moved the third reading of the Assessed Taxes Bill.

said that great praise was due to the right hon. gent. for the regulations which he had made to prevent vexatious surcharges, but he was of opinion that during the recess, something should be digested for the purpose of modifying the income tax, and rendering it lighter and less burthensome on the lower and middling classes of the people. An hon. member had given notice early in the session that he would submit a proposition to the House, to render the Income Tax altogether unnecessary; but if that hon. member had relinquished his intention, he would himself, early in the next session propose a substitute for the tax. There was, in his opinion, a very great inequality in the contribution of the tax, as it was more severe to the lower than the higher rank of the community, and made no distinction between the annuitant and the man of freehold property. He was convinced that the scale was not equitable, as a person who had an income of 200l. could not afford to pay 20l. a year, as well as the person who had an income of 2,000l. could pay 200l. a year. It was also unequal, inasmuch as a man who had a large family paid as much as a bachelor who had no family at all. He was also against the exemption granted to foreigners, which amounted to 69,000l. a year, and he thought they ought to pay their share of contribution in this country, while we expended so much in fighting their battles abroad. From what had been said on a former occasion, he apprehended that it was the intention not to consider the income tax as a war tax, but to make it perpetual, as it was said some taxes would be abolished in case of peace, and part of the income tax would be still continued, against which he would enter his protest. He was against the scale be- ginning as low as it did, but it was said, it would be the more productive because it spread over so large a mass of the people, but the fact was, they would soon extinguish the means of contribution as many were now obliged to live on their capital.

observed, that the present bill was for regulating the mode of collecting the assessed taxes, and he wished to set the hon. bart. right with respect to his apprehending that the bill brought in in the present session, relating to the collection of the assessed taxes in Scotland, referred in the least to the perpetuating the income tax. It had no such referrence, and on the return of peace the House would then be the best judge what ought to be done, consistent with the state of the finances of the country. As to taking away the exemption allowed to foreigners, that was a matter which he would turn in his mind, during the prorogation, but wished not to be considered as making any pledge on the subject.

said, he would early in the next session move, that the exemptions allowed to foreigners should be taken away.

The Bill was then read a third time, and ordered to the Lords.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

stated, that he had been so disgusted with the mode in which India subjects had been treated, that if this had concerned India alone he would expect no attention. But it concerned this country, as he saw no reasonable hope that this sum would ever be repaid. The territories it had been said, would enable them to pay the debt. Considering the debt upon that territory, and the spirit of extension and conquest in India, it was impossible to look with confidence to that resource. The financial embarrassments had increased with the conquests, and though he saw a gentleman smile, he could point out how Indian princes and their ministers had been hung up at their own doors, and their heads fixed upon the walls of their own palaces. But these things, as they only concerned India, excited no interest. We had nothing to expect from India, except an additional load of debt. India was a mill-stone about the neck of England, and would eventually be the ruin of it. The hon. bart. then examined the state of the East India Company's property, and contended that they had no reasonable security to offer for the repayment of this sum. There was great reason to dread a Mahratta war, and yet there appeared but little disposition to conciliate our own army. He blamed the severity of the conduct of the governor of Madras; that conduct might perhaps be justified by necessity; but that was not the general opinion among those most connected with India. He then stated, that India contained 50 millions of English subjects, and owed 30 millions of debt. It was monstrous that that debt was increasing in such an incredible degree. But from what did ail this accumulated debt arise? From the cruel wars in which India was eternally, embrued. If conquests were made, they were attended by losses far exceeding, in the sorrow which they created, all the exultation with which a sordid victory was attended, and each triumph was accompanied by the gloom of financial embarrassments. In the year succeeding that on which lord Wellesley left India, the revenue of that country, to which numerous possessions had been added, was increased 7 millions; the debt 17 millions. The House had indeed the strongest part of the censure to bear, with respect to the wars to which he alluded; and if there was not a conciliating and improved system adopted, a war might be expected in that country, from which the most pernicious consequences would ensue. He should wish that these circumstances would be attended to by the House. Those unnecessary and inhuman wars were the cause of the incredible mass of debt into which the Company had been plunged, and which it was impossible for them, by any exertion of their own, to discharge. As there was neither any just claim upon the people for such a grant, nor any rational security proposed for the re-payment of one-fifth of the sum, he would most heartily oppose the bill.

maintained that sound policy required that the East India company should be relieved. They had lately sustained great losses, and were but just recovering from the expenses consequent upon the just and necessary wars in which they had been engaged, and even if they had been a private commercial company they would have some claim to assistance. Their present necessity was manifest, but he contended that the statement in the Report proved the security to be sufficient. A part of the India debt was of a political character, and in relieving the company from the pressure of that debt the country was serving itself. On the whole the country could not with propriety refuse the present application.

opposed the bill, on the ground that there were no hopes that the money should ever be repaid—and notwithstanding what had been said by the honourable gentleman who spoke last, he thought that none of themselves would have the hardihood to say, that there was a reasonable prospect of repayment. He objected to it besides, on account of the time at which it had been brought forward, when it was impossible to discuss the subject fully. He objected also because the company might go to market to increase their capital, and try their credit with the public; and lastly he objected because a full account of the East India company's affairs had not been laid before the House.

denied that the company's territories were such scenes of rapine as the hon. gent. had represented. They governed in a manner the most advantageous for the people. This he could take upon him to assert, from better sources of information than the hon. bart. possessed. The hon. bart.'s animadversion on the conduct of the Madras government was irrelevant. No information on the subject had as yet been laid before the House; the censure, therefore, was as premature as he believed it to be undeserved. As to no India budget having been brought forward, he had only to answer that this was impossible. The present bill would remain in force only one year, when the House would see whether the company acted up to its agreement or not, and contended that the million and a half was a loan and not an advance to the company.

did not expect, from the state of the company's revenue, as disclosed by the papers en the table, that the loan would be repaid to the public. He rather feared it would go to the payment of the extravagant dividend of 10 per cent. to the company. At the same time, he could wish that some gentleman competent to give him information, would state the probability, if any such there was, of a surplus revenue, so as at any future period to give hopes that it would be repaid.

, in explanation, denied that he had imputed to the government in India any wish of ruling by rapine and bloodshed. He had stated that the territories were acquired by those means. With respect to the loan, he was inclined to consider that the company asked the money in advance of claims, and not by way of loan.

was disposed to admit to the noble lord that the public could not look to any prospect of payment until a renewal of the charter was obtained. The company in his opinion had been hardly dealt with, for he must contend that the country had prospered as much through the company as the company had benefited by any assistance received from the country. With respect to the loan, the hon. gent. seemed to think that it could not be obtained any where else, and therefore the company ought not to be grateful for it. In that opinion the hon. gent. was mistaken, for he would tell him where he could obtain it, and even to a greater amount. Buonaparté would be happy to lend the money, aye, and pay the whole of the company's debts, and give them fifteen or twenty years purchase for their territories. There could not be any intention in what had fallen from the hon. bart. and the other hon. gent. to insinuate that the company's affairs had not prospered under their present management, because the fact was, that they had actually prospered, more so than at any former period. The difficulties under which they laboured were not principally of their own seeking, but arose in consequence of the wars in which they had been engaged; wars which he was justified in denominating the wars of the House of Commons, and therefore the company had the right to claim assistance. The hon. gent. contended that the trade since 1793 had always been prosperous; that it was sufficiently so to enable the company to make a large dividend. He trusted that as the government in India had incurred vast expences in fighting to maintain the British interests, that the House would not be disposed to make them bear all the burthens, because if they did the result must be, that if the war was continued year after year, they must come to parliament for fresh loans. When the report was made, the House would be satisfied that the present loan would not be improperly used. All that the company desired was, that their affairs should be strictly and deeply scrutinized, they were not afraid of the examination.

The House then divided on the third reading of the bill: Ayes 52; Noes 10; Majority 42; The bill was then passed.

stated his objections to the bill, which, he contended, purported to be what in reality it was not. Instead of its being called a bill for regulating the office of the courts of admiralty, it ought to be entitled "A bill to prevent reform in those courts." The hon. and learned gent. conceived that the object which it professed to have in view was to reform the abuses, in regard to the enormous fees taken by the registrar and the marshal of the admiralty; now the very reverse would be its effects. When the measure for the abolition of reversions was in agitation, it was not intended to regard remote interests, nor indeed did parliament when legislating in regard to offices where enormous profits had, he might say, scandalised the country, ever mean to look to remote interests. He wished to know, therefore, why the particular office of Registrar, to which the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) had the reversion, deserved to be exempted from the general regulation. Formerly when the bill was before parliament for suppressing the fees in the office of tellers of the exchequer, no reference was had to a noble lord who then held the situation of Chancellor. The place of Registrar was given to the present possessor by a noble lord at the head of the admiralty, and the gift was afterwards confirmed by the King. In the first instance, therefore, the appointment was illegal. His Majesty could not be said to have any interest in the office. The hon. and learned gent. contended that any abuses could not be regulated by act of parliament, but must be done by his Majesty in council. In that opinion he was fortified, by the opinion of the learned judge at the head of the admiralty courts, who in the case of the Rainsbergs, where the marshal claimed such large fees as astonished the judge, that learned person had stated "that it belonged to his Majesty alone in council, to make any alteration in the table of fees in any of the courts of admiralty." Not one word was said about the marshal in the bill. With respect to the money of the suitors, the right hon. gent. in answer to a question put to him the other evening, whether the Registrar retained or made use of the suitors monies, that right hon. gent. declared that he did not. Now, he (Mr. M.) had in his pocket a letter from the right hon. gent. which stated a different thing. It was an undoubted fact that the noble lord who is the Registrar never did confess that he had retained one farthing of suitors monies as forming a part of the profits of his office upon his examination before the Committee. He saw no reason why the Registrar of the admiralty should not be compelled to deposit in the Bank the suitors monies as in like manner is required from the masters in Chancery. He believed that the real object of this Bill was to prevent its being so paid in, and therefore he should object to it altogether.

professed himself always averse to the disturbance of vested rights in places of this nature, whether those rights were in the parties in possession, or those in reversion; and in this opinion it was known that he concurred with many of the highest authorities, one of whom did not hesitate to say, that a patent right involved as valid a claim as any freehold property. Connectedly then with this opinion, he could not agree to abolish the vested interest in the place under consideration. That his brother derived in a given year the sum of 7,800l. from the interest upon money belonging to suitors of the Admiralty court he was ready to admit. But, it being at the discretion of either of the suitors to have such money upon application to the court, vested in public securities, which they declined, probably from an unwillingness to risk the fluctuation of the funds, or from some other cause, the register could not be condemned from availing himself of the immemorial usage of his office, by deriving profit from its use, while the safety of the capital was strictly attended to. He denied that the case of the masters in Chancery had any analogy to that before the House, because those officers stood in a state of delinquency at the time the measure alluded to was brought forward, in consequence of losses having been sustained by the suitors in the court of Chancery.

could not conceive it justifiable in any public officer having merely the custody of money, to put that money to hazard, or to derive any private profit from it. He believed his right hon. friend was mistaken in supposing that the money could be withdrawn from the register at the discretion of either of the suitors, as both must, he understood, concur in the application before the money could be so withdrawn for investment in any public securities. This, therefore, was a defect which he thought ought to be cured by a clause in the bill before the House, in order that the right to invest the money in public securities for the benefit of the successful should be generally known, and that a public officer should not be allowed to enjoy a profit, which of right belonged to others.

stated that it was competent to the judge of the Admiralty to order, ex-officio, that any money in court belonging to suitors should be vested in public securities for the benefit of the suitors.

considered this as a substantial measure of reform, so far as it went, and was therefore surprised at the opposition it experienced from the professed advocates of reform upon the opposite side of the House.

thought the hon. members surprise should cease if he considered the true nature of this bill, and that it was opposed because it did not go far enough; because it did not go the right road to reform; because, in fact, it proposed to place the obstacle of an act of parliament in the way of a reform obviously necessary, and that merely for the benefit of particular individuals. He reprobated the doctrine of confounding titles to property, by putting monstrous usurpations on a footing with these titles which were unquestionable. That the practice of deriving private profit to public officers from the use of money intrusted to their custody was quite an usurpation, was a thing not to be disputed. But there was a particular reason why the officer under consideration should not be allowed to use the money under his care in the way referred to, because in fact this officer did not enter into any securities. This was a circumstance which, with all proper deference for the noble lord (Arden) would restrain him from allowing the money of suitors to be put to any hazard by that noble lord. He had no disposition whatever to question the character or responsibility of the noble lord, but the rank and importance of some recent defaulters strongly urged the propriety of caution in all cases whatever. Here he adverted to the premium afforded to this officer, and to others also holding a high station in the government, to keep the country in a state of war, because it increased their salaries, and condemned the gross impolicy of tolerating such an arrangement, urging the necessity of substituting a fixed salary to each of those officers who now among them derived a profit of 20,000l. a year from the continuance of war.—After observing upon the two returns from the Registry office, that there were no emoluments whatever derived from the use of the money in the Registrar's hands, although that money now appeared to produce 7,800l. in one year, the hon. member recommended the omission of those words in the bill, namely, "After the falling in of the interest of the persons in possession and reversion of the same." He concluded with observing that, the preamble of the bill, proposed by a side wind to sanction the practice of public officers making use of the public money for their own private profit; and upon this and other grounds, he thought the farther consideration of it ought to be postponed until the nest sessions.

expressed his surprise at hearing that the emoluments from the use of suitors money should have amounted in one year to upwards of 7,000l. He had caused inquiries to be made, and he believed, that at present the sum in the hands of the Registrar did not amount to 80,000l. of which 40,000l. belonged to the navy. This sum too, he understood, was likely to be still farther reduced. It depended on the suitors themselves, if any part of their money remained in the hands of the Registrar, as they had only to make the application to the judge, in order to have it invested. As to the resumptions in the reign of Queen Anne, these were only made out of hostility to the foreigners who had come over to this country in the reign of king William, and notwithstanding that hostility, the practice was almost instantly abandoned.

was convinced that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) could have no intention by the introduction of this bill, of deriving advantage to himself, or those connected with him. If the bill were to pass, however, in its present shape, it would begin at once to levy a revenue on neutrals unjustly brought into our ports, a proceeding which was unworthy the dignity of a great nation.

was satisfied that his right hon. friend could not suppose that he would attribute to him any idea of wishing to add to his own emoluments by the present bill; but still, this he suspected would be the effect of the bill. If judicial offices were to be reformed, he thought the proper mode of doing so was, to reduce the fees, and not still to exact what was esteemed exorbitant, for the purpose of turning it into another channel. An office in the public revenue seemed to him to differ materially from a judicial office; and even in the former he doubted much the right of the officer to profit by the use of the public money. As to the latter character, so far as he was intrusted with money, it could only be as trustee for the suitors, and therefore he could not be entitled to any emolument thence arising. He instanced the case of a treasurer to the White-haven harbour, who being called on in Chancery to account for the emoluments derived by him from the use of the funds, although he had accepted of the office with the express view to this advantage, was obliged to account for the whole profits thence derived, even though no demand had been made on him.

vindicated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and denied that he could have any interest in the provisions of the present bill, as the operations of the act were not to take place till after the two lives were expired.

The Report was then agreed to.