"One fortieth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 100l. but shall be under 105/.. "One thirty-eighth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1057. but shall be under 110l. "One thirty-sixth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 110l. but shall be under 115/. question now before us, the right hon. gentleman seems to expect either support or silence from this side of the House. To this I answer, that he cannot expect support; he can hardly expect silence; because, having opposed the assessed taxes, it would be strange if I were silent upon a measure, which is, in my opinion, infinitely more destructive, even than that destructive measure. I must consider, Sir, what the effect is of this House agree "One thirty-fourth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1151. but shall being to any principle laid down by that under 120l. "One thirty-second part of such income, if the same shall amount to 120/. but shall be under 125/. "One thirtieth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 125/. but shall be under 130/. "One twenty-eighth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 130/, but shall be under 1351. "One twenty-sixth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1357. but shall be under 140/. "One twenty-fourth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 140/. but shall be under 145l. "One twenty-second part of such income, if the same shall amount to 145l. but shall be under 150/. "One twentieth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 150/. but shall be under 155l. "One nineteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1557. but shall be under 160/. "One eighteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 160. but shall be nnder 165l. "One seventeenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 165/. but shall be under 170l. "One sixteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 170/. but shall be un der 175l. "One fifteenth part of such income, if the same shall amount to 1757. but shall be un der 180/. "You need not right hon. gentleman. This House agreed last year to the principle laid down by him in his assessed taxes, but the House had not then the idea of going the length which he now proposes; they thought the whole measure had better have been abandoned altogether, than that it should cause the disclosure of the condition of every person in the kingdom. But now the minister, having got the House to recognize the principle, goes a step farther, and proposes that the House should follow him. That proposition the committee have now before them, and I will venture to assert, that even he, confident as he was in the majority that has always supported him, would not have ventured last year, to have laid before this House the monstrous proposition which is now before us. But he says, make any disclosure of your condition in life." What! If the disclosure I make be not satisfactory, has not the commissioner power to increase the duty on me at his discretion? and are not all these proceedings to depend upon the evidence of an infamous informer? To such a proposition I cannot assent. But that is not all; for if this House agrees to that proposition now, is it too much to say upon experience, if this tax does not come up to the system, a general disclosure of all property must take place, and that too in the course of the very next year? This measure puts a tenth of the property of England in a state of requisition-a measure which the French have followed, in their career of revolutionary rapine, and which the chancellor of the exchequer has, with all his eloquence, justly branded with the hardest epithets. I do not think our finances in a state so (desperate as to justify this plan of indiscriminate rapine; for such in my opinion it is. The thing is in its nature unjust. Does the minister mean to say, that a person possessing an income for life of a certain sum, and another person of the same income which he derives from the interest of his own capital can equally bear the same taxes? Certainly not; the thing is too palpable to be argued; and yet by this plan of making income the standard of wealth, these two persons will be made to pay alike. But the minister gets over all these as minor objections. He says boldly, "there must be some injustice after all; and the only thing that can be done is, to take care that the injustice shall be as little as possible, that he has brought it as near to justice as he can." To which I answer, that may be his best method of bringing measures before us, but it is not such as I ought to vote for. Besides, the event may happen which he has anticipated, namely, a choice between this measure and utter destruction. But we should, in my opinion, resist such measures until we are in such a state, for nothing but such an alternative can justify such an adoption. At all events, I must have it in my power to say to my constituents before I adopt this, that every other resource has been exhausted. Now, I cannot say that, for there are others yet untouched which ought to go before this measure is resorted to. There are many valuable things under the church establishment, not in the smallest degree beneficial to religion, but which only swell out the pomp and pride and imaginary greatness of some inflated individuals which ought to be brought in aid of the public burthens. The corporations also are liable in the same manner. This tax is said to fall nearly equally on all sorts of property. That is not true. It does not fall on the property of a certain description of stockholders, or what may be called the leading London gentlemen. These gentlemen can pay off any tax without burthening themselves; indeed, the greater the taxes are, the richer they become. The chancellor of the exchequer says, that this plan will occasion the funds to rise; so that if any gentleman possesses 20,000l. in the funds, his fortune may improve by this duty. If you rise the stock, for instance, 2 per cent, he will make a large sum of money by his capital; so that, instead of taxing these gentlemen, you will increase their fortunes, while you ruin others. Whereas your plan, to be worth any thing, should compel the monied men to take, at least, their share of the public burthens. But there is another point to be considered, and it will soon turn out to be an answer to the declaration of the chan cellor of the exchequer, upon the utility of his plan, and the protection it is to afford to property; which is, that under it, the whole property of England will soon shift hands. I know, that to a dry financier, that is matter of no concern; it is, to him, of no moment to whom the property belongs, provided it produces a given sun to the revenue, but there are others who will see indescribable mischief arising out of it, and will feel it too. The great mass of the property of the country may change owners in the course of six, seven, eight, or nine years. That will make a great difference in the state of the country itself; for, if the rich man in the city buys the small estates of a number of gentlemen (which will be one of the operations of this plan), although the estate will be the same, and the revenue the same, yet the condition of whole districts of inhabitants will be materially altered. When a gentleman of small fortune sells his estate, let him get ever so much for it, there are evils arising from that sale to some parts of his family, which are never to be avoided, nor adequately described. This is a point which, although it may be beyond the comprehension of some monied men, well worthy the attention of this House. The Resolutions were agreed to. Dec. 4. On the report of the committee being brought up, Mr. Hobhouse said, that between the evil of persevering longer in the funding system, and the evil of the present attempt to raise a great part of the supplies within the year, he could not well balance his mind; if, therefore, he had not other grounds for rejecting the present measure, he should feel himself at a loss to decide what vote he should give. Those grounds it was now his duty to state. He hoped he might be allowed to inquire, what would be the effect of making either expenditure, income, or property, the basis of taxation. If expenditure be made the criterion, then the avaricious capitalist would not pay his due proportion, but the weight would fall on him who, in consequence of having spent more than he could well afford, was least liable to support it. If income be taken as the test, then the tax would operate with glaring inequality. The man who had an income of 1,000l. per annum arising from capital, and the man who gained the same annual sum by a profession or by business, surely of the public faith to the stockholder, be. cause he did not view it in that light. Undoubtedly there was a clause in all the loan acts, securing to the public creditor his dividends "free from all taxes, charges and impositions whatever." But from the moment the money had found its way into the pocket of the stockholder, from that moment it became liable to taxation. Neither had he insisted upon another case, namely, that all persons from 200l. per annum and upwards should pay a tenth part. Surely it was flagrantly unjust to take 10 per cent from the man who possessed but 200l. per annum, while he, who rioted in the enjoyment of 40,000. yearly income, paid no more. As to the productiveness of this new financial project, he would not hesitate to say, that it was calculated, in some respects, to bring in more than the late act for augmenting the assessed taxes. The Resolutions were agreed to, and a Bill was ordered to be brought in thereupon. ought not to be assessed in the same degree. If two merchants had each 1,000l. a year from their commerce, they ought not to be taxed alike; because the one might be obliged to apply a greater proportion of his income than the other, to the repair of buildings or machinery. If property only be taxed, it might be argued, that those who had the greatest property might not have the greatest income; and that the necessary expenditure of two persons who had equal property might be very different. On these grounds he could not bring himself to believe that either property, income, or expenditure, should solely and exclusively be taxed. Such a basis of taxation would, in his opinion, be highly unjustifiable. The most unexceptionable one that could be laid, ought to be formed out of a combination of the three. The individual should be rated according to the property he possessed, the income it produced, and the degree of expenditure, which his situation in life, the size of his family, or other considerations might demand.-Besides this objection to a tax upon income, he had others extremely strong and forcible. It was a tax which would strike with peculiar force at industry and, the fruits of industry, while indolence was left untouched and encouraged. And what must be the natural consequence of this discouragement of industry? Does it not tend to relax those springs which give life and activity to every branch of trade, commerce, agriculture, &c.? The merchant is accustomed annually to convert a part of his profits into capital. If the taxgatherers call for a portion of those profits, he must devote less to the increase of his reproductive stock. Thus the progress of our trade would be obstructed. There was a passage in Steuart's Political Eco-leads to an extensive continental connomy so appropriate that he would read it: "As to the pure profits on trade: although they appear to be income, yet I consider them rather as stock, and therefore they ought not to be taxed. They resemble the annual shoots of a tree which augment the mass of it; but are very different from the seed, or fruit which is annually produced, and is annually separated from it." These shoots the minister was now lopping, and thus the growth of the tree would be checked; a few years hence he would probably cut down the tree, that he might the more easily lay his hand upon the fruit. He bad not stated this tax to be a violation Debate on Mr. Tierney's Motion respecting Peace with the French Republic.] Dec. 11. Mr. Tierney rose to make his promised motion, and said :-When I look at the situation of our affairs at this moment, and compare it with that which it exhibited some time since, and when I couple that situation with declarations from a variety of quarters, I am impelled, Sir, to make the motion with which I shall conclude. I am led to think that the pacific disposition which, soon after the conferences at Lisle, was manifested in his majesty's declaration, has been abandoned, and that a new spirit has begun to rise up, against which I must enter my protest. The spirit I allude to is that which nexion. I know it may be said, that this motion breaks in upon the undoubted power which the crown has of making war or peace; but I think this is a point which will not be much insisted upon when it is considered that the power of this House is unquestionable with respect to granting supplies. I have, as a member of this House, as good a right to say, that the supplies granted to the crown shall be granted exclusively for England, as to say, what no man doubts I have a right to say, that there shall not be any supply. But it may be said, that this motion has a tendency to damp the spirit which is now rising in Europe. If that spirit was rising, and was likely to animate all excited, and would not such an effect be Europe against the ambitious projects of dangerous to the general confederacy?” the common enemy, I should be the last Certainly, if there be such a confederacy man who would wish to discourage such as that from which you expect to work a spirit. But I have no idea that my mo- the deliverance of Europe; but it will be tion would, if assented to, have any such granted to me, that unless the confederacy operation. I am led to think there is no be general, it cannot be attended with symptom of any spirit rising from principle any extensive advantages. If only one in any quarter; and I need not say much power or two powers exert themselves, to convince the House, that the value of none of those splendid objects, of which any spirit, and even the duration of it, we have heard a good deal, can be ramust depend upon the principle on which tionally expected to be accomplished. it is founded; and yet this is called a plan Now, with respect to a general confedefor the general deliverance of Europe. I racy, I am not speaking at random, for it should be glad to know where I am to is a subject on which I have had positive look for the spirit which has this tendency. experience. The great confederacy against Look at Prussia; that power has been at France was when the unfortunate monarch peace now for three years, and the mi- was under trial, and at the time of his death; nister of the French republic is there it was then that France was not under the treated with all the respect which nations advantages of a settled government; when observe towards those with whom they all that she possessed was employed only wish to continue a good understanding. to resist actual invasion; when her troops If we look at the Emperor, we cannot say were raw and undisciplined, and when, in there is any dispute actually between him short, she had nothing to oppose to all and the French. There is, indeed a con- her difficulties, but the energy of the gress held at Radstadt, but that is, I be- people. This was the time when the lieve, nothing more than a trial for each power of a confederacy against France party to make the best of a mere squabble was most formidable to her. Let gentlefor the right and left bank of a river. If men consider what are now the boundayou look at Russia, you will not see any ries of the French republic, and then let thing interesting. I confess I can see no- them look at what is to be effected by a thing from that quarter but profession. general confederacy. Circumstances must If we look at the Ottoman Porte, we materially have changed from those of the see nothing like principle in the spirit that former before we can reasonably hope for has shown itself. If any body supposes any advantage from a new confederacy, that I do not mean to say the French have or before it can produce any effect difbeen guilty of the most scandalous injustice, ferent from the last. What produced the he mistakes me very much. But I see no- discomfiture of the confederates? The thing in the conduct of the Ottoman Porte, skill of the French, or the jealousy and which leads me to think, that the resent indecision of the confederates? Take ment shown in that quarter is a resent- which you will of these two, and the conment arising from any principle on which clusion will be the same. Shall I be told we can reckon for any permanency: on that the skill of the French is less nowthe contrary, it appears to be a spirit that than it was then? That their strength is may be appeased by only altering the less; that their generals are less able, course of that which produced it. I see their army less steady or less powerful? I nothing like a systematic course of oppo- think not, sir. Now take the alternative: sition to the ambitious projects of the ene- is there a greater probability that the my in general. The spirit of opposition allies will adhere to each other better than to the enemy there, will discontinue they did formerly? Have they a greater the instant they gain for themselves what ardour for the common cause now than they want. They will have no share in they had then? Look at the relative si the general deliverance of Europe. Wait- tuation of the different powers. Is it to ing, therefore, to hear where this spirit be believed that Austria will place more to resist the French is to be seen, I shall confidence in Prussia, supposing a new go on with my observations. confederacy formed, than she did formerly? Can we have more confidence in either of them after we have been deserted by both? Will any gentleman say that we ought to vote larger supplies than any that But it may be said, "although this spirit does not yet appear every where, yet your motion ought not to be made, for it may prevent that spirit from being But pose that you will succeed by this new confederacy in any one thing that will be of the least service to this country? I should be glad to see France driven to her former limits; I should be glad to see her renounce her principles of ambition, and thirst for extent of territory. can you really believe, that, after having got Mantua, Luxemburgh, and other places, she is more easily to be driven within her ancient limits then she was before she made these acquisitions? Or will any man say, that this object is to be ac complished without a great evil happening to this country; in short, without such consequences to our finances as the most sanguine calculator cannot look upon with. out dismay? Where is your line of demarcation to be drawn? But although you are not to be the conquerors of France, but are only to reduce her to her antient limits, do not think that other powers will go on with you, even in that object; they will not aid and assist you in restoring to each other what has been lost; the confederacy, if it be formed, would dissolve long before that object could be accomplished. But, if you could accomplish that object, I am sure you may nevertheless adopt my motion; for there is nothing in it hostile to that idea-there is not a syllable which goes to prevent the powers of Europe from joining against France; but instead of our endeavouring to extend the confederacy, we should leave them to apply to us. You say, you will bring about the deliverance of Europe. Do not say so you cannot accomplish it; and I wish you not to make so extravagant an attempt. have yet been voted, for the purpose of adjusting this or that point which may belong to the left or the right side of the Rhine? Can any man say that these are points essential to the welfare of Great Britain? Can any of the powers expect much from the co-operation of Russia? Can the Emperor expect much cordial sup. port from those who have deserted him already? can we look with any degree of hope from the decisive and prompt action of the Ottoman Porte? Will any man lay his hand upon his heart and say, that any of the combinations I have stated can be of real service to Great Britain? Well; but the question is altered, and other nations now feel what their interests are better than they did formerly. Those who reflect on the tenor of the manifestoes of 1793 and 1794, will do the parties combined against France the justice to say, that whatever they may have failed in, they did not fail in foretelling the enormities of France. Nothing that has happened could have astonished the confederate powers, for they predicted all the evils that have happened in consequence of the anarchy of France; nor did they fail to ascribe all the evils that have have happened to French principles. And here it is proper I should explain what I mean by French principles. Some gentlemen call all desire for a parliamentary or other reform, the result of French principles with such men I cannot agree. But as to those French principles which have produced, and are supporting the present tyranny of France, no man would rejoice more heartily at their extinction, But can any thing be done to inflame the resentment of these persons more than has been done by the French republic? Can any thing be done to excite deeper hatred in monarchy against French principles than the conduct held towards that monarch? Can the nobility of any country have greater anger against any thing than they have against that conduct which abolished their whole order at once, and worked the destruction of their titles? Would any thing make the prayers of the church more fervent against anarchy than the overthrowing altogether of all church establishment? Could any thing more enrage the lords of manors, and such persons, than the total extinction of feudal rights? These are the men who once united against France; and it is from an union of these again that you look for the deliverance of Europe. Can you sup Another point that may be urged is, that my motion tends to prevent others from showing their principles, and that it tends to decide upon the aggressions of the enemy towards other powers; by which means, it may stand in the way of the assertion of those rights, which lead to honourable terms of peace for this country. This appears strong at first sight; but if I did not conceive there was an answer to it, you would not have had the trouble of hearing me this day, for I would not urge a single argument that could tend to impede honourable terms to this country. Ministers put into his majesty's mouth, after the breaking up of the conferences at Lisle, words that are tantamount to the spirit of my motion. His majesty there says, that "he looks with anxious expectation to the moment when the government |