opkeeper; why, he asked, would that be more probable in future than it had been hitherto? There always had been both deferiptions, and the one had the fame degree of power over the other, and ver the perty fhopkeepers were not ab, forbed. Mr. Powys was inclined to confider it as a tax on confumption, that would in time find its level. He did not like at any rate to repeal it, merely be caufe it was unpopular; he recollected that the Receipt Tax was at one time equally unpopular, and fo would every Tax be that raifed a good deal of money. If the prefent could be proved to be perfonal, it must be repealed; but it had not, Mr. Powys faid, yet been fo proved. He gave Mr. Pitt great encomiums for his whole conduct, in refpect to the finance of the kingdom fince he had been in office, and in particular for his having funded the unfunded debt fo foon. He concluded with faving, that he would vote with the Minifter against the repeal, fo that the Right Hon. Gentleman would at haft have one man with him in the divifion, who was neither the reprefentative of a decayed nor a rotten borough.

Mr. W. Stanhope faid, he reprefented a large trading town [Kingston upon Hull] and yet, he had not received any inftructions to oppofe the Shop tax. He declared he was far from thinking, that a tax on fhops was an improper tax. He conceived the fhopkeepers would contrive, that the confumers fhould pay it, and that it might be fo laid as to be a fair tax. With regard to the prefent tax, it certainly ought to be altered. The criterion by which it was laid, was moft abfurd. The colour of a man's door was just as certain a rule to judge what his fhop was worth. Mr. Stanhope faid, there were a great many people who paid very high rents for their houfes, and yet, who did very little bufinefs; and again, there were others in directly the reverfe fituation. He ftated the cafe of Mr. Grav the buckle-maker, or feller, in New Bond-ftreet, and oppofed it to an artificial flower-maker's fhop in the upper part of the street. The former did a great deal of business, and kept his Country houfe, and the latter did very little, and yet the latter paid a much higher rent than the former. This was certainly hard upon the flower-maker. Mr. Stanhope faid a variety of fimilar inftances might be cited. Before he fat down, he recommended the affeffing a fhop feparately, by valuing it at a third of the rent,

and taxing that third proportionably. He alfo fupported the fuggeftion of Mr. Amyatt, relative the five per cent, on book debts.

Mr. Francis declared he had no intertion to embarrass the Right Hon. Gentleman in the business of taxation and finance; he difclaimed any fuch idea. He rofe merely to peak in behalf of that lower order of thopkeepers whole voicewas not very likely to reach that House, he meant the petty shopkeepers who dwelt in houfes from 5 to 151. a year. The fhopkeepers of that defcription must be extremely diftreffed by the tax, and theirs was a cafe that appealed to the compaflion of the Houfe, rather than came forward with any other ground of appeal. Mr. Francis pleaded the cause of thefe poor wretched shopkeepers with fo much eloquence and pathos, that as he fat down

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, de-. clared it was with peculiar propriety, that he had an opportunity of rifing immedi ately after an Hon. Gentleman, whofe speech reflected the greatest honour on his humanity and his candour; and he hoped before he fat down, to be able to convince him, that he felt with him on the subject, He then faid, that he entirely concurred in opinion with an Hon. Gentleman who began the debate, that the queftion before the Houfe was one of the utmost confequence, but that it alfo lay within a very narrow compafs. The whole of the objections to the tax, might be claffed under two feparate heads, the one applying to the juftice of the Houfe, the other fimply to its compaffion and humanity-The first of thefe objections was, that the tax was a perfonal tax, that it was impoffible to lay it on the confumer, and that it was of courfe highly partial and oppreffive-the other objection was, that in certain cafes it fell with a heavy weight on perfons who were abfolutely incompetent to pay it at all. As to the first he declared himself to labour under very difagreeable feelings in being obliged to avow that notwithftanding the very intelligens manner in which the witnefies at the bar had given their teftimony, yet they had by no means brought home a conviction to his mind of the truth of the grievance they complained of. He was not furprized at the great refiftance that appeared to be given to the measure, when he confidered how unwilling people were in general to pay any tax at all, and how ftrongly their prejudices were excited against the prefent tax, in particular, by perfons who had first

found

found it their intereft to give it the most violent degree of oppofition in parliament, and had afterwards endevoured with all their industry to impart and communicate that violence to the people abroad. It had originally been argued in favour of the tax, that it would be made to operate as a general impoft upon confumption, and it was now attempted to be proved, that it could not be made fo to operate, but muft remain a burthen on the fhopkeeper the averfion of the fhopkeepers themfelves was adduced as an argument in favour of this conftruction; for it was taken for granted, that if the fhopkeeper could at all indemnify himself, he could do it to an extent out of all proportion, greater than he was entitled to do, and therefore, that his diffatisfaction must neceffarily arife from the impoffibility of indemnify ing himself at all. In his opinion the oppofition could be as easily accounted for from the natural prejudices of mankind, by which the perfons paying the tax were inclined to overlook the additional profits they might make by an advanced price on their commodities, because these were fcattered and minute in their parts, and to lay a greater ftrefs on the tax they had to pay, though not greater in amount, because it was to go out of their pockets in one lumping fum, the particular part of the question that related to the practicability of laying the amount of the tax on the articles of the trade, appeared to him to have met with great mifreprefentation, and a very unfair enquiry-He had en deavoured to elucidate that enquiry, by a queftion he had afked one of the witneffes, whofe answer had been alluded to by an Hon. Gentleman oppofite to him, the question was, by what criterion were the charges of the retailer of any commodity to be regulated? The anfwer was one which he could not fubfcribe to By the prime coft. If this were the cafe, what regulated the difference of prices charged by the wholefale dealer, or manufacturer, and the retailer? There were he apprehended, a variety of confiderations that were to weigh with a trader, in fixing a price on his commodity; befides the prime coft, he was to estimate the other expences as well as the trouble that might attend it; the bringing it to market, and, if it was a commodity unfit for immediate confumption, the manufacturing it to a Rate of perfection, were attended with a degree of labour and attention, for which he was to indemnify himself by his price. He went largely into the fyftem of trade,

to prove that it was not merely by the prime coft, that the retail price was to be governed, but by every other incidental expence attending the bufinefs; from whence he inferred, that the retail fhopkeepers might as eafily advance their prices in order to indemnify themselves from the tax, as they could for the pur pofe of answering any other charge they might be at. The principal topicks that could be adduced to prove the poffibility of the fhopkeepers to lay it on their com modities, without giving an unfair oppor tunity of competition to the more confiderable traders had been already anticipated, which was, that if thofe could meet the inferior dealers in a competition favourable to themselves with the tax, they alfo can do it equally without the tax; and therefore would long fince have entirely overborne and abforbed the whole trade to themselves. He explained the nature of the competition in trade, which he faid was not a competition to underfell others, fo much as to fell at a rate that would procure the dealer a proper living profit,→ What this profit was depended upon the circumstances of the trader, and was that general profit that would enable him to live in a ftile fuitable to his rank among people of that clafs; from whence it would appear that a confiderable trader could not eftimate his profits by those of another, an inferior one, but must make them keep pace with the proportion between their feveral capitals. Thus the inferior trader kept pace in his proportional profits with the fuperior; and if the fuperior ventured to underfell the inferior, his proportional profit, which was in fact his living profit, must be diminished, which would effeciually prevent his attempting to do fo. It was fomething extraordinary that it should be contended, either that no advance at all could be made in the prices of the arti cles of the retail trade, or that if any advance fhould be made, it must be to fuch a degree as would burthen the publick with a tax infinitely greater than that which was impofed on the shopkeeper. Thus the principle of competition was powerful enough to enable the trader to practice a heavy impofition on the pubfick; but not fufficiently to protect and indemnify himself from a small burthen. This he put in a very ftriking light, and proceeded to thew that neither of thefe extremes, were to be expected; for that in the first place, on the principle that every trader expected a general proportional profit upon the whole of his capital,

ade

adequate to that capital; and therefore, would not attempt to undersell the inferior trader, as by fo doing, he would diminish that proportional profit, fo the danger of losing all their bufinefs, would prevent any of them from going fo far, in increafing their prices, as to impofe on the publick, in the degree that had been fuggefted. In trades where there was any peculiar myftery or fkill, perfons might endeavour to fretch their profits to an unreafonable length, because there was no fuch danger of rivalship there, as in other cafes; but in that particular inftance, to extend the profit too far would leffen the confumption; in the ordinary courfe of bufinefs however, any attempt to raise a too exorbitant compenfation on the publick would raife up competitors, and defear the object. The abfurdity of fuppoing that the addition of a fniall burthen on the fhopkeepers would in any degree deftroy the general level of trade, would appear to those who should reflect on the difference between the rents of houses at the prefent time, from what they were thirty years ago, and from what they poffibly might be in thirty years hence; this increase might be confidered in the fame point of view as the prefent tax, with this difference, that the proportion of the tax was in favour of the lower order of fhopkeepers, whereas the increase of rents had no fuch proportion; did this increase then give any unfair advantage to the fuperior fhopkeeper? If so, how had the inferior ones kept their ground? And if they could keep their ground against a general rife in rents, why not equally in the circumftance of an additional tax, not general and equal, but calculated to maintain a proportion favourable to the poorer claffes He concluded from hence, that the general principle of a proportionate profit to the capitals of the different traders would prevent a competition dangerous and deftructive to the inferior fhopkeepers, and that the natural difpolition of all traders to endeavour at a competition where it could be done confiftent with that principle, would prevent a too exorbitant compenfation from being raised on the publick. It had been argued, that the rent of the house was not a fair crite rion to judge of the degree of trade carried on by each individual; but he contended, that it was the fairest method, by which it could be afcertained, for if one fhopkeeper paid thirty pounds a year, for a houfe of equal dimenfions to that for which another in a less advantageous fitu

ation paid only twenty, he did fo certainly either with a view of felling more articles, or of getting a higher price for thofe that he did fell-if he fold more, then certainly his fhop, independant of the Houfe, was in fact, more valuable, and, of courfe more an object of taxation; but if he fold at a higher rate, then certainly it could not be contended, but that there was a poffibility for a tradesman to indemnify himself for any extraordinary expence he might be at, by an advance of his prices; and he would not suppose that any gentleman would attempt to argue, that a tradesman could apportion the fum of ten pounds to be made up by an advance of price on his trade, and yet be at a lofs to indemnify himself for a tax ir.finitely lefs, and which bore a proportion decidedly in favour of the inferior dealer. It was worthy of obfervation how the native force of reafon in fome instances, without being conscious of it, got the bet ter of prejudice. An Hon. Gentleman, Alderman and Member for the City of London, had stated it as impoffible for any trader to indemnify himself for a tax, by raising the price of his commodities; but ftill the Hon. Alderman on a subject in which his particular paffion and intereft were not engaged, had fhewn in the courfe of the evening, that he was not in reality as ignorant of the operations of taxation as he had pretended; for when in a former debate it had been fuggefted, that by imposing a tax of ten fhillings per ton on Dutch fishing veffels, the City of London might be deprived of her fupply of a certain favourite article, the Hon. Alderman had answered the objection by obferving, that there was no danger of the market being deferted, for if our own fishermen did not fupply it fufficiently, the Dutch would, notwithstanding the duty, bring in their turbot, and indemnify themfelves for the additional ten fhillings per ton impoft, by adding it to tde price of the fish. Such an argument was the more fingular, as it was made on the very eve of a debate, in which the Honourable Member, no doubt was prepared to hold one of a directly contradictory nature.

An Hon. Gentleman for whofe opinion he had the higheft refpect, had faid, that we had now experience instead of theory, and evidence instead of affertion, to convince us of the injustice of the Tax; but as to experience we had, as yet had none, for the Tax had been paid but in a very few inftanees and be

fides

fides we could not expect to find the event of fuch a fubject completely ful lled until time should have fuffered the trade affected by the Tax to have fubfided to its level. As to the evidence that had been produced, it was in fact nothing but affertion, and the affertion of men labouring under ftrong prejudices. So that upon the whole he could fee no reafon for agreeing to the Motion that had been made for a total repeal, however it might be proper to mitigate the Tax in fone inftances. This brought him to a fecond clafs of objection-which was the heavy burthen it impofed on perfons abfoJutely incapable, and on others not very well qualified to bear it. From motives of compaffion to perfons whom he fhould with to protect and cherish as a very deferving, and though not an opulent, a refpectable part of the community, he was extremely willing entirely to remit the Tax to fuch as were fo poor as to be excufed the payment of parith rates, and to those who come next to them in their title to compaffion-who might be fuppofed, though not quite fo indigent, vet nearly unable to pay it, fhould, with his content be confiderably mitigated thofe perfons must be ascertained by their rents being under twenty or twenty five pounds. Thus the very poorest clafs would be wholly exonerated, and that immediately above it materially relieved. But in confenting to this, he was diced folely by motives of humanity, and not by any confiderations of the impropriety of the principle of the bill, which; he continued to approve, notwithstanding, all the efforts that had been made te depreciate and condemn it. He made a warm appeal to the House, affuring them that if he could be convinced that the tax were really objectionable, he would moft chearfully acquiefce in its repeal : and he fuppofed there was gentleman in the Houfe that would for a moment hesitate to comply with the withes of the inhabitants of the city in which they all lived; for his own part he declared, that he would by no means refift their defires merely because the meafure was originally of his own framing, and he was Iappy to fay, that if gentlemen fhould really think the Tax either oppreffive or unjuft, that the fituation of the public finances were not fuch as could afford them anv excufe. for perfifting in it; yet he flattered himself, he was not fo far miaken in his opinion of the generofity

and fpirit of his countrymen, as that the relief, which he was ready to grant to the more indigent part of them would not give ample fatisfaction to the more opulent and make them chearfully acquiefce in the burthen, which if the House thought proper they were till to bear. But he warned the Houfe against a too ready compliance with a requifition for the repeal of a Tax, as it might form a precedent that might endanger every branch of the revenue, for it was difficult to find any Tax whatsoever, against which very plaufible exceptions might not be made, and to which many people would not be found adverfe. On the fubject of the modifica tions that had been propofed he should fay little, becaufe if the Houle agreed to the total repeal it would be useless, and if they did not, he thought the modifications and exemptions he propofed would be fufficient. It had been propofed to value the fhops at one third of the rent of the house, but this he faid, would anfwer no end towards regulating the Tax; because the proportional value according to that eftimate, would ftill be uniform, and therefore the Tax on each, muft bear the fame ratio; but if they were otherwife an Honourable Friend of his, (Mr. Stanhope) had fhewn an exception in the inftance of two houses, the fhop belonging to one of which did not amount to above one-tenth part of the value of the whole, whereas in the other, the shop was worth one half.-As to the allowing shopkeepers interest for their book debts, which however it might be a compenfation, was certainly no modification of the Tax; he thought in fome points of view it would be a desirable thing, and he would willingly comply with it but he apprehended it was a thing which the traders themselves did not wish for. He adverted to Mr. Alderman Hammet's argument, and faid, the worthy Alderman felt warmly under the impreffion of the prejudice that obviously poffeffed his mind, but if the pofitions that he had laid down, were admitted, as to what was not a fair principle of taxation, nine tenths of our revenue must be given up as built on an erroneous principle. He concluded with an eloquent addrefs to the houfe on the fubject of popularity, declaring, that however anxious he was to ftand high in the opinion of his country. men, and however fedulous-he fhould be on all occasions to deferve to do to, by confulting their real welfare; yet, he

would

would prefer their interefts to their gratiScations, their fervice to their fatisfaction, and he would never fo far forget the duties of his ftation, as to facrifice the advantage of the revenue to an object fo merely perfonal as popular applause.

Mr. Fox declared, he agreed moft perfectly with the Right Hon. Gentle man in all that he had faid relative to the neceflity of holding the revenue conftantly in view, and not lightly, nor upon flight grounds parting with a Tax, the produce of which was reafonably expect ed to be of large amount. So fully was he perfuaded, that this fentiment became not only every Minifter, but every Member of that Houle; and fo deeply was he at the fame tme convinced, that in matters of finance, and of taxation, the unpopularity of any particular impoft ought not to be the fingle cafon for its being abandoned; that much as he profeifed of respect for his conftituents of Westminster, and fill more, as he felt of regard and reverence for those whom he confidered as his first conflituents, the people at large, whofe interefts he held himself bound to watch over, and as far as in him lay, to guard, protect, and defend within thofe walls; yet notwithstanding the numerous petitions on the table, and notwithstanding the inftructions he had received from thofe he immediately reprefented, and their known wishes, he made no fcruple to declare, that he would have fupported the Right Hon. Gentleman in refifting a motion for the repeal of the Shop-Tax, had he not been convinced that the Tax was radically bad; that it was founded in the groffeft partiality and injuftice; and that no modification whatever, much less the fort of modification propofed by the Right Hon. Gentleman could cure its defeats, or render it fit to be endured. The motion for its repeal thould therefore have his firm fupport, and in giving his vote for a repeal of the act in toto, he hoped he hould not be confidered as an enemy to the revenue. Having orened his fpeech ། in this manner, Mr. Fox proceeded to ftate his reafons for thinking that nothing fhort of a repeal of the Tax ought to be adopted, When the Tax had been originally propofed, he had objected to it, and had then declared, that though the Right Hon. Gentleman chofe to call it a Shop-Tax, it was in fact an additional Houfe-Tax, partially applied to houfes, of which fhops made a part. That was, undoubtedly, the ftate of the cafe, and confequently it was not the first, but the

fecond Shop-Tax; for the Tax on Houses had operated partially, and to the difadvantage of fhopkeepers, inafmuch as thopkeepers, compared to all other defcription of householders, paid by far the higheft rents of any perfons in the kingdom. To lay a new burthen on the fhoulders of that defeription of people, who were too hea vily burthened before, was oppreffive and unjuft; that therefore, were there no other, was a strong reafon; and indeed it ought to operate as an unanswerable one with the Committee, for agreeing to the motion for a repeal of the act. The Right Hon. Gentleman, he observed, had put the cafe, that if houfes were to rife in rent confiderably all over the kingdom fome years hence, what would then be the fituation of hopkeepers, and would they have any reafon to complain that they paid higher rents than they did at prefent? In anfwer to this, he faid, if the Right Hon. Gentleman meant merely that money grew cheaper, and all forts of property fetched a larger proportion of money in price proportionably that, in that cafe, things would remain in the fituation in which they ftood at prefent; but if the Right Hob. Gentleman meant, and fo indeed he must mean if he meant any thing, that the houfes of fhopkeepers only were at any given period to be raised in their rents all over the kingdom, he had then very fairly defcribed the additional Tax in question, the Shop-Tax, because that Tax operating upon hopkeepers only, did what the Honourable Gentleman had stated, viz. It raifed the rents and fwelled the capitals of fhopkeepers houfes all over the kingdom, at the fame time that it raised the rents of no other houses. Mr. Fox dwelt for fome time upon this, and argued the extreme injuftice of felecting that useful body of people, the fhopkeepers, as objects of not only feparate and diftinct, but oppreffive and unjust taxation. With regard to the Right Hon. Gentleman's two points, that he had laboured fo much to establish, viz. that the Tax was not perfonal, and that it might be laid on the confumer by the fhopkeeper, who paid it in the first inftances both thofe pofitions he denied in the most unequivocal manner, declaring that the tax was a direct perfonal tax on the fhopkeeper, and that it was utterly impoffible for him to repay himfelf by laying it on the confumer, without putting the publick not merely to five times the charge of it, as an hon. member near him had stated to have been the cafe in regard to the duty impofed on wine fome years fince, but to 3 B

forty