Mr. Hutchinson, from the bank, presented an account of all notes of the bank of England, including bank post bills, in circulation from Feb. 1, 1805, to Feb, 1 1806, distinguishing each quarter,—On the motion of sir J. Newport, the report on the Irish butter bill, was taken into further consideration, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.—Mr. Francis rose, in contemplation of the debate likely to come on to-morrow, on the Nabob of Arcot's Creditor's bill, to recommend to the attention of gentlemen the correspondence of a Mr. Darke, contained in the second volume of Carnatic papers, as containing much information on the subject.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the Excise-Office Regulation bill, and the Post-Office Regulation bill, were read a 2d time, and ordered to a committee of the whole house on Friday se'nnight.—Mr. Vansittart moved, that there be laid before the house an Account of the quantity, of Malt,charged with duty in England, for the last ,two years, ending in 1806; and a similar account for Scotland: also, an Account of the quantity of Strong Beer brewed in England, from 1799, to 1805, and the same for Scotland: also, an Account of the number of barrels of. Strong Beer and Table Beer, brewed with, in the district of the excise-office for the last ten years. The accounts were then ordered, and immediately brought up by Mr. Vansittart, and laid on the table.—A message from the lords acquainted the house that the lords had agreed to the Mutiny Continuation bill, the Irish Treasury Bills bill, and Irish Loan bill, without any amendment.—Mr. Bankes said, that in the two last sessions of parliament, the house had exercised a very becoming liberality towards that national institution, the British Museum. In consequence of this, considerable additions had been made to the buildings of the Museum, and to the antiquities deposited there. He therefore moved that a committee be appointed to examine the state of the buildings erected for the reception of Egyptian and other antiquities, and to report to the house on the same. Agreed to.

stated, that this bill for regulating the intercourse of our West-India colonies with America, had been sent down from the lords in such a shape as to prevent its being entertained by the house. He should therefore now propose, that it be read a first time, pro formâ, with the design of bringing in another bill in its room, not liable to the same objections.—The bill was then read a first time, and, on the motion of lord Temple, ordered to be read a second time on that day three months. The noble lord then moved for leave to bring in a bill for similar purposes, and also that this motion be referred to the consideration of a committee of the whole house.

said, that he considered the proposed bill as of the highest importance with regard to its effects on the commerce and navigation of the country. He looked upon it as neither more nor less than a repeal of the navigation act. It was a matter highly interesting to the mercantile interest; and he trusted that sufficient time would be allowed them to consider it, and oppose it, if they Should think proper. He implored ministers not to adopt such a measure without proper enquiry.

replied, that he had no objection to, any delay being allowed that might seem reasonable; and after a few words from lord H. Petty, the motion for leave to bring in a new bill on the subject was ordered to be referred to a committee of the whole house the next day.

The report on the Tortola Free-Port bill was then taken into farther consideration.

observed, that the difficulty attending this bill lay in ascertaining the precise quantity of sugar which should be allowed to be imported from Tortola into this country. He had considered the objections of the right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Rose) on this head, and had endeavoured to retrieve them by several amendments, which he should propose. He then moved that the bill be now recommitted.—The house then resolved itself into a committee; when

repeated his former and added, he could see no reason for the bill; but the noble lord had made a blunder, and did not like to give up the bill; lest it should be discovered. If the noble lord would give a single good reason for the he would no more open his lips about it.

said, the right hon. gent. was mistaken; he had made no blunder, and as to his motive, he could have but One, the currying into effect a. measure which justice and equity required. The ground on which he proposed the bill was to make British merchants vest their capital in Tortola, which they now do in the neutral island of St. Thomas.

said, this bill, or a similar one had been in force for 3 years, and the merchants knew it produced no effect at all. The noble lord had Certainly Mistaken the object of his own bill.

said, the bill had been repealed early in the third year, and taking the time before it operated, it had been in operation no more than one year.

insisted it had been in force three complete seasons, and if now passed into a law, might have the effect of bringing into this country an incalculable quantity of foreign sugars.—After a few observations from Mr. Vansittart, and Mr. Perceval, the clause was agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.

moved for leave to bring in a bill for regulating the revenue of customs and excise in Ireland. To shew the necessity of this Measure, he stated that the Customs and excise were still under the management of the same number of commissioners that had been appointed in 1704, when they produced only 284,000l., while their present Produce might be estimated at 3,500,006l. The different boards had been found insufficient to transact the necessary business With the same accuracy as in this country, and their various departnients Were not sufficiently subdivided. This had arisen from the multiplicity of the business, compared with the smallness of their number. It was also proposed to commit the trial of revenue causes to the commissioners, which would still further increase their labours. It was, therefore, intended that some addition to their number should be made. The motion was then agreed to.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Irish Additional Force act. He observed that the act, as far as it respected this country, having been repealed, after it very full discussion, it would not be necessary for him to say much on the subject; but it might be asserted with truth, that all the objections to the act, as applicable to this country, applied with additional weight to the case of Ireland. There, parochial aid could not be generally had recourse to, many parishes there were no parish officers whatever. Accordingly the practice of raising men by bounties, which the act was designed to prevent, was almost universally followed. In some parts of the country, the quota of men were raised by individuals employed for the purpose, who received a premium at so much per head. Very great difficulties also had arisen in raising the penalties under the act; and upon the whole, the general objections to the act applied to Ireland even more strongly than they did to this country.—Leave was then granted accordingly.

moved the order of the day for the house to resolve into a committee of ways and means. The noble lord then rose, for the purpose of bringing forward the tax he meant to propose in lieu of the duty which had been abandoned on Pig-Iron. He said it would be in the recollection of the house, that not many days since he had proposed to defer the further proceedings in the committee of ways and means, for the purpose of devising some tax less objectionable to the house, and to the great body of the country, than that upon Pig-Iron, which he had been induced, in compliance with the prevailing sentiment, to decline. He now, therefore, rose to propose, in lieu of that tax, a substitute, which he hoped would prove more acceptable. He considered it properly ma substitute, because it would fall principally upon one article, and one to which he thought the least objection was likely to arise, in providing for the pressing exigencies of the country. Notwithstanding the popular error, that the luxuries of the wealthy were the fittest objects of taxation under such exigency, yet it was a fact incontrovertible, that the produce of taxes upon such luxuries would be so very small, as to prove rather harassing than lucrative, and therefore it became his duty to look to one more connected with general consumption, and, of course, more likely to be efficient. On giving an attentive consideration to those objects, which promised to be productive, .and were likely to fall the lightest upon those who were to be immediately subject to the impost, he considered Private brewing as one of the fairest that presented themselves for adoption. The private brewer, notwithstanding that he paid the duty on malt, had still considerable advantage over the public brewer, and all the consumers of the liquor he produced. Private brewing was carried on to such an extent, and produced so great a saving to the individuals who adopted it, for the supply of their families, that it greatly lessened the consumption of ether beverage, the duties on which would add considerably to the public revenue; he therefore conceived the country, under its present circumstances, had a right to look to the private brewer as a fair subject of taxation, and to bear his part in the public burthens: but at the same time, the tax he proposed to lay would be so moderate as still to leave the object of it in possession of considerable advantages over the public brewer. With regard to the produce to be computed from this tax, it was difficult to obtain any precise data upon which to calculate with exactness but taking the best be could find, namely, the whole quantity of malt charged with the malt duties, and deducting from that the quantity which appeared from an average of returns to be consumed by the common brewer and distiller, the remainder would afford a tolerable criterion of what the private brewers consumed. The whole quantity of malt, then, charged with the duties upon an average of the last few years, was about three millions of quarters annually, of which it appeared that the public brewers did not consume more than two millions: of the remaining million it was extremely difficult to ascertain what proportion was consumed by the distilleries. It appeared, however, from enquiries made during the last scarcity, that the average consumption of the distillers was about 250,000 quarters; so that the remaining 750,000 quarters appeared to be the consumption of the private brewer, which, rated in the scale he was about to propose, would produce about 500.,000l., a sum adequate to that at which he had estimated the tax upon pig-iron. The scale of taxation was estimated from the most reasonable calculation upon the probable consumption of each family, and their respective rank and abilities in life; but, undoubtedly, as it was the farthest wish from his mind to expose the private brewer to any obtrusion of the excise officer into his family, he would shape the tax in such a way as to enable every man, by paying a fair and reasonable commutation, to avoid a necessity so obnoxious. The tax would be assessed upon a scale of proportion with the other assessed taxes: upon the higher orders according to the number of carriages and servants; and upon the lower in proportion to their rank in life, and the number of individuals who composed their families, upon the following scale, viz. 1. Every family paying the duty on a four-wheeled carriage, and one male servant, to pay a commutation for every male in such family, 1l. 1s. 2l. For every female, 10s. 6d. 3. Families, not paying for a four-wheeled carriage, but assessed for one male servant, to pay for each male, 15s.; every female, 7s. 6d. 3. Families not assessed for a male servant, but paying the assessed taxes; for every male, 10s.; every female, 5s. 4. Persons only paying the lowest order of assessed taxes, and charged with the window tax; males, 5s.; females, 2s. 6d.; all children under ten years old excepted, and also all the lower orders of the labouring poor, and all persons not paying assessed taxes, and who may choose to brew for themselves, to be exempt; for no person but the private brewer would have any part of the charge to bear. The whole produce he estimated to amount to a net revenue of 500,000l. Having thus briefly stated the tax he had to propose, he begged leave to observe, that, as nothing was more repugnant to his wish, than that it should become necessary to collect the tax in the way of excise, he hoped that all persons who were averse to the exciseman's visits, would avail themselves of the modification he proposed, and by delivering in their lists, according to the foregoing scale, enable the collector to ascertain their respective. proportions without farther, trouble to themselves. He begged leave to repeat than notwithstanding. what might be considered a fair impost upon the private brewer, he would still have many advantages over the public one, and possess a great degree of comfort in the means of supplying his family with a wholesome and cheering beverage, considerably cheaper than he could purchase of the public brewer or retailer. The noble lord felt still more happy that the class of labouring poor would be altogether exempt from the tax; and concluded by moving, that there be laid upon every barrel of ale or strong beer brewed by private families, above the value of 16s., an excise duty of 10s. to be paid by the person so brewing, except such person as should pay a commutation licence-duty upon the scale before-mentioned.

said, he did not rise to make any opposition to this tax, which originated in the suggestion of his right hon. friend, now no more, (Mr. Pitt,) who, however, intended to make an exemption in favour of farmers, who were in general under the necessity of brewing a considerable quantity of beer, in harvest time only. He wished to know if any such exemption was now in contemplation?

objected to the principle of the tax, as, if the precedent was adopted of obliging people to take out a licence for brewing, it might afterwards be extended to baking, boiling, and roasting. It would be a hardship on the landed interest, as country gentlemen were under the necessity of brewing their own beer, being out of the reach of the common brewer. The effect of the tax would be, to bid adieu to old English hospitality in the country. It was, in fact, another malt tax.

could not agree with the hon baronet who spoke last, but he did not see the use of giving this option of compounding with the commissioners.

was in favour of the composition, for the sake of keeping the exciseman out of private houses.

said, that as those made a return with the assessed taxes, would not be subjected to the excise, this would be a powerful inducement to them to come forward and compound in the first instance.

wished to know what deduction had been allowed in the calculation for those who paid no assessed taxes, and therefore were not liable to this tax? He adverted to the cases of persons who resided a great part of the year in town, and were supplied by the public brewer, but, after returning to the country, were obliged to brew their own beer. As the master now stood, these must, in many instances, pay at the highest rate of composition for the whole year, or be subject to the excise.

could not believe that the hon. baronet was in earnest when he spoke of the hardship which this tax would bring on the lauded gentlemen. In the present state of the country, it was not to be expected that they should be allowed to have their beer at a rate so much lower than that of the labourer, who was forced to apply to the public brewer, and at present paid one penny a quart more than they did. There ought not to be such an inequality between the rich and the poor, in our present circumstances. This was not a new thing, for there was a tax of much the same nature in the time of lord North, when a deduction was allowed to the public brewer; so that this was only a new application of an old principle. As to the difficulties attending the collection of the tax, they might be done away. It might be laid on the malt, and then every one might do as he pleased; but, as to the ex- cise, it was, he knew, attended with no inconvenience on the public breweries, where all was fair and open. He highly approved of the tax, and would give every assistance in his power in its preparation and execution.

wished the noble lord would consider whether the excise might not be put out of the question, by imposing penalties, as in the case of the assessed taxes. He wished to know the grounds of the calculation respecting the amount to be deducted for the cottagers who did not pay.

said he had already stated the difficulty of finding correct data in this case. He had taken the duty on malt, however; and as to the beer brewed by the cottagers, it would be so weak that a great quantity of malt need not be here calculated upon. He thought there could be no harm in allowing the option, as the mode of the assessed taxes would naturally be preferred. But, in a few instances, the excise would be an accommodation, such as in the cases of those who resided but a short time in the country, and might not, therefore, choose to compound. As to the suggestion of the hon. baronet respecting some domestic comforts, we were already come to a state when that ought to be no ground of objection. What were all the assessed taxes, but interferences with domestic comforts? What were the taxes on servants? And even as far buck as the reign of George II., a tax was imposed for the privilege of making candles by private families for their own use. Those who compounded might make any use of their licence which they pleased, without any farther trouble.

thought the noble lord had calculated the product of the tax greatly beyond its reality; for, even admitting his own scale of the consumption of malt by the breweries and distilleries to be correct, still, of the remaining 750,000 quarters, a very great proportion must be consumed by poor families, whom it was the avowed purpose of the noble lord to exempt from the tax altogether.

still thought that the excise ought to be avoided. He objected, however, to have the tax laid on the malt, and stated that frauds might be committed by persons brewing in one year, what might serve them for two or three.

reprobated the disposition manifested by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), and those who supported him, for the conduct they uniformly manifested towards the noble lord and his colleagues, to whom they had boasted of having resigned "a bed of roses;" but to whom, in fact, they had left nothing but embarrassment and almost insurmountable difficulty. Every measure which the present ministers proposed for extricating the country from its difficulties, met with nothing but captious objections, and vexatious opposition, from their predecessors. As to the proposition now before the house, he hoped the noble lord would see it better to limit it entirely to a licence, than to put it at all under the excise. One objection he had to the bill, in so far as it was a tax on the apparent wealth of the person consuming, and not on the consumption of the article.

said, he did not think he deserved the rebuke of the learned doctor, who had, in fact, found more fault with the new duty than he did. He accused the present minister of making up a great part of his budget from the objectionable taxes which his predecessor rejected, having many more eligible taxes in reserve.

said, he only alluded to what had fallen from the hon. gent, on the present occasion, as affording a specimen of the pleasantness of that "bed of roses," to which his right hon. friends had succeeded, and that the duty they had to go through was perfectly easy!

remarked, that the duty might easily be collected under the assessed taxes, without at all coming under the excise. An hon. bart. (sir R. Buxton) had said the tax would fall peculiarly heavy on the country gentlemen. If so, they had, for many years, had an advantage over the persons residing in great towns, and this would only be restoring things to their proper balance. He hoped, too, the noble lord would turn his attention to the cyder counties, and not allow them to escape. He thought the tax, in effect, would operate as a tax on female servants; but since a tax on the home made beverage of private families was to be laid, he thought the inhabitants of the cyder counties, who substituted that beverage, almost totally to the exclusion of malt-liquor, should be subjected to a licence also.

thought the advantage of the private over the common brewer, to be over-rated, as the latter went more cheaply to work, on account of superior machinery.

said, that as to the sug- gestion regarding cyder, he assured the house he did not refrain from a tax on that article from any peculiar favour to the cyder counties. On the contrary, he saw no objection to a small duty on it by way of licence. He agreed in the hardship which it might be to make those farmers who only brewed in time of harvest, take out a licence to the same amount as if they brewed their beer all the year round. This might be remedied by limiting the sum so to be paid by them to a composition during the autumn months.

objected to the tax on the cyder counties, and also to that sort of criterion of gentlemen's circumstances that was to be drawn from their keeping a carriage, which, to many men of small incomes, was frequently more a matter of mere convenience than of luxury. He considered this to be a tax on female servants. He suggested, as a better succedaneum of revenue than the beverage of poor families, the race of strapping six-feet men-milliners, who crowded the shops of the metropolis.

replied, that females were no more taxed by this measure, than for the beer they drank; and if it was any pleasure to him, the hon. bart. might be assured. that the strapping six-feet men-milliners were as much subject to this tax as any other persons.

saw no reason why cyder should escape. He hoped, however, that the malt which grew in Scotland, a part of the country which was increasing in prosperity more than any other, would undergo a more regular rate of taxation. He maintained, that from the hospitality shewn in the country more than prevailed in London, the tax would operate with double severity on those who resided there. In one instance, however, be hoped it would be attended with good consequences —in repressing contested elections.

replied, that if the hon. gent. was disposed to be so very hospitable, he had only to take out the licence, and then be might be as hospitable as he pleased.

thought the tax would, to all intents and purposes, be a tax on female servants, to which he was decidedly averse; better, infinitely, to tax those worthless animals, called men-milliners, to whom the hon. bart. had so properly alluded.

replied, that this was no more to be called a tax on female servants, than a tax on gloves would be.

said, that, fond as he was of home-made beer, sooner than be subject to the excise, he would give tip his brewery. He should prefer, instead of the option, to have a direct licence, in the same manner as for killing game.

supported the measure, observing, that this was not a compulsory introduction of the excise, and if a man preferred it, he had no hardship to complain of. He also wished the tax not to be upon the malt in the first intance, as that would exempt the poor from the operation of it.

approved of the tax, which, he said he had himself suggested to the treasury last year. He preferred a licence, without an alternative, and thought the cyder counties should pay their proportion to the duty.

said, he had not the slightest objection to the tax proposed by the noble lord, so far as it affected himself, and should cheerfully submit to it—[a laugh]. But he would not go quite so far on the behalf of his constituents at Stafford, many of whom were poor, but honest, industrious men, who were in the habit of brewing a little ale for their own families: they certainly brewed a very good sort, and he must do them the justice to say, that they did ample justice to their own brewing. He therefore could have wished the noble lord had commenced his scale of this tax a little higher in society. With respect to what had been said of females who might be affected by this tax, he heartily concurred in opinion with those gentlemen who had spoken on the subject. He would go even farther, and recommend, that not only men milliners, but all men who held situations in shops, which females could occupy, should be taxed. He then adverted to what had been stated by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), that the budget was made up of the rejected taxes of the late minister, whom he represented as having a number of faultless and unobjectionable taxes in reserve, and thought it would shew a much greater zeal for the public service, if, instead of coming to the house with objections to every measure proposed, under exigencies, which they themselves had created, that right hon. gent. and his friends would disclose to the house, and his majesty's present servants, some of those unobjectionable and eligible taxes, which they so well knew the late minister to have in reserve.

wished, that the time for carrying the tax into effect, might be carried beyond the harvest time. He only threw this out for the consideration of the noble lord, knowing that it would be a very great Advantage to farmers, and, in fact, what they were entitled to.

disapproved of the measure. He did not like the excise hanging over us in terrorem as to what we were doing in our private houses. Might not compositions be carried such a length as to make it a doubtful thing whether they or the exicse itself were preferable?

argued, that the principle of the measure had been recognised in the very best of times. During the reign of queen Anne, the making of malt for private use, was allowed to be compounded; and during the reign of George II. a similar rule was allowed as to candles. These were now done away, but the principle was the same as that now proposed.—The different resolutions were then put and agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.

brought up the report of the bill for making a further provision for the family of lord Nelson. On the report being read,

observed, that the country had, by its liberality to the family of the deceased hero, evinced the respect and gratitude, which were justly due to his memory. He trusted, therefore, that neither the magnanimity of that illustrious man, nor the generosity of the empire, would be forgotten by those who were to receive profits and honours on account of the service which the immortal Nelson had performed. He would not then particularise any thing, though his object must occur to many members in the house; he hoped the representative of that family would also shew some degree of generosity, and comply with the wish expressed by the illustrious founder of the family in his last moments.—The resolutions were then read and agreed to.

moved the order of the day for taking into further consideration the report of the Property Duty bill. On the reading of the amendments,

proposed a new clause, for the relief of persons insuring their lives, or the lives of their wives, and providing that, in all such cases, where the income of the party shall be less than 150l. per an- num, the amount of the annual premium maid on the insurance shall be deducted from the amount of income to be assessed.

expressed his satisfaction to find his suggestions at all attended to, but thought that the abatement had been limited to so low a rate of income, as would render it almost nugatory. Persons whose incomes were less than 150l. a year, were least likely to effect an insurance on their lives, and according to the clause which he had himself prepared to propose, the scale of abatement would extend to persons enjoying 1000l. per annum.—Mr. Vansittart and lord II. Petty said, that the allowance was intended only to relieve those who, having small salaries, effected insurances on their lives, as the only means of providing for their families in case of their death. Persons of more considerable incomes could not need the abatement.— After a few observations from Mr. Fuller, Mr. Spencer Stanhope, Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Babington, the clause was agreed to.

then introduced a clause for granting allowances to persons having children, and moved, that "for every child, born in wedlock, of the persons whose annual income or profits shall be under 400l., a deduction of 5l. per cent. shall be allowed for every such child; and where the income of the person shall amount to 400l. and not exceed 1000l., a deduction of 4l. per cent. for every child."

perfectly agreed with the hon. gent. in the necessity of the clause, and thought that it even did not go far enough. The father of a large family paid taxes in numberless ways that others were exempted from. He wore several pair of shoes a-day, whilst the nobleman, who had no children, only wore one pair, and therefore some indulgence was certainly due.

rose and said: I am sorry the noble lord and the right hon. gent. have left it to my hon. friend to introduce a clause of this nature, as I really think their inflexibility on the point must have a direct tendency to bring into hazard the general success of the measure: that it should succeed, must be equally the wish of all; for the object of the bill is neither more nor less than the furnishing the means of protecting the country against time most serious dangers it ever had to encounter. The public are aware of these dangers, and that great efforts, and of course great expences, must be necessary to meet them. I really believe, too, that they feel an assurance that whatever can be accomplished by great talents, and equal heart and firmness, will be done to extricate us from our present difficulties, and accelerate the event which can alone relieve us from the additional burthens now so indispensably necessary. I have no doubt, therefore, that the public will cheerfully bear even this heavy addition to the Property, or Income tax, provided only they see in the distribution of it the just, fundamental principle preserved of making it, as far as practicable, fall upon every man in proportion to his ability to bear it. It is therefore with the greater concern that I observe in the present bill so manifest a departure from that principle, as the withdrawing of all abatements on account of children, which excludes from indulgence the very persons who, of all others in the community, have the most irresistible claim to it; namely, persons of small, or very moderate incomes and large families, whose contribution is raised at once to 10 per cent., and who are at the same time deprived of all the abatements which it had been thought just to allow them, even when the contribution was only 6¼ per cent. Is it possible that the noble lord and the right hon. gent. can have adverted to the serious change which these two alterations, combined with the extension of the contribution of 10 per cent. to incomes of 130l. per annum, will produce in the situations of the persons I have described? that those who have moderate families will pay twice as much; that many will pay 3 times, and some 4 or 5 times as much as they did under the former bill. In a word, sir, that this bill will operate with the greater rigour in proportion to their respective claims to indulgence. Sir, on the first discussion of this subject, some nice reasoning was employed to discriminate between feeling and justice; but in my opinion the withdrawing the abatements in question, whether it be examined on one of those principles or on the other, must be equally condemned. To me, sir, it seems that men's feelings will revolt at it, because of its injustice. I submit it to the house, as an incontrovertible position, that the man who has a wife and a large family of children, and an income of 100, or train 100 to 4 or 500l. per annum, is less able to pay this tax than a bachelor who has half that income: if this a correct position, is it just that he could be called upon to pay twice as inch? that, obliged to share that income with 10 or 12 persons, he should be placed on the same footing with him who has only himself to maintain? If the justice of such an operation of the bill can be contended for, then the principle which I set out with, namely, that this heavy additional burthen should be laid on every one in proportion to his ability to bear it, falls to the ground. Now, sir, the argument of the noble lord or refusing to admit any abatements on account of children, was to my mind by no means satisfactory: it amounted I think to this, that if, instead of a property tax, the same sum was to be raised by taxing consumption, or by the ordinary mode of taxation, it would fall as heavy on the persons in question—that no abatement would be operated for children. I wonder it should have escaped the noble lord's observation, that this argument would equally apply against the abatements which he has allowed to persons whose incomes are under 150l., and the entire exemption where the income is under 50l. per annum. It seems to me, too, that this argument overlooks two serious facts: 1st, that there must be limits to that principle or mode of taxation, beyond which we cannot go, nor wisely attempt to go; and 2dly, that we had arrived at those limits; or were rapidly approaching them, before a tax on income was resorted to; but this argument appears to me to proceed on a mistake in another view of it, and not to be borne out by fact. For, supposing no Income bill, the taxes you might impose instead of it, except in so far as they were laid on the actual necessaries of life, would not of necessity attach to the persons in question. A parent, by submitting, as thousands would, to privations for the sake of his children, might entirely avoid them. For example, the man of 150 or 200l. per annum, and 8 or 10 children, what taxes could you impose that would draw from him 15 or 201.? If you tax wine, he can resort to beer; if malt, to water; if further taxes on horses, or on men-servants, he can part with his horse and his man servant; so for every other article he can create an abatement for his children, by contracting or resigning his other enjoyments. But, it you take 15 or 20l. from his income, you leave to him no option. You neither allow him an abatement for his children, nor leave it in his power to provide one by pinching himself. But, it is admitted, that the tax should not operate upon any one so deeply as to trench upon or abridge him, or of course his children, of the necessaries of life; but in very many cases it will be both a difficult and delicate and ungracious task to define with precision the necessaries of life. That which to one person is a necessary of life, or become a comfort absolutely necessary, is to another a superfluity. But, taking the words in their strictest or most literal sense, I think the noble lord cannot be prepared to say, that he who has a wife and 8 or 10 children to maintain on 150l., can pay 15 out of it, besides all the other taxes, without trenching on the necessaries of life. An hon. bart. whom I heard with much satisfaction the other evening on this subject, pointed out the hardship the withdrawing these abatements would operate on persons of small estates in land; but how much greater will be the hardship on persons of small life incomes; and how much greater yet where the income is not only small, but is derived solely from the owner's industry or genius, and its continuance depends on the continuance of his bodily strength or mental faculties? The contrast between the latter, and the man of landed estate, under the operation of the principle of this bill, must unavoidably be very strong; but if you take away the abatements for children, you make it intolerable. The man whose estate or capital is in land, if he finds himself unable to pay the tax this year, can raise as much as he wants on the income of future years; but he whose income is earned by the sweat of his brow, who knows not that he shall have health or eye-sight to earn a farthing next year, what is he to do? If he should be straitened for the means of supplying the wants of a numerous family, who will advance, or lend him on his capital of industry or genius? Even the person who has an income for life, or an annuity for a term, and 10 or 12 children, may pay, as the bill now stands, twice as much to this tax as a person of twice his fortune or capital, and who has no child. I do not say it would be practicable to equalise the tax in this view of it, and make it strictly a tax on property, but I contend that such a case as I have just stated, ought not to be possible; and it can only be rendered possible in all its extent by withdrawing the abatements on account of children: you cannot entirely remove the inequality, but you are bound to reduce it. as far as practicable.—Sir, it seems to me that there is one single consideration which should be sufficient to prevent the withdrawing the abatements for children, at least of persons whose incomes are only for life, or derived from industry; namely, that from many this tax will in consequence take the 15 or 20l. that was before applied to the ensuring their families from want, after they shall have been taken from them, and oblige them to apply it to preserve them from the same fate in their life-time. One of the noble lord's arguments against allowing any abatements for children was, that it would operate as a tax on bachelors. Now, sir, admitting the fact to be so, the considerations of justice and feeling remain the same; but I fear this argument will not be understood; what is more obvious, and will be more felt is, that it will operate as a premium for celibacy, and as a penalty almost amounting to a prohibition against marriage. Now, sir, the only reasons I have heard for withdrawing these abatements, are, 1st, the difficulty of ascertaining and adjusting them; and, 2dly, the inconsiderable number of persons who have claimed and received these abatements. To the last, I answer, that it is a reason that should operate against withdrawing these abatements; for, does it not tend to shew, that the few who have claimed them, have done so from absolute necessity, and are persons who will not now be able to pay the tax? What, then, will be gained by taking these abatements form all indiscriminately, and making the man who has a dozen children, pay 10l. from his 100l. equally with him who has only himself to maintain? And, as to the difficulty of ascertaining or obtaining the abatements, if justice and reason require that they should be allowed, is it possible that such a plea can be admitted for a single moment? Such a method of getting rid of a difficulty, is indeed the shortest that could be devised, but it is one that would rather be expected, where there is less ability to meet difficulties, than is possessed by the noble lord. But will it meet the difficulties on the other side—the odium and discontents which the withdrawing these abatements must excite, and the disadvantageous comparisons between the noble lord's plan and that of his predecessor? I am so strongly of the opposite opinion, that I can assure the noble lord that, if I were unfriendly to the bill, and wished it not to succeed, I should think the readiest way to accomplish that object, would be to let it go out with this imperfection on its head.

expressed his disapprobation of the proposed exemption, on the ground of general policy. For three years, exemptions had been tried under the former acts, and were uniformly found to defeat themselves and the operation of the tax. In some districts, the duty for 1803 was not even yet collected, nor were the assessments made; and the answer to enquiries into the cause of this delay was, that the commissioners had so many appeals to hear, so many claims of exemption to investigate, and experienced such difficulty to understand the clauses, that it was impossible to proceed faster. How extremely desirable it was, then, to simplify, by broad and general enactments, the operation of the act, would be obvious to the house. A man of 200l. a year, with 2 children, would, by the exemption proposed, be entitled to a drawback of 10l., and thus the produce of the tax would be totally defeated.

argued in favour of the exemption.

also ably supported the clause. The 10l. which would be saved by it to the man of 200l. a year, with a family, were almost ten drops of his heart's blood. To a person without a family, it was comparatively no object. If, as was often the case, a man married, possessing what he saw would be just means enough on which to support a family, would the house, by taking any thing from him like what this tax would go to deprive him of, at once mar his calculations, and ruin his hopes? There were some improvements in the present bill, as far as it was less inquisitorial than the Income tax, which had preceded it, in not obtaining a disclosure of the whole circumstances of the subject, except in case of exemptions; but the curtailment of the allowances, particularly as far as regarded children, he thought extremely oppressive. We ought not to give up all considerations of justice and humanity, merely for the sake of making a new tax simple or productive. The hon. mover came forward as the advocate of a meritorious part of the community; but in opposing it, he considered himself the advocate of the community itself. The hon. gent. then contended, that though in theory this exemption seemed desireable, yet, as in practice not one-half of those persons entitled claimed before the commissioners, it was not of such general service as was imagined.

supported the clause. He was sorry to hear the hon. gent. contend that the interest of the many should be set against the interest of the few. His opinion was, that they were to consider what was the most equitable mode, and that was to make the burthen press as equally as possible on all.—The house then divided. For the clause 26; Against it 73; Majority 47.

then made a few remarks on the frequency of surcharges, which he considered as a very great grievance; and concluded, by bringing up a clause imposing a penalty, and allowing costs to be awarded by the commissioners for vexatious surcharges.

approved of what the hon, gent. had proposed, but begged leave to call his attention to a clause in the bill, which he read, and which made the collectors subject to a penalty, not greater than 50l. for every surcharge, on conviction in one of the courts above.

supported the clause, as it was absurd, he said, to suppose that a day-labourer could have redress, if he was obliged to seek it in one of the courts at Westminster.—After a conversation between Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. Ellison, who supported the clause; and Mr. Rose, Mr. Fellowes, capt. Harvey, and Dr. Laurence, who opposed it; Mr. Jones declared, that he would not press it, and the clause was negatived without a division. The bill was then ordered to be read a 3d time on Wednesday.