country as he fhould judge proper, laid additional reftraints on their landing, restricting them to land only at certain ports, which fhould be affigned for them. There were feveral other additional claufes in this bill. The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read fecond time the next day. PROPERTY BILL. The order of the day was moved for taking into confideration the report of the bill for granting contributions for certain defcriptions of property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, he rofe to move the recommitment of the bill, and, as a greater part of the claules had undergone a minute difcuffion in the Committee, he fhould prefume it would not be the with of the Houfe to refume the difcuffion on thofe points. But it would be recollected, that just before the breaking up of the Committee, fome additional claufes were propofed, which the House ought to have an opportunity of ftating their opinion upon. It was upon that ground he should move the recommitment. The principal points in the claufes related to exemptions from abatements on account of fines and repairs, and alfo the propofed exemptions with regard to foreigners lending money in this country, which might be fubject to the operation of the tax. On the fubject of the fines, it was neceflary the House should be perfectly apprized before the recommitment of the bill. The mode of charging landlords and tenants in cafes of fines, was a fubject of much difficulty; but the mode he fubmitted was liable to as few objections as poffible, though it was not wholly deftitute of them. What was propofed was this, that where a fine for a lease for seven or fourteen years was paid, the tenant thould be entitled to deduction for the fine paid, divided by the number of years upon which it had been paid. Suppofe 700l. had been paid as a fine for feven years, then the divifion of 7col. would be feven years, and the quotient would be the fum of 100l. for which the tenant would be entitled to be discharged. The fum for which he would be difcharged was to be laid on the landlord. Suppofe (what was impoffible, but for argument's fake) that 7ool. was to purchase an annuity of 250l. the effect of exonerating the tenant would be to fubject him to the tax for 150l. and then the landlord Would be liable to be charged for 100. In cafes of leafes for years the mode would be fitnilar. In what was called the the legacy bill, there was a schedule, with calculations for two lives. It was propofed by the prefent bill to apply that schedule to three lives, and the number of years on which the calculation was to be founded was to be equal to the number of years for which the leafe was granted, and that was to be the divifor. This was the principle reforted to under the income act, with this difference only, that the landlord would never be charged, unlefs he had actually received the fine. The next point to which the amendments applied was that' of repairs. It was a fubject on which there was a great dif ference of opinion, and fure he was the Houfe would perceive that it was impoffible to apply the principle of an average in fuch a way as to reach all cafes; at the fame time, he was fo convinced of the impoffibility of the investigation of each particular cafe, that if it thould be the pleasure of the Committee to grant any allowance, it must be on the principle of an average. The prefent bill was, only to continue during the war, and this confideration applied forcibly to the exemptions claimed for repairs. The object of the Houfe would be, to afford compenfation for neceffary repairs, but to avoid encouraging landlords to extend their repairs, with a view to diminish the fum on which the tax was to operate. It must be the wish of the Houfe to afford relief for neceffary repairs, but to avoid extending it to those which were unneceffary. To reach this object on any regular principle would be impoffible, therefore the only thing that could be done was, to make the allowance moderate. The allowance under the income tax had been 3 per cent. He thould propofe, that under the prefent bill, it fhould be 2 per cent. Under the income bill, the allowance for capital meffuages with farms was 8 per cent. and for houfes to which no land was annexed, 10 per cent. From the best information he had been able to obtain, it would not be neceffary to adopt this medium, for it would be recollected, that under the income tax, every year of war had a tendency to increase the périod of its duration after the reftoration of peace. This being a bill which was understood to continue only during the war, he did not think the allowance for repairs ought to be any thing near fo great What he fh uld propofe would be, that in cafes of lands and meffuages there thould be no charge; that an allowance of 2 per cent. for farms, provided the farm-houfes were not the object of affeffment; under this bill, and on capital meffuages without land, an allow auce ance of 5 per cent. With regard to foreigners, and how far it might be defirable to fubject them to the tax, for money lent to fubjects of this country, he thought the country would act with its ufual good faith in exempting foreigners. He had bestowed the beft atten ion in his power to the subject, and he acted upon the belt information. Doubts were entertain d by the highest authority, and among many Members of the Houfe, and therefore upon the principle quod du bitas nefas eft, he thould not adopt the tax with regard to foreigners lending money to British subjects in this country; but he propofed guarding, as far as poffible, against those frauds which to a certain extent it would be fruitlefs to expect could be obviated, in confequence of the exemption in favour of foreigners To the fubject of excmptions in favour of perfons having numerous families, he had also paid attention. He owned it would be defirable the fe exemptions fhould be in another bill, now before the Houfe, for fimplifying and modifying the affeffed taxes, making them the object to which the House ought to look. The affelfments had been made for the present year, and it would be impoffible to extend the exemptions in the bill he had alluded to, during the prefent year, without a new affeffiment. He should recommend to the Committee to grant the exemptions in this bill for the prefent year, referving always the power of changing them. This was not the ftage for entering into minute difcuffion, but he withed to ftate the reafons why he propofed the recommitment of the bill, and having stated them, it was only his intention to comprise in his obfervations the nature and extent of thofe exemptions. He propofed there should be charged, Upon income from 60l. to 4col. for each child above two or for three or more children-4 per cent. Upon income from 40cl. to 1000l. for ditto-3 per cent. Upon income from 1000l. to 5000l. for ditto-2 per cent. And upon income from 5000l. and upwards-1 per cent. It was his with to carry the intention of the House into effect, by granting exemptions to all under 6ol. a year, and to grant abatements in favour of those above 6ol, and under 150l. It was to be obferved, that the principal difficulty arofe with refpe&t to perfons who were not affeffed. in cafes of mortgagees, and perfons lending money, it was found difficult to apply a principle without rifque to the revenue; a mode, however, had b en adopted by means of certificates, by which all perfons who claimed exemptions from the VOL IV. 1802-3. 4 T Con Commiffioners fhould, on producing them, be entitled to have them confidered as money, pro tunto, by those by whom they might be received. It would be found the most funple and effectual mode that could be reforted to. Having thus ftated the points which had not yet been difcuffed, and to which the new claufes referred, he fhould not trefpass further upon the time of the House, but merely move that the bill fhould be recommitted. The bill was then recommitted, Mr. Alexander in the chair. Mr. Pitt propofed, that for the greater accommodation and facility of difcuffion, it would be moft convenient to canvass the amendments to be propofed in the different claufes as they went on, and confine themselves to do so, reserving till afterwards any new clauses or very serious amendments in the body of the bill. The Committee then proceeded to debate upon several trifling and verbal alterations and fuggeftions offered by different Members, very few of which were agreed to. When they came to the claufe which put the enforcement of the tax in the city of Norwich out of the hands of the magistrates, A Member, whofe name we could not learn, objected to this, as containing an infinuation rather injurious and of an illiberal nature against the magistrates of the place. He had been himself, he said, a magistrate of that part of the country, and a commiffioner under the late income tax, and could affert, from perfonal knowledge, that nothing could have been conducted with greater fairness and impartiality. All he wished for was to have Norwich upon the fame fooling as all the other cities. He faw the two Members for Norwich then in their places. The one of them was fcarcely known in the place, whereas there was fcarcely an inhabitant of the place who was not well known to the other. He would therefore appeal to his perfonal knowledge, with refpect to the character and conduct of the magistrates, and it would depend upon the answer given, whether he fhould find himfelf or not under the neceffity of troubling the Committee again refpecting the demeanour of the magiftrates of Nor folk. Mr.Fellowes expreffed the greatest respect for the magistrates as well as the people of Norwich in general, whofe reprefentative he had the honour to be. But as it was supposed by by a great many perfons, that a confiderable degree of party prevailed in that city, he was not averfe to the claufe ftanding as it did. To this it was replied, that, whatever may be the political principles of fome of the magistrates, the Gentleman who Spoke laft was not without obligations to them, as at the laft election fix of them voted in his favour, though candour, at the fame time, induced him to acknowledge that eighteen of them voted against him. After fome further converfation, the clause was suffered to remain as it was. A long difcuffion took place upon the claufe for allowing certain abatements for repairs, in which many amendments were proposed and rejected, and the clause paffed, with a few verbal alterations. The Attorney General propofed an amendment to make a deduction in favour of the tenant for the fines which he fhould have paid to the landlord for his leafe, and to charge the landlord for these fines. This, after a difcuffion of confiderable length between Mr. Pitt, the Attorney General, Mr. Giles, Mr. Bragge, and others, was adopted as part of the bill. Mr. Western propofed an amendment, to allow additional deductions on the incomes arifing from dwelling-houfes and farms, on account of repairs and improvements, which, after a fhort difcuffion, was rejected. The Committee then went through the remaining claufes, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House should refolve itfelf into a Committee the next day, to confider of making provifions for the falaries of fuch Judges as might be established at the islands of Malta, Bermuda, and the Bahama iflands. Adjourned. T HOUSE OF LORDS. THURSDAY, JULY 28. REBELLION IN IRELAND Lord Hobart prefented a meffage from his Majefty relative to the treasonable and rebellious practices lately carried on in Ireland. It was the fame as that brought down to the Houfe of Commons. The meffage being read by the Lord Chancellor, |