they will have to decide between their intereft and their duty. Another circumftance, highly in favour of the prefent meafure, was, the mode of levying the tax on money borrowed on mortgage, bond, &c. In the prefent cafe, the debtor is to pay the whole of the tax, and deduct it out of the fum borrowed, when called on to pay the fame by his creditor; fo that nineteen fhillings in the pound would, in all cafes, be a legal tender, and it will be attended with the advantage of concealing the circumstances of the debtor's cafe. These, he faid, were fome of the leading features of the bill. He wished that the Houfe, if it confented to go into a Committee, would permit him to offer fome claufes which he meant to offer, and which he hoped would operate as modifications. He was afraid that, when they were brought for ward, the measure would be found pregnant with difficulties, but it was the duty of the Houfe not to fhrink from difficulties however great and numerous they might be; but on the contrary, to join cordially, by their united efforts, to make it as palatable and perfect as poflible. He was certain that it never was, or could be, the with of the citizens of London, not to pay their fair and equal proportion of the public burthens; and however unpopular at the moment the idea of an income tax may be amongst them, if they are to be taxed in this way in common with the rest of the kingdom, he hoped and expected the hon. Alderman would give the Committee the advantage of his affiftance, and inftead of ftanding on the principle of oppofition to the bill, turn his mind to every. point which might tend to make it as equal and unobjectionable as poffible. After confenting to raise eight millions within the year, for the public fervice, it was neceffary that the means of doing fo thould be as fpeedily as poffible provided. The measure he now fubmitted to the House was fuch as he thought would draw fair and equal contributions, by taxing income and other fpecies of property as nearly on a par as may be. Colonel Baftard expreffed himself perfectly fatisfied with what had been faid by the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped every body would be made to pay alike. Mr. Gregor faid, that the mode of laying the tax feemed to him to be a tax on land of 18. 9d. The Attorney General faid, it was a mifapprehenfion of the hon. Gentleman as to the mode of laying the tax; that it was not a tax of 19. 9d. upon land, but a tax of two incomes; 312 19. 16. in the pound on that of the landlord, and 9d. in the pound on that of the tenant. Sir R. Buxton faid, that as to the objection against 9d. in the pound to be paid by the tenant, he faw no reason in it. He conceived the tenant to stand in the fame relation as a commercial man who lays out his money to make advantage of it, and as fuch he ought to be taxed. He was surprised commercial gentlemen fhould object to this tax, when the landed men do not, and at a moment when we were fighting for every thing that can be dear to us. If he were to look at it as a permanent tax. he might perhaps view it with a more jealous and fcrutinizing eye; but as a temporary measure, and to continue only during the war, he thought it a very proper one. Lord A. Hamilton wifhed the proportion for Scotland had been fettled according to the terms of the act of union. Sir F. Baring fpoke fo very low, we could not hear him diftinctly, but as far as we understood him, he seemed to say that the objection of commercial gentlemen to the tax was, that it was not in their power to form a juft idea of their income. Dr. Laurence expreffed his approbation of the principle of. the tax. It had been twice endeavoured to raise a confiderable portion of the fupplies within the year; once by a di rect tax on property, for which the affeffed taxes afforded a vifible criterion; next by a tax on income. When the measure was brought forward in the fecond fhape, nothing. could be objected to it but the difficulty of carrying it into execution. If the prefent tax fhould be rendered more palatable than that which had been repealed, he thould regard the paffing it into a law as one of the greatest possible bleffings to the country. Mr. Kinnaird faid, that he did not rightly understand the reafon why this bill had been stated not to impofe a landtax; for, in his opinion, it could be styled nothing else than a tax on all manner of property and profeffions. He thought that, in fuch matters, members ought not to be fo circumfcribed by the opinions of their conftituents. He faid, that, he conceived it to be impoffible to imagine that the prefent tax, as a tax on income, could be lefs oppreffive in its opera tion than the former one. Mr. W. Smith faid, that, for his part, he felt just as littlę. inclination to oppofe any measures adopted by Government for the public good, as any man whatever; and he was convinced convinced that fome tax or another was abfolutely neceffary to raise a large fum within the year. It did not become any member to clog the operations of Government by ftarting any trivial objections at such an important æra; but, at the fame time, it would not be proper to overlcok any poffible arguments against the propofed measures. He opposed the prefent tax from principles, which, in the abstract, were extremely narrow. If every man in the state was to be taxed, in order to contribute equally to the prefent exigencies, the prefent method was not the proper one to be adopted; for, it was not confiftent with the ufage of the Houfe, except in one inftance. For though the title of the bill expreffed that it was a tax on property, it was, in fact, a tax of five per cent. on income; a tax which would undoubtedly bear heavily on all ranks of fociety. There were two fpecies of property embraced by this bill: the one was the produce of labour and exertive industry; and the other, that kind of property, which was enjoyed by the rich without labour. It generally happened in fuch a tax, that the fpecies of property acquired by induftry was liable to be taxed with the greatest uncertainty. In his apprehenfion, a perfon who contributes by his perfonal induftry toward the welfare of the state, ought not to be burthened equally with a perfon who does nothing. The difproportion was really enormous, and it was impoffible for any man cordially to fay, that he thought fuch a tax equal. It was alfo highly objectionable with refpect to the difclosure of the incomes of profeffional men; for whatfoever the convenience arifing from that difclofure in other cafes, it must certainly fall peculiarly hard on that clafs of individuals; and he thought that even on that account it ought not to país. He fhould not, however, have ventured to make fuch a declara. tion, did he imagine it would be the means of impeding the revenue. The railing of money, however, was not the only object pro in view; we ought to adopt thofe modes which moft aptly tended to keep the people in good humour, and exact thofe taxes which would make the neareft approach towards equality and impartiality; for though fuch might not be the moft convenient to the ftate, he was certain they would be the moft agreeable and convenient to the people. He fpoke not merely his own festiments on . this occafion, for he had confulted various authors upon the fubject. He had found that fcarcely one writer gave fentiments favourable to a tax on property. Hume was of opinion, that though fuch taxes are liable to lefs expence or or trouble in the collection, yet they are the moft unequal. Mr. Adam Smith fays, that in every ftate it has been a maxim of every wife government to avoid the disclosure of the property of individuals; and that author has repeated this opinion over and over, in various parts of his work; making only one exception of a small ariftocratical state in Switzerland, where fuch a mode was followed without any detrimental confequences, owing to its having no trade. It was far otherwife in commercial states, and that fame author feemed to hint, that in his opinion, times of neceffity may occur, when the free ftates of Holland or England may be compelled to fuch a proceeding as that adopted by the states in Switzerland, to which he had alluded. A Spanish author who wrote about 100 years ago, (but whofe name or exact words he could not at prefent remember) in speaking of the affairs of Spain at that time, fays, that in regard to the contribution then thought neceffary to be exacted from merchants and traders, great tenderness was fhewn in fuch delicate matters, left injury might arife from exposure of their real circumftances. He fhould be glad to know, therefore, whether a British House of Commons at this day, would be lefs difpofed to favour commerce than the Spanish grandees were a century ago. Inftead of allowing any man's income to be taxed by petty officers, the Spanish government defired the inhabitants to meet and affefs themfelves. Different, indeed, was the cafe now in question, and a material alteration was neceffary in the bill as it now ftood. He was convinced in his confcience, that the merchants of London would rather pay a tax to double the amount of that propofed, than fubmit to the difclofure propofed by this bill. These fentiments were fully warranted upon the authority of Adam Smith, frequently quoted in this House upon great commercial fubjects, when it fuited the convenience of particular Members, who declined that authority when unfavourable to their purpose. Lord Hawkesbury faid, he had not intended to have troubled the Houfe upon this fubject; but as the hon. Gentleman was the only Member who ftated his reafons against the principles of the bill, he fhould fay a few words as to the nature of thofe objections. The grounds of thofe objections appeared to be two, in which he agreed with him; namely, that no tax which could be impofed would be found perfectly equal. Secondly, that when that is the cafe, we should endeavour to make them as equal as poffible. The hon. Member, however, after having laid down thofe thofe principles, appeared to have loft fight of them. He had by no means proved, that this tax was more unequal than any other he could devife. The hon. Member approved of raifing a confiderable part of the supplies within the year; but this by no means went to affect the other principle of laying on fmall taxes. The plan to be adopted muft be that which the circumstances of the country fug geft; in fome circumstances of the country, it might be quite the fame thing, whether the people be called upon to pay one million in one year, or ten millions in the space of ten years. But whether this tax be more unequal than a tax upon confumption, he had to obferve, that knowing it all along to be the object of Government in laying on taxes on confumption, that they might bear equally upon different claffes of the community, he conceived that one of thofe methods was quite as impartial as the other. In fuch cafes it had been found expedient to tax one or two articles, while others were left unaffected. This might be fubject to many complaints of partiality from individuals. In the prefent, however, the tax was not laid on one of two articles, which would bear as equally as poffible on all claffes of the community. He would, however, admit, that the clafs of articles might be fully as unequal in its effects, yet he would call on that hon. Gentleman to prove that it is more unequal than any other which could be devised in the prefent fituation of the country. The objections made against the bill, therefore, appeared to him not founded as against either its principles or application, but because it did not go nearer to that which might be filed perfection. The hon. Member had alluded to its preffure upon the laborious and industrious claffes; this, however, was a principle never acknowledged by the legislature of this country. It was one inconfiftent with the whole train of taxation on fociety; it was not acknowledged in the landtax, nor in any parith or poor rate; thefe have been all along laid on the land; but comparing all the rates of taxation, as they respectively bore on the different claffes of fociety, and admitting the full statement of each, he could not think, that under all circumftances, they bore more feverely on one clafs than on another. He fully admitted, that equality in the burthens of taxation was the duty of Government, and the prefent mode he was convinced was in perfect conformity to the principle. Mr. Hilliard was perfectly in favour of the prefent bill, and was convinced that a principal part of the odium of the former |