But borious industry, an income purely contingent, and which before the next year may fink into nothing, with one of a permanent nature and expofed to no viciffitudes; but to tax in equal rate two incomes of fuch very oppofite conditions, would furely be committing a great, a crying injuftice. Nor did he think, that to him or to those who held the same opinions with him on a former occafion refpecting the propriety of taxing falaries arifing from places and public offices, there could now be imputed any degree of inconfiftency; thofe falaries were not folely the reward of laborious industry, they were the fource alfo of enjoyment, as well as of emolument. Yet it would be faid that they formed part of the income of fuch perfons, and therefore would be taxed. other confiderations fhould be here attended to, and on this point he would again avail himself of the opinion and authority of an able writer, whom he had already quoted pretty frequently on the prefent fubject, and according to that celebrated author, thofe who were in the fituation of holding public offices, have general means of rewarding their labours, and the remuneration feldom falls fhort of the fervices they perform; and therefore fuch emoluments were not an improper object to be taxed as income. Thefe falaries were often, befides, but a fmall part of fuch income. The power, the patronage, the credit and the confideration that attended them, were valued much higher than the mere falary annexed to them, and they were confequently fought after with more eager avidity than fituations of a different defcription that oftenfibly were estimated at comparatively a much higher fum. They were, therefore, by no means on a level with other forts of income. He must alfo object to the measure on account of the manner in which it must affect various claffes of the community. Notwithstanding all that had been faid of public affairs, and respecting the fituation of other countries, the operation of this bill might induce many to emigrate, though it was strongly afferted that no one would change this country for another merely to avoid paying 10 per cent. upon his income -for, though the mode of enquiry and of the difclosure of private circumftances might be fomewhat changed, yet even in the altered bill there ftill remained many circumstances which must throw many difficulties on particular branches of trade. The advantages were ftill counterbalanced by the difadvantages. Indeed where a great revenue was to be collected, there must arife many inconveniences; and they marked marked but too ftrongly our general fyftem of taxation. The Excife laws, for example-the Stamp Duties, &c. &c. involved in their execution a variety of difficulties and inconveniences. In law fuits the particular circumftances refpecting ftamps often gave rife to very unpleasant occurrences; for inftance, in a late cafe, where the decifion, he would not fay was contrary to law, but where affuredly it was contrary to equity; he alluded to the cafe where a stamp of 2s. 6d. was made ufe of, inftead of a stamp of 2s. which the law impofed for a particular fum. In that cafe nothing could be recovered, though no intention of eluding the tax could be alledged, as a ftamp of fuperior value was made use of. But it was not only from the taxes themselves, but from the caprices of the tax gatherers, that the community had to fuffer thefe inconveniences; nor were they only inconveniences, but frequently vexations. But the operation of the prefent bill must prove far more unjuft, far more vexatious, than that of any of the taxes he had just alluded to: and on this account, and no other, did he continue to oppofe it. The tax has indeed been juftified by an historical comparison with other taxes. It had been compared with the Poll Tax-this comparison was furely not very happy; for if it bore any relation to that tax, it ought moft certainly to convince us that the idea of it fhould never be entertained. For has not that tax been reprobated and placed in the moft odious light by our best and most approved writers? It has alfo been compared with the Poor's Rate; but this alfo was far from being a popular tax and befides, they differed fo widely from one another, that no parity of argument fhould be drawn from them. It is true, the Poor's Rate must be paid either îndividually or parochially; but it differs from the present tax in many inftances, but particularly in this, that it is difpenfed by the fame hands that collect it, and the diftribution of it is watched over by those out of whose pocket it comes. This contributes to make it be paid cheerfully. By others the prefent tax is compared to tythes; but there is often room for commutation, and therefore the comparifon fays nothing in favour of the measure before the House. Moreover, when a perfon buys a farm, he knows the amount both of the Poor's Rate, and of the tythes, which he fhall have to pay; and therefore his cafe differs from the prefent, where there is no option. But it is faid the principle of the Affeffed Tax Bill left no option neither-granted: it did fo in some measure, and fo far he had objected objected to it. But his objections rofe here from a number of grounds :-It was granted that it would operate on inequalities of income. But was it not the object of a good government to correct these inequalities? Surely it was as much the duty of government to correct them, as to make laws to protect the weak against the strong, He faw another objection to it in the difcretion which the prefent measure gave to government. Minifters were left to fix the standard, and he faw no reafon for their fixing on the ftandard which they had adopted. But he was told he had no right to object to the plan now propofed, unless he could offer one lefs objectionable. Undoubtedly the approvers of the bill might fee it in a different light from him, but though his judgment was not able to correct what was wrong in the measure, yet he was not inconfiftent in oppofing it, and as long as he felt the full force of his objections to it, so long must he continue that oppofition. Lord Hawkesbury thought it more defirable to make any remarks Gentlemen had to offer on the detail of the bill, as connected with its principle, after receiving the report, than upon the question then before the Houfe. The question was not so much whether the tax was an equal one, as whether it was as equal as poffible, whether more fo than any other that could be devifed either by him or any other member who might approve of or oppofe it. He must think that the tax was the most equal, and the fairest in its principle that could be adopted, under all circumftances fully to answer the end for which it was propofed. What had been said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke laft, that it was no argument to prove the inconfiftency of any gentleman, that while he difproved of any measure he yet had not a better to propofe, he could perfectly agree in ; but if it was not an argument of this fort, it certainly afforded an argument for the measure. Nothing could more tend to fhew how neceffary it was to adopt the prefent tax, than that after the exertion of much talent in the investigation of its principle and detail, nothing fo efficient, in fact nothing at all, had been offered in the way of substitute. This must be fo much felt by the House, that he fhould forbear urging the argument further. If indeed the arguments of the hon. Gentleman amounted to any thing, the objection comprised in them was in its nature to all taxation. Would the hon. Gentleman fay that taxation was a grievance? He could alfo fay it was a grievance, and wished as cordially as any man that no neceffity exifted for continu ing to tax any defcription of people. But in the present state of the world and of fociety, thefe were vain withes, and as taxes must be levied and impofed, his folicitude muft be rather to regulate juftly all plans of taxation, than feck in the abstractions of men of fcience for arguments against taxes in general. He was certain there was not a member of that Houfe, or the community, who more than himself felt for the claffes moft likely to be affected by any tax, and no gentleman could think there was any thing fo amiable, pretty, or gentle in taxation, that it was a delightful duty to attend to its progrefs and detail. But while the people would not expect that taxation was to ceafe, while government could only be fupported by means of taxation, they had a right to expect that the law fhould lay taxes equally and impartially, and more than this no community could expect. The hon. Gentleman had not contented himself to object to the prefent tax in particular, but thought proper to go into a laborious enquiry concerning the origin and effect of every kind of tax, begin ning with the Excife, Poll-tax, &c. He had thought it his duty alfo to confider the nature of taxes in general, and had no hesitation to fay that there was no tax without great objections on all fides. This could not, however, afford any argument again taxation; it merely fhewed that it was in the nature of all human inftitutions, of human laws, and human actions, to be every where imperfect, and that the legiflature and government would fufficiently difcharge their united duties, if in framing laws, the one calmly and difpaffionately confiders the nature of man and his habits, making laws that embraced their neceflities and did not overlook their wants-while the other in inforcing thofe laws proceeded with tempered firmnefs, with benevolent and ardent difinterestednefs. The bill then under confideration was not oppreffive in any degree that could poffibly be avoided, and the tax it fought to impofe had for its object what was a favourite measure with the Houfe-to raise a great part of the fupplies within the year. It was clear that the prefent was the only tax adequate to this great purpofe. It was the best that he ever heard of, and in the prefent ftate of the country, in the state of our finances and public debt, much better than any optional tax, becaufe no tax of this fort could go fo far or fo effectually to afford that general stability to our credit, and infuse that vigour into our operations, which the crifis eminently required. The hon. Baronet talked of an optional tax being fairer in its principle than one direct in its cha racter. racter. Now what was this doctrine of optional taxes?what were the advantages to the public from the laws by which they are imposed? Why truly that on one fide there is fcarce any option at all. The articles of confumption are for the moft part of the firft neceffity, or luxuries which men cannot difufe; and thus no alternative is in most cafes left. No tax could be mentioned to which this remark would not more or lefs apply. It was true of wine, and true of almoft every other taxable article mentioned by the hon.Baronet. So that if from optional taxes men might fometimes derive fome convenience, it also fubjected individuals to feverities. The trader would have his tax paid him in profit, and the confumer would pay the tax, indeed he could not help it, by paying the infurance or profit of the dealer. He thought it scarce neceffary here, to take notice of the argument which had been founded on a comparison of contingent with certain income. This was a fubject which he had confidered long before the prefent bill was ever heard of. The hon. Baronet, and the hon. Gentleman on the other fide of the Houfe, complained of what they confidered the partiality and injuftice of the tax in this refpect. Now he thought it would be found, that the advantage is, under all poffible changes of for tune to a country, in favour of the man of increafing income. Such were the trader and the profeffional man for inftance, fuch in fhort every clafs of the community almoft, except the landed man, or the perfon whofe income is permanently fixed. The man of the latter defcription, who must always with to make an appearance fuited to his rank and character, will be obliged to retrench, while yet his income is not at all fubject to progreffive increafe: whilft the man of profeffional refources may be daily increasing his income, and can therefore afford always to keep his ufual establishment. It might not be improper to remark, that here the argument of the hon. Gentleman had changed a little for on a former evening one argument was the hardship to perfons having certain incomes; that evening it was that perfons not having permanent incomes will fuffer moft by the tax. An hon. Gen tleman had on that evening and once before quoted Mr. Adam Smith in feveral inftances to illuftrate his argument, that property fhould not be expofed by any tax. But what was property, and who were the rich? Property was the command of the luxuries and neceffaries of life; and the rich were the diftributors. From this it followed that what ever tax it might be that affected the poor muft neceffarily VOL. I. 1798. affect 3 B |