cause, by the failure of the former one, the revenue lost two million. But two million were well loft, in his opinion, fooner than we should lofe the integrity of the constitution. But he denied that the revenue could fuftain any lofs; on the contrary, it would gain more by placing more confidence in the good will and liberality of the people. By gentle means every thing may be had from them: by force, nothing. The character of the people thould not be mistaken-if they are taken by the generous hold, there would be no end to their generofity [a loud laugh]; we fhould therefore be watchful to prevent their good difpofition from being infulted and

abused.

Mr. Wigley confeffed that it was the ufual practice of the Houfe to poftpone the preamble of moft bills, but he did not fee why that practice fhould be perfifted in if the fact contained in the preamble was afferted to be falfe, which was the cafe on the prefent occafion.

Mr. Secretary Dundas affured the committee, that he had never before heard a debate upon this ftage of a bill, and it was his wish to close it in a fair manner. To poftpone the preamble of a bill was furely as much a matter of courfe as almoft any of the forms of the Houfe; but to prevent the procraftination and delay of the bufinefs, which feemed to be the object of fome Gentlemen; he was willing to humour them in the prefent inftance. He would, however, appeal to the feelings, to the honour, to the candor, and to the information of every Gentleman who had a knowledge of the .country, whether profiting by that information which they derived from their local fituation, and putting their hand upon their hearts, they were not ready to agree that the affeffed taxes had been shamefully evaded. They were confequently convinced that the preamble of the bill stated nothing but the truth; indeed, there could be fearcely found any one that entertained a doubt of it. On this he would move that the fenfe of the House be now taken, waving the ufual custom of poftponing the preamble.

Mr. Lloyd profelfed himself a firm friend to the prefent meafure; and he had often, he faid, heard the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Pitt) arraigned for not having brought forward a fimilar plan fooner, when every fubject in the kingdom was ready and willing to contribute towards the exigencies of the ftate. He would beg his pardon; but he mult fay that the right hon. Gentleman had hitherto been miftaken in his plan, for the plan the country wished for was

one that should tax all equally. The plan of last year did not answer their wishes in that refpect; the prefent one does, for all defcriptions are defirous to fee the taxes fall equally upon all-induftry had hitherto been heavily taxed, while those who poffeffed immenfe fums from mortgages, and in the funds, were left untouched, and without ever having been called upon to bring in their mite towards the public exigencies of their country. He hoped every Gentleman would atteft that this was the general wifh of the nation. He felt it his duty to do so, and that duty he was ready to perform. The queftion was then put, that the preamble do ftand part of the bill?"

Mr. Tierney objected to the preamble's ftanding part of the bill: he agreed with an hon. Gentleman, that harfh words fhould not be 'ufed-harfh words were always impolitic; but words which were applicable to the measure, which defcribed it, and by which it would be recognised and known, were furely proper to be ufed. Now in his mind. the preamble was a direct and grofs charge upon all the gentry of England, and if the hon. Gentleman complains of harth words, he will find them in the text of his preamble. The Right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dundas) fays, let every man lay his hand upon his heart, and fay, whether he does not know that the affeffed taxes were evaded? Let us first know what he means by evasion. If he means that under this tax, Gentlemen kept fewer horfes, fewer carriages, fewer houses, and abridged the luxuries in which they formerly indulged, and if he calls this evafion, they may have been evaded; but was not this diminution of luxury rendered neceflary by the circumftances of the times. If the accumu lated weight of the burthens of the war had obliged men to retrench, was this to be called evafion? Mr. Tierney had not, in his own inftance, kept a horfe lefs. but was there any blame imputable to the man who had from prudence or from neceffity leffened his expence? For all evafions which could be conceived, this new bill had provided remedies, and furely there was no argument for fetting out with a harth imputation on the Nobility and Gentry of England; the words could admit of no other conftruction. When Gentlemen fwore off on the fcore of income from the affeffed taxes, to call this evafion was to fay that they had been guilty of direct, wilful and grofs perjury. But he would now beg leave to afk, at what particular period, and under what circumstances was it that the country was to be thus branded as

not

1

not being fit to be trufted upon their oath? Was it not after the right hon. Gentleman had eftimated the rental of the nation at one hundred million sterling, and after the sum raised for the exigencies of the laft year had amounted to 30 million? Was it not then after the country has willingly given one third of their property for the public fervice? It was, therefore, peculiarly hard, when new taxes were now to be raised, that they fhould not be called for in more decent terms. It was doubtlefs ftill harder to be fubjected to the imputation of perjury, without any means of getting rid of the imputation, for fhould a man be fuppofed by the furveyors to have under-rated his income, what means has he of proving that he has not incurred this foul imputation? Against so monftrous a plan he muft raise his voice in behalf of the people of England, whom he could not patiently fee thus taxed, not only in pocket, but in character.

Lord Hawkesbury faid, in anfwer to the hon. Gentleman, he only wished to read part of the preamble that whereas fundry evafions had taken place."-It was a libel upon those fundry perfons only.

Sir IV. Young and Mr. Jones each spoke a few words.

Mr. W. Smith declared, that as an appeal had been made to the obfervations of Gentlemen, he protefted that, as far as he was capable of judging, the affeffed taxes had not been much evaded. By modifications that bill was reduced to 4,5co,ocol.-fince then the hon. Gentlemen had stated that he expected it would produce four millions. There was only therefore a defalcation of one ninth, and when his other taxes produced as near, they were not suspected to be much evaded.

Mr. Ellifon faid, he would give his vote for the preamble; and he confidered the oppofition made to, it as creating a frivolous delay.

Mr. Smith contended, that the delay was not frivolous, and that the hon. Gentlemen had no right to call it fo.

The queftion was then put upon the motion which was agreed to.

The committee proceeded to confider the first claufe.

Mr. Tierney obferved, that this claufe went to repeal the affeffed taxes, and was a breach of faith towards the fubfcribers to the last loan, that was to fay, a breach of faith, when the tenor of the Act of Parliament preceding the loan was confidered.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied there was any breach

breach of faith in this cafe, upon which a conversation arose between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Tierney, each maintaining his own original affertion.

The committee having proceeded to the fecond claufe. Mr. Wigley obferved, that this claufe took in income of whatever kind. If it had been only for one year, it would be lefs objectionable, but being during the continuance of the war, he thought it would work a great hardship. He stated a variety of objections to this claufe, and concluded with propofing an amendment, the fubftance of which he faid was, that permanent should be distinguished from a temporary revenue in the charge that was to be laid upon it. He therefore, to forward that idea of diftinction, proposed that the first part of the claufe fhould only affect a permanent revenue. He faid, if the committee adopted that distinction, he fhould proceed to take notice of life eftates, and propose a charge upon that branch of income of a smaller proportion than that which now ftood in the bill. He then proposed that certain words in the claufe fhould be left out, for the purpose of inferting others to answer the end he had in view, and which he had already described.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed this amendment. He declined entering into the question at large, having stated his fentiments already at length upon the fubject. This propofal, he said, was totally deftructive of the whole principle of the measure altogether. The effential principle of which was to raise a large fum for fupplies within the year; for that purpose Income and Income only could be confidered as the object of impoft, because if we applied to any thing but Income we applied to capital, which was not the object we ought to have in view; by this attempt to make a distinction between the income of a perfon who gained it by his induftry, and the perfon who had it from the produce of his real estate, the very thing would take place which Gentlemen feemed fo anxious to avoid, namely, an unjust and diftreffing inequality; for thus blending a man's income with that of his real eftate, and mixing them together, could only go to the injury of the inheritance of the eftate, by caufing it to be incumbered, which was an injury of the most serious nature, and in a national point of view would not be raising the money within the year, for that would indeed be only producing a certain fum of money within the year, but much of it was to be paid by others afterwards, and by thofe whom it was not the object to tax at all; he meant thofe who would be entitled

10

to eftates hereafter; that could not be fairly faid to be raising money within the year. It mattered not for the purpose of raising money within the year, of what a man's income was compofed, whether the rent of land, or any thing else; the income was the ability to pay during the year-going out of that plan, was abandoning the principle of railing money within the year. He then fhortly recapitulated his former arguments upon infurances for lives, and concluded with giving the amendment his decided negative.

Mr. Alderman Lufhington, faid he had no oppofition to offer to the principle of the bill; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ftated that it was not a measure of duty upon capital, or in other words, upon property, but upon income. The principle of the bill, however, was departed from in fome particulars; he meant this obfervation to apply to 1hort annuities. He did not, however, oppofe any part of the bill, but he must exprefs a hope that it might undergo fome modifications. He had conferred with his conftituents, and he was happy in being able to inform the committee that his conftituents had no objection whatever to contribute from their mercantile income to the fervice of the State, although they felt that by this meafure they were taxed double the proportion they could have been called upon in any other mode of taxation; or rather, they paid double to that which perfons living upon an income which was not the produce of their industry paid. There were fome parts of the measure which he thought rather unconstitutional; he meant the mode of enforcing the Act-but this and fome other points he hoped would be modified,

Mr. Dent thought that a distinction ought to be made between a permanent and temporary income.

The Solicitor General obferved, that if any distinction was made between the temporary and the permanent income of any man, that would make it directly an impost upon the capital of him whofe income was permanent; and he was perfectly perfuaded it was impoflible it could be otherwise.

The Attorney General followed upon the fame fide, and in order to fhew the abfolute impoffibility of afcertaining the value of each perfon's intereft in different forts of eftates, or rights to the poffeffion of land, and all forts of real property, reminded the committee of the complication of difficulties which occurred in courts of law upon queftions of eftates tail, of eftates for life, of reverfions, remainders, expectancies, contingencies, executory devifes, trufts for terms of years,

&c.