrary assertion. They would assert, that the principle and provisions of the bill were equitable and just. He, however, must persist in styling them unjust and unequitable; and in this assertion he persisted, not from the suggestion of any private interest, but merely upon public grounds. He had heard it asserted, that a majority of the citizens of London had declared in favour of the tax. That merchants of the first order, and under particular circumstances, might be able and willing to pay the tax, he was not inclined to deny. There was, however, another class of commercial men, of whom the same could not be said; the class he alluded to was of a much lower order, and possessed of far inferior resources. On them the proposed tax must bear with oppressive weight. The measure went also to confound an income arising from laborious industry, an income purely contingent, and which, before the next year, might sink into nothing, with one of a permanent nature, and exposed to no vicissitudes. To tax in equal rate two incomes of such very opposite conditions, would surely be a crying injustice. Nor did he think, that to him, or to those who held the same opinions with him on a former occasion, respecting the propriety of taxing salaries arising from places and public offices, there could now be imputed any degree of inconsistency. Those salaries were not solely the reward of laborious industry; they were the source also of enjoyment, as well as of emolument. Yet it would be said that they formed part of the income of such persons, and there. fore would be taxed. But other consider-perty should not be exposed by any tax. ations should be here attended to, and on this point he would again avail himself of the authority of Adam Smith. According to that celebrated author, those who held public offices, had general means of rewarding their labours, and the remuneration seldom fell short of the services they performed; therefore, such emoluments were not an improper object to be taxed as income. These salaries were Lord Hawkesbury said, that the question was not so much whether the tax was an equal one, as whether it was as equal as possible-whether it was not more so than any other that could be devised. Nothing had been offered in the way of substitute. The bill under consideration was not oppressive in any degree that could be avoided, and the tax it sought to impose had for its object to raise a great part of the supplies within the year. It was clearly the only tax adequate to this great purpose, and better than any optional tax. Anhon. gentleman had again quoted Adam Smith to illustrate his argument, that pro But what was property? and who were the rich? Property was the command of the luxuries and necessaries of life; and the rich were the distributors. From this it followed, that whatever tax affected the poor, must necessarily affect the rich. The present bill would lay a tax generally on all with less convulsion in all the classes of society than would be occasioned by any other tax. Sir F. Baring had no objection to pay one tenth of his income, and every mercantile man with whom he had conversed appeared equally willing to pay in a similar proportion towards the exigencies of the state. But what he objected to was, that the tax would subject men to a disclosure of their property. The wealthy and the poor had equally to dread the effect of such a tax. Mr. H. Thornton said, that the principle of the bill met his approbation. The object of the tax was, to enable us to carry on the war with vigour and effect. This was no ordinary measure, and ordinary objections could not, with any propriety, be urged against it. He thought those gentlemen wrong who sought to lay the tax on property; for the disclosure of property must be more objectionable to every class of men, as it would be more indelicate than the disclosure of income. Perhaps it would be better to lay a tax both on capital and income, than on income only; for a tax on capital would reduce the tax on income. He must approve of the present tax, especially as no other measure was proposed adequate to the object sought for, and seeing that the only point at which we were vulnerable to the enemy was our finances. If any one looked at the national debt, so much increased since the American war, they must see that it could not be increased illimitably, nor could the taxes on consumable articles. It was therefore necessary to reduce the debt, and provide in a different way for the interest. The report was then agreed to. Dec. 31. On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill, Mr. Nicholls opposed the measure, as introducing a new mode of taxation. One of the arguments urged in defence of the bill was, that the people had been accustomed to taxes upon income, and the land tax had been mentioned as an instance of a tax upon income. The latter, however, was a tax upon visible income, whereas the former was one upon supposed income. In laying on the land tax, great care was taken that the subject should not be brought into contest with the government. The sum to be raised was laid upon the country generally, and then it was subdivided among the different districts. When any dispute arose, the individual had his fellow-subject and not government to contend with. This was a wise provision of our ances tors, because they knew that such contests were not consistent with civil liberty. It appeared to him, that the tribunal-which was to decide upon disputed questions, was one that must be devoted to government. It was absurd to suppose that country gentlemen could be converted into executors of revenue. But it was of little consequence how the tribunal was now constituted. Since they had granted one-tenth of their income, they must agree to the means of raising it; the minister would come another year and say, "My mechanism is not complete: you must give me the means of carrying the principle to which you have agreed into execution." This would be a fair demand on the part of the minister, and he did not see how they could refuse it. This measure not only exposed the individual to a contest with government, but it harassed and subdued him before he entered into that contest. The people had a right to examine into the conduct of government; but how could they exercise that right when every individual was at the mercy of government? The bill had been termed a salvage, which the people were to pay for the protection of the remainder of their property. He thought a loan would have been a better way of raising the money. With respect to the sinking fund, he said it was calculated to increase the public debt, which had, in fact been doubled since it was established. Mr. Abbot rose to declare his approbation of the measure, in which opinion of it he was happy in not standing alone, as a very great majority of the people had manifested their public spirit, and the just sense they entertained of the cause they were embarked in, by approving of the principle of the bill, and acknowledging the sound policy of raising a considerable part of the supplies within the year. Among those who stood foremost in the support of the measure, were to be reckoned a description of persons, who, from their habits and occupations in life, should be supposed to be the most conversant in the financial concerns of the country-he meant the leading mercantile and monied men in the metropolis. These had not only assented to the measure, but had declared their opinion, that income was one of the most proper objects of taxation-and on the general principle that all income should be rated as it was found, without a reference to particular cases; and, indeed, it was on this principle that all modes of direct tax opinion that there was a good deal of prejudice on the subject of concealment. Considering the regulations to preserve secrecy, he thought there was not much to be apprehended on that ground. The prejudice concerning disclosure was stronger in this country than in any other in Europe. In Scotland all transactions respecting real property, and many with regard to personal property, were publicly registered. In Ireland the same practice prevailed in the case of real property. In York and Middlesex it existed to a considerable extent. In the United States of America there were public registers for transactions; nor was it found in the cases where these means of avoiding concealment prevailed, that they were attended with inconvenience. Upon the whole, he highly approved of the measure. The sinking fund would gradually diminish the weight of the public debt, and measures like the present would prevent the increase of the permanent taxes. ation whatsoever operated. As a striking | instance of this, let gentlemen consider the principle of the poor laws; they operated precisely as the bill in question professed to do; and the principle of the poor laws was never yet called in question. One of the prominent features of the measure was, the increasing scale from a low beginning up to a certain amount, by which it was to affect income; and by the peculiar mode laid down, the poorer classes in society were wholly exempted. To the principle of the bill, several precedents in the history of the country clearly applied; for instance, the poll tax in the reign of king William. Another peculiar feature in the bill was, its being more comprehensive in its operation than former plans of taxation on a similar principle, and less liable to objection. It afforded the best species of relief against the possible oppression of those who might act under its authority, and every possible regard was paid to the feelings of individuals. Besides, the mode of collection Mr. Tierney said, that with respect to prescribed by it was economical beyond the hon. gentleman's idea that the mode example. The provisions in the bill, of taxation in question did not proceed which went to implicate the property of upon a new principle, he would contend absentees, were deserving of much com- that the principle, strictly speaking, was mendation, and calculated to render a new. He believed no precedent could be species of property serviceable to the state found, where men were compellable to which hitherto had not contributed its due state upon oath what they were able to share. Indeed, this principle was not car- pay. Something like it, however, had ried far enough; he saw no reason why occurred during the administration of carthe property of foreigners resident abroad dinal Wolsey; but the measure was reshould not be taxed. It was fair that pro-garded by historians as a violent stretch perty which here found a safe asylum, should pay for that protection which it enjoyed. It was said that this measure was unconstitutional. It was easy to assert this of any measure. It had a popu lar sound, and was calculated to excite alarm. He did not regret that the people of this country should be ready to take the alarm at the very idea of a measure being unconstitutional. It was right that they should be jealous of a constitution to which they owed so much happiness. It was not so easy, however, to show that it was an unconstitutional measure. It gave no new powers to the crown; the commissioners were named by parliament. The oath to be taken was likewise objected to. It should be remembered, how ever, that the commissioners of the land tax had long had the power. With respect to appeal, it was a thing which existed in all modes of administering justice, and was necessary for the fair application of the act. As to disclosure, he was of [VOL. XXXIV.] of arbitrary power. With regard to the poll tax, the similitude did not hold good; in that case, a person had a certain given sum to pay, and no more-the account was arbitrarily levied, but then the sum was clearly defined, and no disclosure was necessary. In the reign of Henry 7th, a measure not dissimilar was resorted to. It was commonly called "lord chancellor Morton's dilemma." The direction given for the levying of the tax ran to this effect If he if a man lives on a saving plan, you are to consider him as possessed of property in consequence of his economy. lives extravagantly-that is certainly a proof of his having something. He was convinced that a less objectionable mode could easily be found. He averred that no direct precedent could be found for the disclosure of income upon oath. There was a particular mode of levying money, which obtained in the early part of our history. The mode he alluded to was called the Jew's Ransom; it was that [L] a tooth was drawn every day from certain persons of that persuasion, until they paid the tax imposed upon them. One jew at Bristol was so obstinate as to have six or seven teeth drawn before he paid. With regard to a general tax upon income, he objected to it, on the ground chiefly that all income was not disposable property. The principle that every man should contribute according to his means, he approved; but income was a very inadequate criterion. The difference between in comes was obvious. A person possessing permanent and independent income might spend what portion of it he chose, without injury to his heirs; but income resulting from personal industry, or from professions, was very different: it was necessary that a part of the incomes of these descriptions should be laid by as a provision for old age. He would say, that the plan of increasing the assessed taxes was a better expedient than the present. Then why not try it, modified and improved, for another year? The deficiency to which the assessed taxes might be liable, below the ten millions required in the present year, could, he thought, be easily provided. He then proceeded to detail a variety of objections against the bill, and expressed his fears that one of the worst effects of the measure would be, that it would destroy British feelings, and render their country less dear to Englishmen, by abridging their comforts in it. Mr. Patten approved of the measure. It arose from the unanimous sentiment of all public-spirited men, and their wish to prosecute, to an honourable conclusion, a just and necessary war. It was no convulsive effort of expiring finance to carry on the war for another year; but the genuine tribute of a patriotic people in support of a constitution, and an order of things, under which they possessed such inestimable advantages. Mr. Perceval contended, that the measure would cut up by the roots all the hopes the enemy so fondly entertained from the downfall of our funding system, while it must convince them that we still possessed resources fully equal to any emergency. Neither would it trench on the liberties or comforts of the present race. There were only five or six gentlemen in the House who disapproved of it, and perhaps a few out of the House. The enemy, therefore, must see that they had a whole country unanimous against them. The question being put, That the bill be read a third time, the House divided : Debate on Mr. Tierney's Complaint against "The Times" Newspaper for misrepresenting the Speeches of the Members.] Dec. 27. Mr. Tierney said: I am extremely sorry to be under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to what I deem to be a breach of its privileges. No member would be less desirous than myself to curtail the liberty which the House has allowed to the editors of newspapers, of gratifying the curiosity of the public, by publishing its debates. No member is more willing to make a liberal allowance for those inaccuracies to which publications made in so great a hurry must be incident. I am the more ready to do this, because it is my real opinion that the editors and conductors of the papers in general, whatever their party attachments may be, use their utmost ef forts, for the sake of the credit and character of their respective publications, to give the substance of the speeches of members with every possible degree of accuracy. No man, therefore, would be more desirous to overlook any inaccuracy arising from the hurry in which the debates must be written by those who report them. But I conceive it to be a very different case, where a statement is made in any newspaper, purporting to be a conversation between two members published four days after the debate to which it alludes actually took place, and not only misrepresenting the debate, but containing animadversions on it. In such a case, I hold it to be a duty to bring the matter before the House. A few evenings ago, I mentioned that a distinguished person at the period of the triple assessment, had thought it neither a sin nor a shame to evade the payment of his taxes; that he was in possession of a very handsome pension; but having in view a place of greater importance, he had resigned his pension, taken advantage of the interval, and made a return of neither one nor the other. In the course of that debate, I was called upon to name the person I alluded to; but for reasons which I then thought of sufficient weight, I declined doing so. It is but doing justice to the right hon. gen insertion of such misrepresentations and misstatements as are contained in the paper of " The Times," now in my hand, is a breach of the privilege of this House." The Speaker said, that by a standing order of that House, no editor of a newspaper was at liberty to give any account of its proceedings; but it was necessary that the complaint should be expressly stated before any order of that House could be made in consequence. Mr. Tierney said, his only ground of complaint was, that the editor of "The Times," did not state his share in the debate, in the manner it had been taken by him; and the aggravation of this complaint was, that this misrepresentation did not arise from the hurry of reporting after the House broke up, but was made after a lapse of four days, which circumstance carried upon the face of it a design of wilful misrepresentation, especially as the report was intermixed with the editor's political animadversions. tleman opposite to declare, that during the whole of the conversation which took place on that subject, he acted with the utmost candour: he unequivocally avowed that he believed I had mentioned the circumstance merely by way of illustration; and on finding, from the whispers that went round the House, as well as from other circumstances, which did not at first strike him, that the allusion was made to a certain noble person, he had fairly and candidly declared, that if I meant that nobleman, I was altogether misinformed, for that he had not only given in his full quota of assessment, but had actually contributed double that sum by way of voluntary contribution; so that, in fact, he paid a fifth I must own, I was struck with this open and unreserved avowal of the right hon. gentleman, and did not hesitate to say, that, supposing the facts to be as he had then stated them, I must undoubtedly be wrong; and here, I imagined, the matter would have ended. However, in a paper called "The Times," published on the 26th of December, four days after the debate alluded to took place, and which I now hold in my hand, there is a publication under the head of "A Conversation between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Tierney," containing not only the supposed substance of what passed in that debate, but also several animadversions on the subject matter thereof. As to political animadversions applied to myself, I have been so much used to them of late, that I have ever treated them with that indifference which they generally merit. But, in addition to these, the report I allude to, and which fills four columns, is replete with the most glaring misrepresentations, which I conceive to convey a marked disrespect for the House, and which I hope the House will, in justice to themselves, deem worthy their most serious notice. From the particular situation of the paper called "The Times," it becomes still more deserving the attention of the House. It is well known, that the property of that paper is so valuable a one, from the great number of advertisements, that the owners of it would not suffer four columns to be filled with any speeches whatever, out of the regular course of reporting a debate, without being paid for it very handsomely. From this circumstance, there is good reason to infer that this misrepresentation of which I complain, has been sent to "The Times," and the insertion paid for. I shall conclude with moving, "That the £ The Speaker said, that the foundation. of the complaint, if brought before the House, must be a violation of one of its standing orders, which forbad the publication of its proceedings. In 1771 something similar had occurred; and then, the complaint brought forward was twofold: first, for publishing an account of the debate, and secondly, for misrepresenting it. He was afraid there would be some embarrassment betwixt the standing order of the House, and the specific ground on which the hon. gentleman made his complaint. The hon. gentleman did not complain of the publication of the debate, but of misrepresentation; but if the House should confine itself to receiving this complaint, it would appear as if it had lost sight of its own general standing order. His opinion was, that it would be right first to complain of the printer of "The Times" for having published the debate, and, then, as an aggravation, to complain of the misrepresentation of that debate; but it would be impossible for the House to take up the complaint on the latter ground only, and not to include the publication as well as the misrepresentation. Mr. Tierney then said: I do complain of the publication, and of the misrepresentation. And upon the suggestion of the Speaker, the motion which he made ran thus: "Complaint being made to the * See the proceedings against the Printers for publishing the Debates, Vol. 17, p. 58. |