The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up the Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time the next day.

INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. Rofe moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indemnify certain perfons who had not taken the Teft and Corporation Oaths.

Mr. Wigley faid, that as this was a bill of indemnity, which embraced other objects of indemnification befides the teft and corporation laws, he wished to introduce a claufe in it with regard to another object. Till the stamp act of 1797 was paffed, it had been understood in the rules for the admiffion of attornies in the courts, that a clerk who, though articled to one attorney, had bona fide served part of his time with another, might be admitted This, however, could not now be done. He wifhed therefore to introduce a claufe to enable the courts to admit fuch perfons in cafes which occurred previous to 1791. This was with the confent of the Judges. There was another claufe to indemnify certain perfons who, in confequence of an error in an Act of Parliament, had failed to obtain and enrol their certificates in the different courts.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, he had no objection to the learned gentleman's claufes; but they were of a description fo different from that of the bill, which related to certain violations of the teft laws, and not to those of the ftamp act, that they ought to make a part of a separate bill.

The Speaker faid, it was extremely material that two matters which had no analogy or connection with each other, fhould not be introduced into the fame bill.

Mr. Wigley faid, he conceived that, as the bill related to the violation of a stamp act, inasmuch as certain officers, who were to be indemnified by it, had neglected to qualify themfelves, it was not irregular to introduce into it another fubject relating to a breach of the stamp laws.

It was agreed that it would be better to divide the bill into two parts-that which regarded the general object of the test and corporation oaths; and that part which related more to individual cafes. The claufes moved by Mr. Wigley, as inftructions to the committee on the whole bill, would then be referred by the committee who divided the bill, to that part of it to which they had relation.

The motions were agreed to; and on the motion of Mr. VOL. I. 1798. Pitt,

M m

Pitt, it was ordered that the committee be instructed to divide the bill into two separate bills.

The bill was then ordered to be committed the next day. Mr. Wigley then moved, as inftructions to the committee on the bill, claufes to the effect above stated.

INCOME BILL.

The House, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, refolved itfelf into a committee of the whole Houfe, to confider farther of the Income Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an amendment to the clause which regulated the powers of the commiffioners and of the furveyors in cafe of appeals. The object of the amendment was, that the furveyor fhould have the right of appeal to the second clafs of commiffioners only in the cafe where the party had not offered his oath to fatisfy the commiffioners.

Mr. Wilberforce thought the conceffion, leaving it in the difcretion of the commiffioners to refufe calling for the fchedule, might perhaps injure the effect of the bill. The power of the commiffioners to ftop all proceedings by refusing to call for a schedule, was a power fo delicate that, acting as a commiffioner, it was one with which he fhould not with to be entrusted. The effect of it, he was afraid, would be to make them rather call for it generally than exercise a discretion. He thought, that instead of this the whole matter fhould go the commiffioners of appeal, who fhould have the fame power as the first fet to call for the fchedule, and if they thought it unneceffary, the matter fhould reft.

Mr. Yorke said, he approved of the bill as a wife and energetic meafure. In his opinion, however, to prevent any vexations which might arife on the part of the furveyor, the latter should have an appeal only when the first commissioners refufed the schedule; but that where the whole matter was fairly argued and fettled before the firft commiffioners, the. furveyor thould have no appeal.

Col. Wood faid, that he was against any appeal being allowed the furveyor; and it was his intention to propose, that when the furveyor did appeal, and did not make out the grounds on which he had proceeded, he should pay the expences of the party against whom the appeal was made.

The Solicitor General objected to this, and obferved that it was more likely that individuals would act difhoneftly, than that furveyors would act vexatiously. He hoped the House Would

would do its duty, and fee that the tax be impofed juffly and equally, and not give way to a falfe tenderness or to clamour, and to the tendency of thofe fpeeches, which had for their only object, to make this tax unpopular. He wifhed, therefore, the claufe, as it now ftood, might not be expunged.

Mr. Hawkins Browne was of opinion, that there thould be an appeal from the firft commiffioners to the commiffioners of appeal, and that, not only on the behalf of the individual, but of the public. He thought an inspector, in the lawful execution of his duty, deferved encouragement rather than difcouragement; he, therefore, muft object to the idea of his being obliged to pay the costs of an appeal, if that appeal fhould be unfuccefsful; and he was of opinion that there fhould be an appeal, in certain cafes, from the firft to the fccond fet of commiffioners.

Mr. Tierney faid, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment of the claufe did not do away his objection to the Surveyor's having any right to make an appeal after the firft Commiffioners had decided on the tax to be paid. He felt himself bound to oppose the bill in all its parts. He denied what he ftiled the coarse infinuation of the hon. Gentleman (the Solicitor General) that he was courting popularity. Were that his object, the most dextrous courfe he could take, would be for him not to interfere at all. But he was not forry he had interfered as he had done, for what had been the confequence? He had brought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) to his fenfes, and he now faw the neceflity of intro ducing conceffions, alterations, and amendments. So far from being deterred from doing his duty by any fuch imputations, he found encouragement from what he had seen that day, to perfevere in making fuch remarks as was his duty.

Mr. D. Ryder faid, if any thing could induce him to oppofe any modifications introduced after mature deliberations, it would be fuch affronting infinuations as thofe of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) of his having brought his right hon. Friend to his fenfes. By fuch language he was throwing the strongest temptations in the way of friends to the bill attending to modifications, to be told that they are brought to their fenfes, if either by any change of opinion, or acquiefcence in the opinions of others, they propofed any modifications. With regard to the amendment, he was of opinion, that even though no appeal was allowed from the firft Commiffioners after giving in a statement of incoine upon

M m 2

oath,

oath, yet there should be liberty of reference to the judges, as the dernier refort in fuch cafes.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the infinuations of Mr. Tierney. That hon. Gentleman had faid, that every modification propofed was to him and his friends fo much clear gain; whilft he had told the Houfe that he was against the whole bill, and that every modification was a weakening of the effect of the bill. As to the hon. Gentleman's idea of clear gain by fuch modifications, he was in hopes he would be disappointed, but he evidently saw that the hon. Gentleman was willing to heap upon the bill every degree of obloquy; but, perhaps, although contrary to his real intention, he might, by his oppofition and his fpeeches fuggeft fome things which might tend upon the whole to make the bill more effectual in its operations; and he owned that this was the chief revenge which he wished to be gratified in. He had had occafion to fee a great many fimilar inftances, when nothing had given more mortification and regret to thofe Gentlemen, than when they found that the objections which they had thown out had produced the tendency of ftrengthening a measure entirely the reverse of what they had intended. The hon. Gentleman had talked of acquiring popularity by not interfering at all; he wished to know from what quarter he expected it? Would it, he would afk, be a recommendation to the people of England, and the beft road to popularity, for the hon. Gentleman to fay, "I have been prefent at the difcuffion of a great measure, and I have withheld my opinion either whether the measure was oppreffive, odious, or practicable, which I could at the fame time have oppofed, and perhaps with fuccefs?" The hon. Gentleman had taken to himfelf the merit of every amendment, by indirectly faying "this is owing to what I have said against the bill." He could not help remarking, that he had not heard from that hon. Gentleman, or any. other of his friends in oppofition, any remedy proposed to any objectionable claufe. He rather fuppofed that they had studiously abstained from any fuggeftion which, as they thought, could produce a remedy; and denied that the amendment he had propofed was any departure from the fpirit of the claufe as it originally ftood.

After Mr. Burton, Sir II. Geary, Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Vanfittart, and others had fpoken, the claufe, with the. amendment, was carried without a divilion.

In

In the course of the reading the first clause refpecting the deductions to be made from income,

Mr. Tierney wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman oppofite to him, whether where a perfon had been for feveral years in the habit of fetting apart a portion of his income to increafe his capital, any deduction was to be allowed by the commiffioners for the fums fo applied?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that no fuch deduction could be admitted, as it would furnish an opportunity for the grofleft evafions. Mercantile men particularly would contrive to exempt themselves in a degree which would be totally deftructive of the intention of the measure, as there were few of that clafs who did not confolidate a confiderable portion of their income with their capitals. ` Another deduction that had been fuggefted was equally objectionable, he meant that for fums expended in improvements. If such a deduction were admitted, a perfon who had expended the whole of one yearly produce of his estate in improvements, which would foon give him a return of 15 per cent. might yet alledge, that for that particular year, he had no income at all. Sums however expended in repairs of buildings which were immediately applied to the creation of profits, conftituted, he thought, a fair ground of deduc

tion.

Mr. Alderman Lushington thought that upon this ground fome deduction fhould be made for the rent of houfes occupied by retail traders, or at least for that part appropriated to the purposes of trade, because the fums fo expended were immediately applied to the creation of profit.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid a word or two in oppofition to the fuggeftion of the hon. Alderman.

An amendment was propofed by Alderman Combe, and fupported by Alderman Curtis and Mr. Alderman Lufhington, for deducting from the income of corporations all falaries of 200l. a year and upwards paid to their officers; but after a few obfervations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amendment was withdrawn.

On the question for the claufe that relates to the mode of taxing corporate bodies,

Mr. Tierney faid, he thought every man who diftributed part of his grofs income annually among domeftics, in annuities for the education of his children, entitled to the fame exemptions as any trading company whatever. By this bill as it flood,, the Bank Directors would only pay in their individual