vourable to evasion? Would he recognise | pleased to consider in the odious light of the justice of a principle, which he would a spy, it is a matter for the committee to utterly nullify by the provisions he recom- adjust the powers and the duties with mends to carry it into effect? What then which he shall be entrusted. Is this, does he do to invigorate those extraor- however, any argument for the immediate dinary efforts which are necessary for our rejection of the bill? Does the hon. gensuccess in a contest, which has long been tleman really think that no precaution considered to be connected with our ex- whatever ought to be taken to avoid those istence? The greater part of the hon. scandalous evasions which there is but too gentleman's speech was founded upon ob- much reason to expect may be attempted? jections to the provisions of the bill; and But it is maintained by the hon. gentlemany of his objections were either utterly man, that no evasions have taken place to unfounded in any thing it contains, or of defeat the operation of the assessed tax such a nature as to admit of being cor- bill which passed last session. He is perected in the committee. To the main culiarly fortunate in the instances which objection, it may easily be answered, that have occurred to him, with respect to the the hon. gentleman assumes what is not in patriotism of his friends; but he has rated the bill. I allude to what was stated res their zeal beyond the mark. It is rather pecting the character and duties of the singular that he has not taken the opporsurveyor to be appointed under the bill. tunity of extolling their liberality in subI will not recapitulate the odious descrip- scribing to the voluntary contributions. tion which the hon. gentleman applied to The observations made by the friends of the persons who were to act in this capa- government, are, however, of a very difcity. What is the tendency of such in- ferent kind. His must have been a chosen vective, but to bring into discredit those circle, yet others were as large as the officers under the revenue, without which hon. gentleman's, before the new lights it could not be collected? The hon. gen- broke in upon him. But notwithstanding tleman says that the surveyor is at liberty the assertion, I must say, that great and te surcharge to any amount, and pending notorious instances of the concealment of the appeal to which this surcharge gives property have occurred, the check prorise, the tax will continue to be levied on vided by the legislature has been found the whole of the demand, including the insufficient to produce any adequate end, surcharge. What is the remedy which and the declarations which have been the hon. gentleman discovers for this? given in, have, on various occasions, He tells us, that the discussion of the ap- eluded the expected operation of the act. peal might be rendered so intricate as to Is it not then a matter of great concernconsume six, or even twelve months. ment-is it not a subject worthy of grave This objection he urges triumphantly, at deliberation, to consider what means may the very time too that he states it to be be devised to render the measure proposed the mode which a person surcharged will as efficient as possible to the public seradopt for his relief, at the very moment vice? The surveyor is not to be a person when he is compelled to acquiesce in the on whose discretion any assessment is to payment of a surcharge, from which he depend: he is to assist the commissioners takes care that it shall be impossible for with information, and to discharge that the commissioners of appeal to relieve him! duty which his oath prescribes, of preventSuch an argument is the consequence ing evasion where it might be within his which is stated. In fact, however, it so knowledge that it was attempted. It is happens, that no such grievance can said in proof of the importance of the exist. The surveyor's surcharge is not surveyor's office, that they have great inacted upon in the first instance, unless fluence with the commissioners in other confirmed by the commissioners. The matters where the revenue is concerned; surveyor has no discretion whatever to but, when the character of the commisadd to the charge on which the contri- sioners is taken into view, this remark butor shall be compelled to pay. The will prove that, instead of that profligate, objections of the hon. gentleman, instead worthless class, which the hon. gentleman of operating against the bill in toto, de- describes, they are men who recommonstrate the necessity of going into the mended themselves by the propriety of committee. As to the general declama- their conduct and the performance of their tion upon the character and function of duty. But, says the hon. gentleman, the the surveyor, whom some gentlemen are surveyor is the only man whom we con

sider as likely to be bound by his oath. Yet is there no distinction between the cases? Is the temptation to perjure the same? Has the man who is sworn to the performance of his duty, the same reason to disregard it, which the man has who is endeavouring to avoid the payment of money to the state? What, then, is required?-A particular statement of income, to guard against the evasion which was practised when a general statement was only required. What is it but the means of correcting those frauds which every man's observation but the hon. gentleman's had ascertained to be prevalent? The hon. gentleman speaks, too, of the surveyor's power to extract from the books of public bodies. Here the hon. gentleman, from not attending to the bill itself, is entirely mistaken. The surveyor has no such power; he is to make extracts from, and to have access to, the public books, to which at present even any person may easily procure access for any purpose, even of mere curiosity. Might not any body now procure information how much any mercantile house possesses in the three per cents? The surveyor, then, is authorized to suggest doubts, to collect information; but he has no right whatever to ask questions of the party surcharged, or to have any inspection of his books. Does not the hon. gentleman, however, perceive that all these points are proper subjects for consideration in a committee, where it is perfectly competent to move any alteration which gentlemen may think necessary?

will attempt something which has never
yet been done by any system of taxation,
something which springs from theories of
legislation, neither founded in wisdom nor
justified by experience. I proceed to
explain my meaning more fully. The hon.
gentleman says, that if two persons have
each 500l. per annum, one of which de-
rives his income from land, the other from
industry, they ought not to be both taxed
equally at 50l. He assumes, that each
having 450l. a year left, the impost is un-
equal, What does the new tax do? Are
they not left in relation to each other pre-
cisely as they were before?
The tax
creates no new inequality. The justice
or injustice remain precisely as they were.
To complain of this inequality is to com-
plain of the distribution of property; it is
to complain of the constitution of society.
To attempt to remedy it, would be to fol-
low the example of that daring rabble of
legislators in another country, from whom
the hon. gentleman borrowed some of his
political principles, and which though he
now reprobates, he still seems inclined to
follow up. To think of taxing these two
species of incomes in a different ratio,
would be to attempt what the nature of
society will not admit; what has never
been practised in the course of four thou-
sand years. But on what foundation
does this principle, which the hon. gen-
tleman has broached, rest? Where is the
clear inequality on which he so vehe-
mently insists? Is the industry of the ar-
tist, the manufacturer, the mechanic, less
the creature of the protection of law,
less involved in the great contest in which
we are engaged, less likely to be over-
thrown in any disasters of the state, than
the income which arises from land? I
heard, with satisfaction, the argument of
an hon. baronet behind me, though I can-
not, perhaps, go along with him to the ex-
tent to which he carried it; of this, certainly

As to the criterion of the general tax, it has likewise been objected to the details, that the application is unequal in respect to the nature of income, its duration, &c. Although I do not intend to enter so much into the discussion of the provisions of the bill, I am anxious to remove those erroneous conceptions which are entertained upon this subject. Here II am sure, that if all classes in this country cannot help remarking, that the arguments of the hon. gentleman, on this branch, suppose that it is necessary to correct the inequalities which distinguish the mode in which all taxes are imposed. If such be the sentiment of the hon. gentleman, his objection goes a great deal farther than the bill before the House. The inequalities of which he complains, arise out of the nature of society, and the distribution of its rank, and the classification of its property. If he attempts to remedy what he in this considers as urgent, he

are not strictly equally sharers in the advantages which the constitution of this country affords, there are none who ought not to contribute in proportion to their means for the public defence in a quarrel, in which the comforts and the happiness of all are so deeply involved, unless when the compassion of the legislature forbears to extend the scale of taxation to those who are in the lowest class of income. The principle of the hon. gentleman then is entirely unfounded. In imputing to him that extravagant principle, which strikes

into which I have been carried by the subject of offices, I now return.

never

It is objected still, that it is unjust that the man who has an annuity or an income, I was stating with how little favour the the fruit of his labour, should pay in the hon. gentleman and his friends formerly proportion of a man who has the same reconsidered annuities for life in the case of venue from fixed property. This objeclaborious offices; let us now see how tion is altogether a fallacy. A permanent their old opinions tally with their new, estate, which is represented as namely this branch of income was most dying, and, as it were, the property ofa man obnoxious to taxation, now it is to be after his death, contributes on every eximost favoured. The hon. gentleman gency which may occur; the income from does not think that a great increase of labour and industry is extinguished; it taxes on consumption would be more ad- contributes but once! it is no longer the vantageous than a general tax on all in- property of the same person: while the come. Is the inequality or the hardship other, which is considered as the same greater now than it was, or than it would property, is subject to renewed demands. be, should taxes of consumption be in- This reasoning may be thought refined; creased? If not, then the hon. gentleman is but the answer is justly applicable in the only quarrelling with this tax, because it case where the reason, why fixed property is not so unequal as the former mode of should contribute more, is founded on its contribution had been. This plan, which supposed permanency, in opposition to is more general, more comprehensive, the fleeting character of the other. How which embraces a great deal of property then is it possible to discriminate between which formerly eluded taxation, and by the various kinds of property; or to enter consequence, distributes the burthen more into the details which could alone enable fairly, is considered inadmissible. But I you to apply any scale of exemption, am told, that a large sum within the year without an investigation more oppressive, cannot be raised by increasing the exist a disclosure more extensive, than any ing taxes on consumption. What is the thing which the bill permits? How much consequence? Does not the hon. gentle- safer is it to submit to those inequalities man compel us to resort to the more ex- which are the lot of man, and which it is pensive expedient of raising money by not the business, nor is it in the power, of loans, instead of adopting a plan more ex- schemes of finance to correct! Could we tensive in its effect, while it provides for even indulge the wish to correct these inthe redemption of what it is necessary to equalities, which arise out of the very naborrow, without that load of permanent ture of society, is this the legislative retaxes, which the funding system renders medy? Let us then forbear to attempt what indispensable? But, it is said that a tax is perhaps beyond the power of human leon capital is preferable. Was it not gislation to correct. It is an enterprize proved, however, that from the state of that would hurry us far beyond our landed property, not more than one-third depth, and lead to consequences far more of it is now in the hands of persons who extensive than we can foresee, and might could be called upon to contribute, so produce an overthrow of all establishthat two-thirds would be placed wholly ments, and all regular order, which it is out of reach for any purpose of present impossible to contemplate without appreexertion? What is the great object of the hension. The principle of argument that measure before the House? Is it not to goes to remedy this supposed evil, belongs raise within the year, from what consti- to the school of dangerous innovation tutes the means of individuals within the which we ought not for a moment to indulge, year, such a proportion as is deemed ne- The consequence of this tax then will be, cessary for the exigencies of the state, that whoever contributes a tenth of his and the magnitude of the present crisis? income under this bill, will have a tenth Do you wish to avoid burthening the pub-less to spend, to save, or to accumulate. lic with a loan? What advantage would you derive from it, however, if individuals mortgage their estates? Would not the aggregate of private loans encumber the mass of national wealth as much as if the nation contracted the obligation? The object then is, to make the annual means of individuals applicable to a supply within

the year.

At the end of the war those who shall have contributed will be no poorer; they will only be to the extent of it less in. creased in riches than they would have been. The advantages of it are in a particular manner in favour of those on whom it will fall, instead of accumulating taxes on consumption, as it will bring all income