and not call it, or affent to it, as the infolent act of any mi

nifter.

Sir Francis Baring did not rife to oppose the object of the bill-it called for the fupplies which the exigences of the state made it neceffary to raife within the year, and to this he would not object; neither did he object to a fimilar plan propofed laft year, and this conduct he was induced to adopt, not merely to provide for our temporary fafety, but more particularly for the permanent prefervation of our finances. He was not, however, without his objections to feveral parts of the plan; it was as liable to evasion, and even more fo, than that of last year. He especially obferved the tenor of the bill with refpect to commercial objects, and there he was convinced it would be evaded, and frauds committed beyond any thing it was poffible to conceive. A learned gentleman (the SolicitorGeneral) had made fome diftinction between a tax upon income and a tax upon capital. With regard to that on income, he seemed to think there could be no evafion; in fome measure the learned Gentleman might be right; but with regard to trade, he most certainly was in the wrong, for in commerce the bill would be liable to evasions and frauds without end there would be many who would try to evade, and thofe who could, moft probably would. A man may have a large income in trade, yet his property cannot be afcertained; even could it be come at, there are occafions where it should not be touched. There was nothing that fhould have a ftronger claim on the protection of government, than creative talents in mercantile pursuits; here exertion fhould be anxibufly foltered. Where induftry is engaged in accumulating property, it fhould be encouraged, not cramped or difpirited. The industrious and enterprifing fhould be protected; at least he thould not be molested while engaged in producing a capi tal-when it is produced, let it then be taxed; but while he is engaged in the purfuit, no furveyor, no infpector should pry into his affairs; but when he creates a capital, then it may be liable to taxation. Again, it is faid to be provided in the bill, that when a merchant is examined upon oath, he is not to be obliged to produce his books. If, however, he is furcharged, can he avoid paying the furcharge unless he produces his books? Indeed, if the merchant is difpofed to conceal his property, the commiflioners might puzzle themselves for fix months, nay for twelve, and still not be able to come at his income. In every mercantile account or operation, when there is question of closing it, it generally receives the

touch

touch of the diffecting hand of the mafter. Some portion is put to profit, another to expenditure; but, under the operation of this bill, the diffecting hand of the mafter will not appear at all-there will be nothing carried to profit, and this may prove of ferious confequence. But the manufacturing and trading part of the community will be able to evade the bill ftill more effectually as their property is generally in ftock, the manufacturers, &c. will be induced to undervalue it, and thus avoid the tax altogether. From what had paffed at the Bank yesterday, he was induced to put the following queftion: Are dividends liable to be taxed, or only the profits upon dividends? What then, in either cafe, is to become of the profits of corporate bodies? Indeed the difficulty in these cafes amounts to an impoffibility. The idea of this measure feems to have been borrowed from the Dutch. But to Holland it might occafion no injury; the difpofition of the Dutch is far different from that of the people of this country; there the measure was not accompanied with an oath, Here, he was forry to fay, that a merchant, from the nature of his bufiness, was often obliged to take more oaths in a week, than a Dutchman ever took in the whole courfe of his life. He did not fay this by way of throwing any reflection upon the morality and integrity of our merchants, but merely to fhew the many difficulties to which they were expofed. These were the grounds which made him diflike the measure, and augur ill for its fuccefs.

Mr. William Smith began by complaining of the indecent precipitation with which the minifter feemed to hurry a mea fure of fuch importance through the Houfe. Only four or five day's were to be allotted to the difcuffion of a fubject in its nature fo intricate and multifarious, but this was the leaft of his objections. Were it the object of the measure merely to raise ten millions within the year, as far as that was its object he was ready to agree to it with his hon. Friend, the worthy Baronet, Sir Francis Baring. His objections did not lie against the fum; on the contrary, it had fo far his approbation, and fo far he thought it a wife plan. Thus, if a bill was brought into parliament for making all men wife and good, no perfon, he believed, would object to the principle of it, but if it was provided in the bill to hang every man whom a furveyor fhould please to think a knave, then it would be regarded as abfurd and impracticable, as hanging every fifth man in order to render all men wife and good. But it is afferted, that the principle of the bill is the fame as that of the

E c 2

affeffed

affeffed taxes last year; as far as it goes to raise a certain portion of the supplies within the year, undoubtedly the principle is the fame; as it relates, however to the criterion by which the means of contributing are, to be afcertained, it differs widely from that of laft year; the criterion eftablifhed laft year was a voluntary criterion; a man might think himself able to spend a certain fum of money, but his expenditure was at his option; but his income cannot be faid to be a voluntary criterion; over it he has no controul. An hon. Gentleman has faid we should all put a hand to the plough, and free the bill from all its inconveniences; but he would afk that hon. Gentleman whether, if he thought the bill unconftitutional, unjust, oppreffive and cruel, he might alfo add fradulent, would he then affift in forcing it on the House and the nation? Such was his opinion of the bill; he could not therefore put a hand to the plough. He would alfo ask the fupporters of the bill, upon what principle of political economy could they pronounce that measure to be wife, honeft, politic, and juft, which would impofe an equal tax upon indolence and induftry? But this the prefent bill goes directly to do; if the contrary could be proved, his firit and principal objection to the meafure would be done away; if not, the objection to him was infuperable. One man, for inftance, nay draw a dividend from the funds of 500l. per annum, the whole of which he has acquired by the exertions of his induftry; while another enjoys the fame fum without its ever having coft him any labour. This bill will affefs both equally. Is not then induftry confounded with indolence? for no enquiry is made how that fum has been procured. It is not afked whether the one be not a farmer, who has earnt it by the fweat of his brow; or whether the other may not be a mere mifcreant, who loads the earth with an nfelefs incumbrance. One man may have 500l. part in the three per cents. or part in an annuity on exchequer bills, while another poffeffes a fimilar fum, the whole in landed property: he who poffeffes the land, may fell it at 30 years purchafe while the holder of the annuity may be able to fell it at only three years purchafe: no difference, however, is to be made between the two cafes. They are liable to the fame affeffment-what a flagrant injuftice! Is it poffible to enact a more fraudulent rule? He hoped, therefore, that the Houfe would agree to fome great effential alteration in this part of the bill, and not tamely permit the drone and the bee, the rich and the poor, to be thrown promifcuoufly together under the pref

fure

fure of a cruel, oppreffive, and indifcriminating tax. The iniquity of this measure would appear, perhaps, more trongly to the Houfe, when thewn in the words of an able writer, whofe name he had the honour to bear; for the authority of that author would doubtlefs have more weight, and was better known than his (Mr. Smith's) fpeeches. The opinion of that celebrated writer, Mr. Adam Smith, would, he trufted, bear him out in his firft affertion, and he would recommend the careful perufal of him to every member of the Houfe before they gave their affent to the prefent meafure. With refpect to the objection I have urged, this v luable writer fays:- Capitation Taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary.. The ftate of a man's fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquifition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be gueffed at-his affeffments therefore muft, in moft cafes, depend upon the good or bad humour of his Affeffors, and must therefore be altogether arbitrary and uncertain." This is his decided opinion throughout the whole. The next object he would touch upon are the profits arising from. agriculture and trade, and this is evidently an object not directly taxable. The fame author adduces a variety of reafons why it fhould not be taxed directly-for this profit, he fays,

Is the compenfation, and in moft cafes it is no more than a very moderate compenf.tion, for the risk and trouble of employing the stock. The employer must have this compenfation, otherwife he cannot, confiftently with his own intereft, continue the employment.'

Here therefore is induftry to be recompenfed, and not confounded with indolence. The author next proceeds to fhew, that

"The quantity and value of the land which any man poffelles can never be a fecret, and can always be ascertained with great exactnefs. But the whole amount of the capital flock which he poffeffes is almost always a fecret, and can fcarce ever be afcertained with tolerable exactnefs. It is liable, befides, to almoft continual variations. A year feldom pafles away, frequently not a month, fometimes scarce a fingle day, in which it does not rife or fall, more or less. An inquifition into every man's private circumftances, and an inquifitiou which, in order to accommodate the tax to them, watched over all the fluctuations of his fortune, would be a

fource

N

fource of fuch continual and endless vexation as no people could fapport."

England, however, feems doomed to fupport it-Though he could not well imagine that Englishmen would tamely fubmit to a fyftem of taxation that difcouraged induftry, and favoured indolence, and which put a furveyor, or a spy, over every man's property. But it is faid here there is no inquifitorial power becaufe you may make a declaration-to what, however, does this declaration amount, according to the fame author?-He fays,

"In all countries a fevere inquifition into the circumftances of private perfons has been carefully avoided.

"At Hamburgh every inhabitant is obliged to pay the ftate one-fourth per cent. of all that he poffeffes; and as the wealth of the people of Hamburgh confifts principally in flock, this tax may be confidered as a tax upon ftock. Every man affeffes himfelf, and, in the prefence of the magistrate, puts annually into the public coffer a certain fum of money, which he declares upon oath to be one-fourth per cent. of all that he poffeffes, but without declaring what it amounts to, or being liable to any examination upon that fubject."

The difclofure of circumstances, we are alfo told, is not to be dreaded. Yet hear Adam Smith:

Merchants engaged in the hazardous projects of trade, all tremble at the thoughts of being obliged at all times to expofe the real ftate of their circumftances. The ruin of their credit and the mifcarriage of their projects, they foresee, would too often be the confequence. A fober and parfimonious people, who are ftrangers to all fuch projects, do not feel that they have occafion for any fuch concealment."

Perhaps the people of England are this fober and parfimonious people: yet they may feel that they have occafion for this concealment, and that they should not have their property, and the fources from which it arifes, expofed to the whim, caprice, or fancy of a Government furveyor-who even from idle curiofity, might be tempted to enter a banker or a merchant's houfe, and require to infpect his books.

Mr. Smith next proceeded to fhew with what feverity and caprice a furveyor might attempt to harafs those whom he might fufpect to be fome of the incorrigible Jacobins: the cafe was not impoffible; on the contrary, it was natural, the furveyors might often act fo, in order to court the favour of their employers; befides, a furveyor might think it his intereft to employ a vexatious activity in the performance of his

calling,