contained. To his mind the greatest objection to the bill was, that uncertain and temporary income was taxed to the fame amount as permanent income, and the precariousness of the income of traders was greater than any other; he thought therefore the option at firft given to traders of felecting the income of the laft preceding year, or on the average of three years, was meant by the framers of the bill to correct in fome measure the inequality of its operation with respect to those who must endure much hardthip by it; he hoped, therefore, that the committee would permit that to remain as it ftood, viz. That the option fhould be annual.

Mr. Thornton and the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained. This was not the idea, but only that an option was given to a trade, &c. to decide whether the average of three years, or the laft preceding year, was the beft criterion of his income: but this option was not annually to be made, but to be fixed at the commencement.

Sir F. Baring wifhed to know whether the trader, &c. muft declare on what ground he made his option.

Mr. Alderman Curtis was of opinion it would be better, inftead of allowing an option, to eftablifh the tax according to the average of three years; otherwife, he was afraid there would be many attempts at evasion.

Sir F. Baring fuggefted that the fame privilege fhould be granted to traders, &c. as in the cafe of owners of mines, where the valuation was to be taken on an average of five years.

Mr. Tierney approved of this idea. He remarked on the term evafion, which had fo frequently been used. He thought it too harsh a term, and obferved jocularly, that much in the fame manner in which it was fometimes faid, that "tricking was fair in love;" fo was it held, even of perfons confcientious in other refpects, that "tricking was alfo fair in taxation." There were undoubtedly many confcientious perfons," who, without any wish or intention to defraud, and yet, feeling that the preffure of this tax would bear hard upon them, would think themselves justified in adhering to the strict letter of the law, and availing themfelves of any advantage which the bill, if incautiously worded, would give them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, that to admit of an average of five years would only encrease the objection, which even three years afforded; for perfons whofe trades, &c. encreased, and who were growing richer every year, would

thus

thus have an opportunity of taking an average ftill more in their favour than three years, and lefs equal betwixt them and the public than now.

Mr. Wilberforce fuggefted whether, in particular cafes, wherein a tradefman, &c. was not likely to afcertain fairly within three years the average of his income, a power fhould not be given to commiflioners to grant a longer term for such an one's making an average. He cenfured the manner in which an hon Member (Mr. Tierney) had spoken reípecting perfons attempting to evade the act.

Mr. Tierney explained what he had before ftated. He faid there were various cafes in which perfons of fair character would avail themfeives of every advantage coming within the letter of the law. This had been frequently done under the former act, and he had no doubt would be equally practifed under the prefent bill.-He had heard fome inftances of that fort; one in particular, of a person who had enjoyed a confiderable penfion, which he had relinquished for the fake of a lucrative office under government; that perfon was reported to have given in a statement, and paid at the rate of 300l. a year, availing himself of the circumftance of his having relinquished his penfion, and that he had not then actually come into the office.

Lord Hawkesbury expreffed his furprife at the extraordinary anecdote that the hon. Gentleman had just stated. It appeared to him to be a very serious charge against the perfon to whom it alluded, and that it was a matter which ought not to be lightly paffed over; on the contrary, it ought to be lifted to the bottom. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, in justice to the perfon, whoever he might be, that was meant by his allution would feel it incumbent upon him to give the House more explicit information on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared, that he could form no idea whom the hon. Gentleman alluded to in what he had juft faid, but that the tranfaction, if true, was certainly fo little creditable to any perfon holding an office under government, and fo contrary to what he was willing to hope would be the conduct of every officer of the government under fuch circumstances, that he could not help rifing in order particularly to request that the hon. Gentleman would take fome means, either in the Houfe or out of it, to let him know who the perfon was to whom he had alluded. Mr. Pitt added, that he was perfuaded the hon. Gentleman would iec on

a mo

a moment's reflexion that as the matter now rested, a fufpicion would fall on all perfons who had relinquished any confiderable penfion, and had alfo received a place in the courfe of the laft year, and that it was due to them, as well as to the government, and perhaps to the perfon himself, to have this matter cleared up. He faid, that he thought the hon. Gentleman muft fee that either he ought not to have gone fo far as he had done, or that he ought to go furtherthat it was to be prefumed, it was not altogether on light grounds that the point had been mentioned and that a fufpicion ought no more to be divided unjustly between several perfons, than to be caft unjustly on any one, the hon. Gentleman, he trufted, would fee the reafonablenefs of this remark, and would not wonder at his earnestnefs in fome way or other to know the name of the person alluded to.

Mr. Tierney replied, that though he would not hold himfelf directly refponfible for the truth of the ftory which he had told, yet he certainly would not have mentioned it, if he had not believed it to be true; that he had heard it however from a perfon on whofe accuracy he thought he could rely, and whom he should be forry to bring up in the business; and that he did not know whether he had any right to mention the name of the party to whom he had alluded. He would confefs fairly, that he fhould not have named the thing at all, in the manner that he had done, if he had thought that the right hon. Gentleman or the Houfe would have taken it up fo very feriously; that he had mentioned it in the course of his obfervations in the way of an illustration, and not for the fake of pointing at the particular perfon, and that he wifhed the House fo to confider it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expreffed himself still diffatisfied. He faid he thought it very material that the perfon in question fhould be named, and that he had been endeavouring, while the hon. Gentleman spoke, to confider who was likely to be the perfon; and if the hon. Gentleman declined naming the party to whom he had alluded, it would convey a general imputation upon others who had penfions or offices of truft; whereas, if he named the perfon, it would at once lead either to a detection, or afford him an opportunity of clearing himself from the charge which had been thrown out, He could only remember one inftance of a perfon who had relinquished a pension and been appointed to an office; and if that was the inftance alluded to, he could take upon him

to

to fay that the perfon alluded to fo far from not having paid a full tenth of his income, actually paid a larger voluntary

contribution.

Mr. Alderman Combe acknowledged that he had heard in the world the rumour in queftion, refpe&ting the evafion of the tax, and that he had heard it of the perfon whom the right hon. Gentleman had just described, but that he knew it only as a rumour, and that he was now perfuaded the rumour was falfe, in confequence of what had been faid by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tierney faid he would make farther enquiry, and if the House heard no more of the matter, it might take it for granted that he was wrong.

Mr. Percival remarked, that the hon. Gentleman had fpoken as if many confcientious perfons thought no harm (to ufe his expreffion) of "tricking in love, or tricking the public." What the hon. Gentleman's idea was of confcience he knew not; but, for his part, he fhould confider fuch conduct as unquestionably immoral.

Mr. Banks thought that what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had faid laft, was no adequate compenfation to the perfon who had been reflected on, namely, "that if the Houfe heard no more about it, they might fuppofe that he abandoned the charge." It was his opinion, that in the fame public manner the hon. Gentleman liad made the charge, he fhould, in the fanie public manner, retra& it if unfounded. Were it himself, as a man of honour, he thould feel himself bound to do fo, and he trufied the hon. Gentleman would fee it in the fame light, and as in fimilar manner.

Mr. Wilberforce fpoks warmly in praile of the noble Perfon, to whom he conceived his right hon. Friend had just alluded, and faid, that the noble Lord's character for public worth and talents, and the frvices he had rendered his country, ought to exempt him from the injury that a dark and unexplained intinuation might do bis fame in the eyes of the world, who might not know hi, private virtues and refpectability as well as he did, and thofe aho bad the happiness to live in intimacy with him. He thought, therefore, the hon. Gentleman might at le:'t allow the Houfe to take it for granted the if he thonid not again mention the subject on any future day in the Houfe, it would be because he had enquired into the matter, and having examined it to the bottom, had difcovered the report to be unfounded. Sf

VOL. I. 1798.

Mr.

up

Mr. Tierney faid, that undoubtedly if he had afpersed the character of any individual, he fhould have no objection to retract. At the fame time, he thought Gentlemen had taken the matter in a light much too ferious. What he had first mentioned was not brought as a ferious charge against any one, but rather as an illuftration of his argument. With refpect to the perfon alluded to, he confidently declared that he had not whifpered the name to any one. He had no fort of objection to enquire into the circumstance, and after he had enquired, he had no objection to fatisfy the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) as to the refult. But as to being put to the torture in this manner, and called upon as he had been to make a public retraction, he faw no reafon why he should fumbit to fuch demands. Nor did he think that one hon. Gentleman who pretended fo much to chriftian principles and charity had any right to urge the matter upon him any farther. He thought it fufficient for him to fay, that, if the Houfe on Monday next heard nothing from him on the fubject, it might take it for granted that he was fatisfied that the report he had heard was without foundation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, he felt this to be a matter of importance, not only to the individual alluded to, but it was important to the world to know that he and the reft of the Houfe felt it to be of importance. He believed what the hon. Gentleman (Tierney) had ftated, that what he had mentioned was rather by way of illuftration than as a charge; and he was perfuaded if he (Mr. Tierney) could recall his expreffions, he would have done it. The report was new to him; at the fame time he found that the fame report had reached others, although it had not been heard by him. For his part, he knew but of one inftance to which the hon. Gentleman could have alluded, and he would not hesitate to mention to what he referred; it was that of one of his Majelly's Postmaster's General. If fo, to fave farther trouble to the Houfe, and to the hon. Gentleman oppofite to him, he would tell him the allufion was utterly unfounded; the fact being, that that noble Perfon had given in the state of his income fairly according to the direction of the act, and he claimed no deductions but what the law gave him. After this, he had doubled the fum, and inflead of one-tenth, he paid in one-fifth of his income as a voluntary contribution. He hoped by mentioning this, both the hon. Gentleman and the House would be fatisfied.

Mr.