Mr. Pitt first took notice of the hon. I tuents, to remain silent at present, however gentleman's observation relative to the indifferently he should be able to discuss preamble of the Bill containing an assertion which had not been proved. The fact was, that frauds to a considerable amount had been practised. It was a matter of great notoriety; and where facts were matters of public notoriety, it was by no means unusual for that House to state those facts in the preamble to a Bill, as the grounds of necessity on which it stood. With regard to the question, whether the commissioners of the Stamp-office had presented any memorial to the Lords of the Treasury, alleging a growing deficiency in the amount of the collection of the tax on post-horses, he had no hesitation to say, that they had not. But what then? He never had heard it argued, that when that House vested the executive management of any tax in either of the boards of revenue, they so far delegated their authority as to have parted with the powers of legislation altogether; and that thenceforward they were rendered incapable of amending their own tax bills, and could not apply any regulation to go in aid of the collection of any particular tax, unless upon application of the board of revenue, to whom the executive management of the particular tax in question had been delegated. So far from the revenue boards thinking it their duty to recommend regulations and to suggest amendments, he had found that some boards of revenue held their bounds of duty to be so limited, that they conceived they did enough when they confined their attention solely to the management of the taxes entrusted to their care. This was a doctrine which he had taken a great deal of pains to overturn, having used many arguments to draw the boards of revenue out of the limited line which they had chalked out for themselves, by persuading them that they ought to carry their notions of duty somewhat farther, and to consider it incumbent upon them, not only to state when there were deficiencies in any tax, but to suggest such regulations as should appear to them to be most likely to cure the deficiencies and increase the produce of the tax in question. With regard to what the hon. gentleman had said of the points which called for regulation, his observations deserved serious attention; but they might be provided for in the committee. Mr. Lambton felt that he should be wanting in duty to himself and his consti the question under consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those who placed a kind of implicit confidence in his opinion, might be induced to say, that the opposition to this Bill arose purely from obstinacy; but those only would say this, who could oppose no other argument. The advantages could not be held out with any degree of certainty, but the danger of it could. If this mode chanced to succeed, what would follow? Why, that the whole of the revenue might and should be farmed. It would be easy to say, "Notorious frauds have been committed in this branch and that branch, without any specification: why therefore not farm them? See the success of this mode in the post-horse duty." Here the danger lay; he, therefore, wished to see that danger crushed in the bud. Precedents had been quoted to sanction this measure; every plausible argument which could possibly be urged in its favour had been adduced. Arguments, however, still stronger, had been applied against it, and he hoped they would have their due weight. the best writers on this subject, of whatever nation, were decidedly against the measure. Well known was the detestation in which the farmers-general of France were held; and could it be supposed that those who should contract for the present duty, would be held in less by a free people, who were willing to pay what their representatives imposed, without the additional circumstance of being urged, which seemed of all others so ungenerous, that he trusted it would be treated with the indignation it deserved. The preamble set forth notorious frauds; and yet the tax, in the very last quarter, was allowed to have increased 9,000l. Was not this a sufficient proof, that those notorious frauds were ideal, or at least dragged in to help out and varnish a measure of all others, perhaps, the most unconstitutional? Was this measure introduced merely to gratify that inordinate desire of innovation, that so invariably marked the present Administration? Some of those innovations already disgraced the journals of the House; the wisdom of Parliament had rejected others; and he now trusted that its wisdom would shine as conspicuously on the present occasion. In case of a decrease of revenue, from bad seasons in the West Indies, or other incidents equally plausible, the minister had nothing to do but to put up the other branches of the revenue to auction, and thus barter the unalienable privileges of the constitution. This mode, besides, went directly to increase the power of the Crown, which of all others the House should watch with a most jealous eye. Mr. Rose contended that the Bill neither introduced a new precedent, nor gave any new powers to any set of men whatsoever. With regard to the principle of farming the revenue, as practised in France, and the proposed plan of farming the Post-horse tax, no two matters could be more widely different. In France, the farmers-general were a body corporate, who held not merely the collection of the revenues in their hands, but a monopoly of the articles of revenue themselves. Whenever the king of that country wanted money, he applied to the farmers-general, as he could borrow of nobody else; but before the farmers-general would consent to lend him the sum he wanted, they generally proposed terms, and demanded certain powers to assist them in enforcing and swelling the collection of the new species of revenue on which the money was borrowed. The king being thus in the hands of the farmers-general, he was obliged to submit, and thence the subjects were so cruelly harassed and oppressed as they were, especially in the two principal articles of revenue, salt and tobacco. But the case proposed by the present Bill was exceedingly dissimilar. The tax to be collected was an ascertained sum, no more than which could on any pretence be levied; and it was paid by the traveller's leaving it behind him as he journied, in the hands of each innkeeper. With respect to the contract-holders having it in their power to vex and harass the innkeepers and the collectors, by frequently changing their mode of keeping their accounts, it was a mistake; for, by the clause in the Bill, they were only empowered to direct any such change to be made, with the consent of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Mr. Bastard insisted that the Bill set off upon very uncertain, though plausible, grounds; as the preamble stated, that notorious frauds had been committed, without specifying any one of those frauds. A committee for that purpose ought to have been appointed; for, as the frauds were acknowledged to be notorious, he did not see the difficulty of collecting and arranging them. No doubt, those who intended [VOL. XXVI.] to bid for this duty, must be masters, in a degree, of those notorious frauds. He, therefore, thought the House as well entitled to the knowledge of them as the purchaser. Besides, as this tax had increased 9,000l. in the course of the last year, why might it not increase in the succeeding year? Would it not, therefore, be better to postpone it, in order that the public might benefit by that increase? And this the rather, as they must have just the increase of the last year, if it had been farmed previous to that period. And that there was a prospect of increase, however temporary, was very visible. The treaty between us and France must of course increase the number of travellers. These circumstances, he thought, deserved attention.-By a clause in the Bill, he saw that those contractors were not to be deprived of their votes. This was the tree destined to bear the fruit which ministry were to pluck; but he hoped the House would blast that fruit in its bud. No man wished better to the legal increase of the revenue than he did. But this was only a secondary consideration. His opposition to the Bill arose from his attachment to the constitution, on which he did not like to see any experiments tried; and it was plain to the meanest capacity, that this was a measure foreign to the freedom of our independence. It was a measure entirely founded on despotism; and if one precedent gained ground, it paved the way for another. Executive Government, in adopting this measure, was giving up the power of redress, which was the last thing they should part with. Provided the subject was aggrieved, and complained, what could the House on such an occasion do? Why, nothing till the contract expired. The contractor knew this; he could triumph in the security of his bargain; he could enter the house of the subject, like Shylock, with a pair of scales in one hand, and a slaughtering knife in the other, to demand his bond and the penalty of his bond; and whither could the afflicted fly for redress? Not surely to those who had parted with that power, and who might repent it when it was too late.-One argument in favour of the shoptax had been, that it was an impost which found its way immediately into the Exchequer; but this argument could not apply to the present mode; the qualification of those contractors made no part of the Bill. No matter how bad their characters, provided they gave sufficient bail. He recol[3 X] lected an oriental observation, which came | heard any substantial objection to it. home to this point. The character of one Every gentleman who travelled much, must of the Indian contractors was acknowledged know that there were repeated evasions to be infamous. What was the excuse on of the tax, and that the traveller paid the that occasion? Why, the less humane, the duty, though it did not find its way to the fitter for the purpose. And who knew Exchequer. He should, therefore, support but that Gunga Govind Sing might here- the Bill; but if he thought it was at all after farm the imposts of Englishmen ? unconstitutional, no man would be a more He therefore trusted, that gentlemen determined opposer of it than himself. would feel as he felt on the occasion, and give proof of the same, in the rejection of a measure fraught with such unspeakable danger to all which Britons held dear. Mr. Powys said, that he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he wished very shortly to state to the House the reasons which induced him so to consent. He then pointed out the view which he had taken of the Bill, the manner in which it struck him, and the extent to which he was willing to go with it. He adverted to parts of it which he thought highly objectionable, and said that in the committee he would state his reasons for such alterations as he should propose, and expect to have adopted, before he could give his consent to the Bill. Mr. Addington defended the Bill: he said, that it did not alter or lay any new tax on the subject; it merely provided a new mode of collecting a tax which the public already paid, and it did not put it into the power of the farmers to oblige them to pay more. If it were a plan for generally farming the revenues, he declared that he should not support it, but it was a very different matter. He quoted M. Neckar, to show that that ingenious writer and able financier had declared it to be his opinion, that the subjects of this country could never be oppressed by taxes, or their mode of collection, in consequence of their being originally submitted to the judgment of Parliament, and discussed publicly in both Houses previous to their being declared to be law. Sir Richard Hill remarked that there ought to be more listeners than speakers, but that he felt himself constrained to break silence. He had been constrained by the arguments on the other side of the House to become a speaker. Those arguments were so strong that they had thoroughly convinced him. He begged leave to explain himself: they had operated upon his mind like a reflecting telescope, and convinced him that the reverse of the picture which they exhibited was the true picture of the Bill, and that it was a wise, an unexceptionable, and a good Bill. He observed, that in discussing its merits gentlemen had chosen to cry Fire! fire! the constitution is in danger!' and in order to quench the first spark which they saw likely to put the whole into a flame, all the water-plugs of patriotism were pulled up, and the buckets of opposition discharged upon it. He did not think that the Bill could be deemed an attack on the constitution in any sense of the words, nor could it be called a question deeply affecting Church and State; for he knew not that the Church had any thing to do with the Post-horse tax; nay, he believed there was a clause in the Act excepting every person who rode to church from paying it. With regard to the outcry against the Bill because the French farmed all their revenues, he thought they might as well say, that because the French king was an arbitrary and despotic prince, that all monarchy was bad; they might as well say, that if a Sir W. Molesworth supported the Bill, French papist, or any other papist, deand said that the plan would have this clared that he believed in God, and in the good effect; it would take the money immortality of the soul, that he (sir which went into the pocket of the post-Richard) ought to turn atheist and mamaster, who was a rogue, and convey it to the Exchequer. Mr. Martin said, there was nothing in the Bill which appeared to render it improper to go to a committee; but then he should wish that some parts of it might be amended. Mr. Rolle said, that he had listened attentively to all which had been urged respecting the Bill, and that he had not terialist. He took occasion to introduce the coalition, and said that was an innovation; but that the House seeing the badness of the precedent, had demolished it at its outset. The two individuals who formed that monster, had, he said, been two human beings with wonderful large craws. He remarked, that, as the farmers were to begin to bid at a higher sum than the collection had ever amounted to, the public must gain and could not lose; and that circumstance alone, therefore, proved that the Bill was wisely framed, and as to any thing which had been said against it, he never heard such a waste of words on any occasion whatsoever. Mr. Windham presumed the hon. baronet had thought that the dull and dry discussion of a serious constitutional question required to be interspersed with some entertainment, in like manner as they had often seen a serious drama followed by a person's coming forward to sing a laughable song, in order to relieve the minds of the auditors from gloomy thoughts; but the hon. baronet had not taken care that his interlude should possess as much novelty as was usual on such occasions; since, if he had not quite erred in point of recollection, he had heard some of the same witty allusions before, and had read others in common newspapers. In some places, also, the hon. baronet's malice seemed to have outrun his wit; for to what else could be imputed his introduction of a well-known political event, to which the question bore not the smallest connexion? The motive, therefore, was so evident, that it could scarcely be mistaken; and, indeed, it seemed merely for the sake of that single point that the hon. baronet had risen; for he had not said one word to the Bill which looked either like argument or originality. -Mr. Windham then proceeded to prove, that even if it were true, that the revenue might receive an increase of the product of the tax, yet it might happen that we gave too much for that surplus. He illustrated this by saying, that if the largest collection of the tax had produced 100,000l. and the farmers consented to give 105,000/., yet if they by an enforced collection obtained 110, or 115,000l. we cleatly gave away 5 or 10,000l., and the public paid the whole. He contended, that it was the duty of Government to try, by apt and proper regulations, to keep the collection in their own hands, and not put it in the power of grinding farmers of the revenue to make large fortunes at the public expence. He mentioned also the bad precedent which the Bill would establish.. The Attorney General said, that the post-horse tax, from its peculiar constitution, was perhaps the single tax to which the principle of farming could be clearly and effectually applied. Most, if not all the other taxes, had something in them which made it almost impossible that they should be farmed at all. So far was he from being a friend to the idea of putting the whole revenue to farm, that if ever such an attempt was made, he would resist it with all the opposition in his power. With regard to the existence of the frauds which formed the ground of necessity for the measure, it was notorious, and that to a-most enormous degree. He denied that the measure was any innovation. The farming of the cross-road letters by Mr. Allen was a case in point; for the Legislature in that case, though they had not expressly authorised it, never met it with their reprobation. He gave the House an account of the adoption of that measure, and said that, at the time the Crown enjoyed its hereditary revenues, the revenue of the Post-office was held by George 1, for life. When the scheme of farming the cross-road posts was in contemplation, a case was submitted to the Crown lawyers, in order to learn their opinions whether the King could sign a lease of a part of the Post-office revenue? The lawyers answered, that he might, provided the lease terminated with his life; and accordingly the Cross-posts were let to Mr. Allen, and no complaint of injustice, oppression, or breach of the constitution, was ever heard. Viscount Maitland said, that the side of the House on which he stood were combating a dangerous principle, on a broad constitutional basis; and they defied the other side to argue for it upon the same foundation. Sir James Johnstone declared his good opinion of the Bill, and, to prove that it was neither an innovation nor a new precedent, he reminded the House, that formerly all the revenue was farmed in Scotland; and that at this day the revenue was farmed in Holland, and, he had been told, in Sicily. Mr. Drake said, that the tax was unexceptionable, and collected with great ease. He signified his intention to move in the Committee to make the contracts annual. Sir Benjamin Hammet was against the principle of farming a tax; but observed, that unless it was proved that the collection could be secured, so as that the whole of what the public paid went into the Exchequer by other means, he should vote for the Bill, as an experimental bill. Mr. Fox was of opinion, that the words innovation and precedent were too often misapplied in that House, and for that reason he was an enemy to the Bill; because, knowing as he did, what use was made of it in that House, after having been once received, he was always extremely cautious in suffering a precedent to be established. So sure was he that the precedent of farming the revenue ought not, in the case under consideration to be established, that, should the Bill be carried to a committee, he would leave that committee to itself, hoping and trusting that the committee would make the Bill so exceptionable, and so defective, that it would produce no revenue at all. He said, that the principle of farming any part of the revenue was a principle pernicious in the extreme, and such as ought never to be introduced but in a case of the most urgent necessity. He instanced the origin of the Excise, which had been founded on undeniable necessity. He compared the principles of the Bill with those of his own India Bill, and contended, that in respect to the increase of the influence of the Crown, in the creation of new dependents, they were similar; with this difference, however, that the persons appointed under his Bill were subject to the control of Parliament; whereas those appointed under this Bill were subject to no such control. He asked, what could have induced the minister to alter the mode of collection? At present it was the interest of the collector to increase the produce of the tax, because he in proportion increased his own profits. For every shilling which the collector got, the revenue received ten. Why, then, should a middle man be called in to make a fortune at the public expense? Mr. Grenville contended, that the farming of the turnpikes under a general Act of Parliament was an unanswerable precedent for the present Bill, and that the letting the cross-posts to Mr. Allen was a strong collateral confirmation of that precedent. He remarked, that although the Post-horse tax might be farmed, yet the apprehensions that other articles of revenue might be farmed likewise, were idle and ill-founded. There scarcely was an article to which the principle of farming could be applied, excepting the Post-horse tax. Essential was the distinction between the appointments under Mr. Fox's India Bill and those under the present Bill; they were by no means analogous. With respect to the present collectors having an interest in making their collection as large as possible, it was true; but if they were dishonest men, and heeded not their oaths, instead of taking the one shilling out of ten, they might sink the whole ten. Alderman Townsend observed, that it was agreed on all hands that the Bill was an innovation, and every innovation ought to be grounded on an established necessity: no such necessity had in the present case been established, and that for the best reason, because no such existed. The deficiency in the produce had arisen in consequence of frauds; but the prosecutions, a year ago, had greatly reduced the deficiency. 95. The House divided; Yeas 162: Noes Debate in the Commons on the Prince of Wales's Debts.] April 27. Mr. Alderman Newnham begged leave to remind the House, that he had lately given what he deemed a satisfactory answer in explanation of the motion which he intended to make respecting the affairs of his royal highness the Prince of Wales. He assured the minister that he need entertain no apprehensions of its being productive of any of those disagreeable effects which he so much deprecated; for it was as much his intention as it was his duty to make such observations as he intended to offer, with the most perfect respect and attention to his Majesty; and in so doing, he was perfectly convinced that he should act most to the advantage of the cause, and most consonant to the wishes of the royal personage who was the object of the motion. He was sorry that his motion had not been anticipated by persons in office, to whose duty he thought it most peculiarly belonged; but, understanding that there was no prospect of any proposal from that quarter, he thought that it behoved him, feeling as he did for the honour of the country and the embarrassment of the Heir Apparent, not to be wanting on his part to contribute towards extricating him as soon as possible. In order, then, to explain the object of his motion, so that no mistake might be made, he intended that it should run somewhat to the following purport, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to take into his royal consideration the present embarrassed state of the affairs of his royal highness the Prince of Wales, and to grant him such relief as his royal wisdom should think fit, and that the House would make good the same." Mr. Rolle said, that he felt much con |