Houfe, if perfect accuracy could not be attained, to approach as near to it as they poffibly could.

Mr. Sargeant fpoke at fome length in fupport of the

claufe.

Mr. W. Smith faid, the only queftion before the Committee was this: which is the beft criterion for afcertaining the farmer's income? In fome places poor rates differed exceedingly, and therefore one criterion of the nature defcribed could not be a fair one for each place. He thought it no fuch difficult matter to eftimate the income and outgoings of the farmer, more than the tradefman. In many cafes indeed it would, upon experiment, be found to be much lefs fo. There were many farmers, who kept their accounts as carefully and correctly as thofe in other bufi neffes. As to the statement refpecting the Suffex farmers, he thought it rather went to fhew the propriety of taxing them higher. It had been faid great difficulty would arife from the taking tythes in different ways: fome, for inftance, were taken in kind. But in that cafe the amount taken is generally greater, and the rent paid generally less. Upon the whole, after a perfpicuous view of the fubject, he supported the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Pitt).

Mr. Hurft explained.

Mr. Sturges and Mr. Wilberforce spoke; and the Attorney General explained at fome length, and defended his former ftatements. He was always difpofed to liften with peculiar attention and refpect to whatever fell from fuch high authority as that of his right hon. Friend under the gallery behind him, but in this inftance he muft yet differ. Poffibly his own understanding might not be fufficiently enlightened to take fo clear and proper a view of the fubject as his right hon. Friend; but whether he had a right or wrong view of it, his right hon. Friend had a great advantage over him in the manner of recommending his opinions to the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt no degree of furprise at an hon. Gentleman oppofite to him (Mr. Wilberforce) objecting to the claufe, as the other mode now recommended was, he recollected, in the former income bill actually re commended by that hon. Gentleman himself. He was ready to maintain that the finances in many, nay, in most instances did, under the laft income tax, pay lefs to Government than under the operation of the augmentation of the affeffed takes. Adminiftration had not ventured upon the criterion now proposed without the moft zealous endeavours to ac

quire the best knowledge on this fubject, and frequent confultations with the best informed perfons. As to the four rents mentioned, he remembered, that a late great and highly distinguished character, who turned his attention fo clearly to every thing connected with the beft interefts of the country, had given it as his opinion that a farmer ought to have fix or seven rents to enable him to acquire what is called a living profit: but he had never heard it ftated for many years, that lefs than four years rents can be taken as a fair proportion for farming advantagcoufly. Upon thefe and a variety of other grounds touched on by the right hon. Gentleman, he concluded by declaring his firm belief that this was the fairest and best criterion on the whole, for a meaLine which never could be free from, objections, and as fuch he was difpofed and determined to give it his fupport.

Dr. Laurence argued at fome length against the clause, and explained the fentiments of Mr. Burke.

Mr. Pitt recapitulated many of his arguments, and obferved, with refpc&t to what had been advanced as to the poor rates, as being of fufficient notoriety to conflitute a criterion, that they were moft accurately afcertainable, and then the question would be, whether, having this additional criterion in our power, we should proceed to make an eftimate without it. As to what the Chancellor of the Fxchequer had advanced relative to tythes, it amounted only to this, that as perfection in that criterion could not be obtained, we were not to avail ourselves of it at all, though in most cafes of confiderable ufe. This, to ufe an obvious parallet, was, 'as if in the conftruction of a time piece, we could not prevent the variation of the pendulum, we thould use mo pendulum at all; or, if becaufe we could not prevent the variation of the needle, we fhould prevail on our mariners to Jay it afide altogether. It was obvious, however, as to tythes, that the clergy muft pay the tax in proportion to them; he therefore faw no difficulty in afcertaining their amount with adequate certainty. So, with refpcct to the poor rates," not> withstanding all that had been faid as to the difficulty of afcertaining them, nothing could be more certain than that they must be known to the parochial officers by whom they were levied. The amended income too certainly produced Jefs under the amended 'criterion, but that was not owing to any practical defect of the plan, but because the proportion of the rate was taken too low. This must have been the cafe, or in the former mode they must have paid too much,

or

or the amended criterion was demonftrably the trueft. It is propofed to apply the rate to the rent alone. He contended, however, that as the value of a farm can alone be estimated by its outgoings, of which rent only formed a part, it was better to apply the rate, fay three-fourths, to the aggregate of rent, tythe, and poor rates, which would best show the utmost capacity of the land, and probable intereft of the tenant. This was a principle of fuch indifputable juftice, that he fhould be obliged to perfift in it, and should be forry to find Government, in a moment like this, when the utmost zeal and unanimity fhould be called forth, capable of oppofing it. Sir W. Pulteney conceived rent the best criterion of value, as it was most confidered, and best understood by farmers.

Sir F. Baring was for increafing the proportion of the farmers by the aggregate rate. He was convinced they could bear it. Many of them, during laft war, had made great fortunes.

Mr. G. Vanfittart thought the cafe quoted by Mr. Pitt, as to the difference of rent from one to two hundred a year, on account of one paying the tythes and poor rates, unfounded in fact; farmers, he faid, never took tythes or poor rates into confideration when they took their farms.

Mr. IV. Smith could not agree to this; he was acquainted with a town, even in which the rents were profeffedly low, on account of the great amount of poor rates. This was, in fact, the ground on which the prefent bill proceeded in making the rate lower for Scotland. It affured us, as there were no tythes or poor rates in that country, the rents must neceffarily be higher.

Mr. N. Vanfittart objected to the rate on the aggregate, conceiving it would diminish the amount of the tax.

Mr. Pitt faid this could not be. The bill proposed to take on three-fourths of the rent. Now his propofition took on the rent and alfo the account of tythes and poor rates. That it would therefore produce more inftead of lefs was fomething as like certainty as he could conceive.

The Attorney General admitted that the aggregate rate would certainly increase the amount of the tax, but as they already took it on a rack rent, this mode might produce more than they meant to take.

Mr. Pitt obferved, that this was new fhaping the argu ment. All objections were at firft confined to the effect of diminishing the tax; and when he had anfwered them, the learned Gentleman arraigned the juftice of his fuggestion,

and

and contended it would produce too much. As, however, it was the most perfect criterion, the refult would be moft confonant to the purpofes of the bill.'

Mr. Bragge did not think it fufficiently proved that the defect complained of in the amount of a fimilar plan, under the amended income act, proceeded from a defective rate, or too great complexity of the plan.

Mr. Cowen thought rent, in fome cafes, a very imperfect criterion of profit, as in the cafes of accommodation ground near large towns.

Mr. Calvert propofed, that houfes not taken for the purpofe of farming fhould be exempted.

The Attorney General faw no objection to the amendment at prefent, but referved to himfelf the liberty of altering it, if it should appear improper upon farther confideration.

Mr. Pitt propofed, that the principle of the former income tax fhould be adopted in the manner of collecting the tax, by the value of the tythes, and moved, that a claufe to this purpofe fhould be introduced.

The Houfe divided:

For the amendment 24 | Against it

9182

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the abatements, of which he the preceding day gave notice, with respect to the fcale of charges to be fixed upon landed income from 60l. to 150f. a year, which were agreed to.

Mr. Plomer faid, that there ought to be fome allowance for those tenants who had raised the value of their lands by their own industry.

The Attorney General contended, that this ought to be equally taxed with any other fort of property railed by induftry.

A difcuffion took place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Calcraft, and others, refpecting the manner in which the value of land was to be afcer tained, and concerning the propriety of taking the poor rates as a criterion. It seemed to be agreed, that this method was very uncertain, and ought only to be reforted to in cafe of neceffity.

After fome farther converfation and immaterial amendments, Mr. Alexander reported progrefs.

The other orders of the day were then difpofed of, and the Houfe adjourned.

HOUSE

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SATURDAY, JULY 16.

An account was prefented of the rates of freightage paid by the Eaft India company, pursuant to an order of the 11th inftant.

The Caledonian canal bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

Sir W. Scott brought up a bill for encouraging the refi dence of ftipendiary curates on their cures. Read a fift, and ordered to be read a fecond time on Wednesday, and to be printed.

The Thames police bill was paffed.

The longitude bill was read a fecond time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.

The militia amendment bill was committed. A claufe was added, declaring that fubftitutes of the height of five feet two inches thould be accepted. The report was ordered to be received on Monday.

MAGISTRATES INDEMNITY.

Lord Archibald Hamilton hoped, that previously to the queftion being put, he might be indulged in asking a queftion, the answer to which might fave fome future trouble. What he wished to know was, whether, confiftently with parliamentary order, there would now be an opportunity of revifing the provifions of the magiftrates indemnity bill? He confidered it as introducing quite a new principle in the laws, which he conceived to require more difcuffion before it ought to be adopted, if adopted at all.

The Attorney General replied, that understanding the noble Lord, and others, entertained fome objections to the bill, he had abftained from moving the order for its third reading, left it thould produce a difcuffion which might interfere with the other important bufinefs of the day. However, confidering the prefent advanced ftage of the bill, he believed there was no other way in which any alleviation could be made in it, except by holding a conference with the Lords. As it was highly neceffary that the bill thould proceed without delay, he fhould move the third reading of it, fhould any opportunity occur in the courfe of the day, either by the property bill being deferred on account-fathin attendance, or from any other caufe which might admit of the intended difcuffion. But if even the objections alluded to thould be fupported on a better foundation than he con

ceived

1